Learning – Emma Williams: Latin tutor

Reluctant Learners

One of the things I find most fascinating about teaching is how much better people are at giving advice about learning than they are at actually learning. We tell children to listen carefully, pay attention, practise, ask questions, accept correction, learn from their mistakes and not give up when something is difficult. All perfectly sensible advice. We then spend our adult lives doing almost exactly the opposite.

None of us like being corrected: we don’t enjoy discovering that we don’t understand something and we can become irritated when we can’t do something immediately. Given the opportunity, we will frequently find a way of blaming the person who is trying to teach us. I know this because I do it myself. We all do it. It is spectacularly difficult to avoid.

There is something peculiarly uncomfortable about being a beginner. You are, by definition, not very good at whatever you are attempting to learn and, worse still, you are having to demonstrate this incompetence in front of somebody who knows more than you do. It is not a comfortable position to be in. Most of us would much rather be the person who already knows what they are doing, which is presumably why so many of us find it easier to give advice than to receive it. There is a considerable difference between being interested in knowing something and being prepared to admit that you don’t know it.

Children, of course, have an advantage here, as they are beginners at almost everything. Nobody expects a five-year-old to be able to read fluently on their first attempt, or a six-year-old to produce a perfect drawing, or a child learning to ride a bicycle to glide elegantly down the road without falling off. Being bad at things is simply a part of childhood. As we get older, however, we become gradually less tolerant of our own incompetence. We also acquire identities: I am good at English; I am hopeless at maths; I am a languages person; I can’t draw; I’m not musical; I’m useless with technology. Such statements can sound like harmless descriptions of ability, but they can also become excuses that enable us to avoid the uncomfortable experience of being a beginner. If I have decided that I am simply “not a maths person”, then struggling with algebra is no longer an unpleasant stage in learning; it is confirmation of something I already believe about myself.

There is another problem, too, and that is that we don’t particularly like being corrected. Being told that you are wrong is not a particularly pleasurable experience, especially if you thought that you were right. Some children are remarkably sensitive to it, but adults aren’t necessarily much better. Watch somebody being taught to use a new piece of technology and you will see this in action. They press the wrong button, the person helping them says, “No, you need to do this,” and there is an almost irresistible temptation to reply, “Yes, that’s exactly what I was trying to do!” I have spent enough time teaching to recognise this phenomenon in myself as well as in my pupils. There is a difference between wanting to know something and being willing to learn it. The first is easy: the second is the bit that requires some effort.

Learning requires us to expose the gap between knowing and not knowing. A pupil who answers a question incorrectly has just demonstrated something useful: there is a gap in their understanding, and the teacher now knows where it is. A student who refuses to answer because they don’t want to get it wrong is protecting their fragile dignity at the expense of their learning. This is just one reason why a classroom where pupils are genuinely allowed and encouraged to make mistakes is so important. If getting something wrong is treated as a catastrophe (or mocked by others), children quite reasonably learn to avoid situations in which they might be wrong, which is disastrous for the learning process.

But there is an even more subtle problem. Sometimes we don’t want to be taught because we believe we already understand. This is one of the reasons students can be so attached to rereading their notes. The material looks familiar, the words make sense and everything feels reassuringly comprehensible. Then they are asked to explain it without looking and suddenly the knowledge has mysteriously disappeared. It hadn’t disappeared, of course. It had never been as securely learned as they thought. Recognition is seductive, whereas retrieval is considerably less comfortable, and yet that uncomfortable business of having to drag something out of your own memory is often precisely what strengthens the learning.

Good teaching can be something of a paradox. A good teacher is supposed to make things understandable, but making something understandable is not the same as making it effortless. Sometimes the most useful thing a teacher can do is to allow a student to struggle for a little while: not endlessly, and certainly not pointlessly, but long enough for them to have a chance to work something out for themselves. This is particularly powerful in one-to-one teaching, when a tutor can focus their attention entirely on one student, without the pressure to move on with the rest of the class. This is also one of the reasons why one-to-one tutoring can be so intensive (and thus why I work in shorter sessions): the student is put under the gentle pressure to figure things out, they cannot pass the baton on to the next learner in the room.

There is a particular moment when you can see a pupil wrestling with a problem and you have to resist the urge to rescue them. You can almost watch the thought process happening. A student who is struggling does not necessarily need rescuing, nor should they be left to flounder indefinitely. Sometimes they need a carefully constructed question or a small suggestion, and sometimes all they need is another minute to think. Getting that balance right is one of the more difficult and hence rewarding parts of teaching. There is a world of difference between a teacher who refuses to help and a teacher who knows that sometimes the most helpful thing they can do is wait; knowing when to step in and when to hold back is the one of the most nuanced parts of teaching, and it is surprisingly difficult to get right.

Good teaching is not simply about explaining things clearly. Of course, explanations matter enormously and a teacher who cannot explain something clearly is not doing their job. But explanation is only a part of teaching. At some point, the pupil has to do something with the explanation, and that usually means attempting something that they cannot yet do perfectly. There is a slightly uncomfortable gap between understanding an explanation when somebody else is talking and being able to apply that understanding when left to your own devices. Good teaching has to cross that gap rather than simply making the explanation increasingly thorough.

It is a peculiar modern tendency to interpret difficulty as evidence of failure. A child finds something hard and we immediately ask what went wrong. We ask whether the teacher is not engaging enough, when all the evidence shows that engagement is a poor proxy for learning. We ask ourselves whether the explanation was insufficiently clear, rather than considering the fact that the student may just need a little more time to wrestle with it. Worst of all, we ask whether the work needs to be simplified or brought down a notch. But learning something difficult is, by definition, difficult; it’s not a problem to be solved.

I suspect that adults find this particularly hard because we have forgotten what it feels like to learn from the beginning. We have become accustomed to competence. The accumulated knowledge and skills of adulthood make an enormous amount of life feel automatic. Then, when somebody asks us to learn something genuinely new, we discover that we are not nearly as clever as we had become accustomed to feeling. It is humbling, and perhaps this is why adults can sometimes be so remarkably defensive when somebody tries to teach them something new.

The best teachers should be enthusiastic learners, cheerleaders for the process of acquiring knowledge. They should remember what it feels like to be confused, particularly when something that ought to be easy suddenly isn’t. They ought to know that horrible moment when everyone else appears to understand and you are still trying to work out what on earth is going on. A teacher who has recently been a beginner at something can have a rather different attitude to a struggling student, because they understand that learning does not feel like a smooth progression from ignorance to mastery. It involves wrong turns, false starts, frustration and the occasional exhilarating moment when something that made no sense five minutes ago suddenly does.

Learning requires a certain amount of intellectual humility. You have to be prepared to admit that you don’t know something and to accept that being bad at something is an unavoidable part of eventually becoming good at it. None of this is comfortable, but it is crucially important. We want children to become confident, independent and capable of coping with difficulty, but the route to all three involves an unavoidable period in which you are none of those things. Before we can become good at something, we have to be prepared to be bad at it.

Perhaps the most important thing we can teach children, therefore, is not simply how to learn but how to be taught. Being teachable is not the same as being passive. It means being willing to look slightly foolish from time to time, to allow somebody else to point out what you have missed, and then to have another go. It is not particularly glamorous, but it is a remarkably useful skill, and one that doesn’t become less important simply because we have left school.

The Dangerous Myth of the “Natural” Student

“She’s just not a languages person.”

If I had a pound for every time a parent has said these words to me, I could probably have retired by now.

Every now and then somebody announces, with complete conviction, that their child simply “doesn’t have a languages brain”. They might say the same about the sciences. Whatever the subject, the sentiment is always the same: somewhere along the line, often years before they arrived in front of me, students have absorbed a mythology about what kind of learner they are. More importantly, they have already reached a conclusion about what kind of learner they are not.

The extraordinary thing is the certainty with which the students themselves then make those pronouncements. They are delivered not as opinions but as established facts, rather like informing me that they have blue eyes or are left-handed. “I’m just not academic.” “I’ve never been any good at languages.” “My sister got the brains.” There is no discussion to be had. The case, apparently, is closed. In many cases, they have reached this conclusion after spending no more than two or three hours a fortnight studying the subject.

Imagine hearing a fourteen-year-old say, “I’m just not a driving person.” Or, “I’m not really a mortgage sort of individual.” We would laugh, because those are things they have never seriously attempted. Yet children routinely write themselves off in academic subjects before they have even finished compulsory education. At the age of thirteen or fourteen, they have somehow become convinced that their intellectual destiny has already been mapped out.

I suspect that adults bear some responsibility for this. We are extraordinarily fond of describing children with labels. One child is “sporty”. Another is “creative”. Somebody else is “musical”. We speak warmly of “natural mathematicians” and “born linguists”. Children who succeed with apparent ease are praised for being clever, while those who struggle are reassured that “not everybody is academic.” All of this is done with kindness. None of it is intended to do harm. Yet, perhaps contrary to popular belief, children tend to believe what adults tell them.

The educational psychologist Carol Dweck became famous for distinguishing between what she called a “fixed” mindset and a “growth” mindset. Like all psychological theories, it has been over-simplified to the point of parody, and there is now a healthy academic debate about precisely how powerful those effects are. (Spoiler alert: not very, if you try to replicate them artificially). Nevertheless, the central idea has always struck me as reasonable and worthwhile. Children who believe that ability can develop through hard work generally respond to difficulty very differently from those who believe that intelligence is something fixed at birth. One group tends to interpret failure as evidence that they have more to learn. The other is far more likely to interpret it as evidence that they were never capable in the first place. The question is whether it is possible to actively encourage a growth mindset and the answer to date appears to be “no”. Like most important learning, the development of a growth mindset comes subliminally, from watching your parents and your peers, not from being told to get one. If your family lives and breathes it as their approach to life, then you are far more likely to develop one yourself. Like so many things in childhood, our earliest attitudes towards learning owe a great deal to simple good fortune.

Once you become aware that some students have more of a growth mindset than others, you begin to realise just how important it is. One student translates a difficult Latin sentence incorrectly and says, “Can you explain where I went wrong?” Another translates the same sentence incorrectly and sighs, “I told you I wasn’t any good at this.” The first student has made a mistake. The second has made a judgement about themselves. They are not remotely the same thing.

But there is another side to this story that is discussed rather less often. People assume that being labelled “clever” is entirely beneficial, yet I have taught plenty of students for whom this has become something of a burden. If a child grows up believing that success ought to come naturally, what happens when they finally encounter something genuinely difficult? Very often, they panic. Suddenly, they are no longer the child who always gets things right and that, when you think about it, is terrifying: it shatters their very sense of self. Rather than seeing challenge as an inevitable stage in learning, students whose identity has become bound up with being clever can begin to wonder whether they have somehow ceased to be so. It is one of the reasons why some exceptionally bright students develop a horror of making mistakes. Their identity has become entangled with effortless success. Yet genuine learning is rarely effortless.

As I explored a few weeks ago, one of the most important findings to emerge from cognitive science is that learning often feels considerably less successful than students imagine it ought to. Retrieval practice is frustrating. Spaced revision feels inefficient. Difficult questions expose weaknesses that many students would rather not confront. In other words, the very strategies that produce the strongest long-term learning are often the ones that make students feel least intelligent while they are doing them. Education has an awkward habit of rewarding perseverance rather more reliably than immediate brilliance.

One of the great privileges of tutoring is that I get to watch children change their minds about themselves. Contrary to what television dramas would have us believe, this does not happen in a single inspirational lesson accompanied by soaring orchestral music. It usually happens so gradually that neither the student nor I notices it at first. A child who once apologised before answering begins having a go without prompting. Somebody who announced in September that they “couldn’t do Latin” quietly translates a difficult passage by Easter. Nothing miraculous has happened. They have simply accumulated enough evidence to make their old story about themselves increasingly difficult to sustain.

This is why I have become rather wary of the word “gifted”. Of course, natural aptitude exists: anyone who has taught for more than about five minutes knows that children differ enormously in the speed with which they grasp new ideas. To pretend otherwise would be absurd. Yet, education is not a horse race in which the order established after the first furlong determines the final result. Children develop at different rates and excellent teaching can transform performance. So can hard work. So can discovering, perhaps for the first time, that making mistakes is not a catastrophe.

Perhaps the greatest danger posed by the myth of the “natural” student is that it persuades children to mistake who they are today for who they will always be. It encourages them to believe that ability is something to be discovered rather than something to be developed. Once that idea takes hold, challenge becomes threatening rather than exciting, because every struggle feels like confirmation of an identity that has already been decided.

I would much rather children left school believing something altogether different. By all means recognise talent when you see it, celebrate achievement and admire those who make difficult things look easy. But never allow a child to conclude that the boundaries of their ability have already been fixed. Childhood is surely far too early to decide what sort of learner you are going to be for the rest of your life.

Now you know it, now you don’t

“I’m fine with that.”

It is one of the most common phrases I hear as a tutor. Sometimes it’s true. Sometimes it’s not.

Most teachers and tutors will recognise the phenomenon immediately. A student looks at a piece of information and experiences a powerful feeling of familiarity. They’ve seen it before. They recognise the terminology. The explanation seems clear. The worked example makes perfect sense. Everything feels comfortable. Then they attempt a question on their own and discover that they have absolutely no idea what they are doing.

The experience is so common that educational psychologists have spent decades trying to understand it. Why do students so often believe they understand something when they do not? The answer is both fascinating and counter-intuitive.

One of the most important discoveries in modern cognitive science is that the feeling of learning and the reality of learning are not the same thing. This may sound obvious, yet it runs contrary to much of our intuition. We tend to assume that if something feels easy, we are learning it effectively. Conversely, if something feels difficult, we assume that learning is not taking place. In reality, the opposite is often true.

Psychologists refer to this phenomenon as an “illusion of competence”. Students mistake familiarity for understanding and fluency for mastery. Because information feels familiar, they assume it has been learned.

A classic example is rereading. Faced with an upcoming examination, many students return repeatedly to the same textbook chapter or revision guide. The first reading feels difficult. The second feels easier. By the third or fourth reading, the material begins to feel hugely familiar. At this point, many students conclude that they know the material. The problem is that recognising information is not the same thing as being able to retrieve it independently. The latter is what students need to practise.

Anyone who has ever found themselves singing along confidently to a song only to forget the next line when the music stops has experienced the distinction. Recognition is much easier than genuine recall. The textbook provides constant prompts and cues. An examination paper does not.

The distinction was explored extensively by the cognitive psychologists Robert and Elizabeth Bjork, whose work has profoundly influenced modern thinking about learning. They argued that students often confuse current performance with long-term learning. In other words, they judge their understanding based on how things feel in the moment rather than on what they will be able to remember later.

Highlighting provides another excellent example of something which students often over-estimate as a learning tool. I have nothing against highlighting per se, indeed I use it as a methodology in presenting set texts. Colour-coding is useful for organisation and can be an effective way to draw links. Yet the process of using a highlighter creates an illusion of productivity, when in actual fact the student is learning far less than they imagine. A page covered in fluorescent yellow marks certainly looks as though something important has happened. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that highlighting alone does virtually nothing to improve long-term retention.

Similarly, students frequently spend hours producing beautifully organised revision materials. Their notes are often immaculate. The handwriting is exemplary, different colours have been deployed with military precision and the result resembles a work of art. Yet, if the process has been done as a reference and copy exercise, very little useful learning will have taken place. Such activities feel productive and can even create a real sense of engagement: the brain remains busy and the student remains occupied. Yet much of the cognitive work required for durable learning is missing.

What, then, does effective learning feel like? This, I’m afraid, is where things become particularly inconvenient. According to a substantial body of research, some of the most effective learning strategies feel harder, not easier, than the methodologies reviewed above. Retrieving information from memory, answering questions without notes, explaining concepts in your own words and attempting problems independently all require considerably more effort than rereading or highlighting.

This idea was popularised by researchers such as Henry Roediger and Jeffrey Karpicke, whose work on retrieval practice demonstrated that actively recalling information produces stronger long-term retention than repeatedly reviewing it. Put simply, testing yourself is more effective than studying.

Students rarely enjoy hearing this. If given the choice between reading notes for the fifth time and completing a challenging retrieval exercise, many will choose the former. It feels more successful and it does not put them in the deeply uncomfortable position of being forced to attempt to recall something they currently feel inadequately on top of. The problem is that such feelings are not reliable indicators of learning.

The psychologist Daniel Kahneman described two broad modes of thinking. One is fast, intuitive and effortless. The other is slower, more deliberate and more demanding. Effective learning often requires us to engage this second system, but unfortunately, the intense effort required can easily be mistaken for failure. I see this repeatedly when students begin using retrieval practice for the first time: they become frustrated by the failure rate, since they cannot remember everything immediately. Their conclusion is often that the method is not working when in fact it is the best and only route to success. The struggle is precisely the point. Every successful act of retrieval, however minor, strengthens the memory. Likewise, every failed attempt identifies a gap in knowledge. Both outcomes are useful. The process feels horrendously difficult at first, because the brain is being asked to do genuine cognitive work. And our brains are evolved to choose the path of least resistance, in the same way that we have evolved to take as many opportunities to rest and relax as possible. In the modern world we have built for ourselves, this evolutionary tendency works against us.

The educational psychologist Robert Bjork introduced the concept of “desirable difficulties” to describe this phenomenon. Certain challenges make learning feel harder in the short term while improving retention in the long term. Spacing out revision, mixing different topics together and retrieving information from memory all fall into this category. Once again, it can feel counter-intuitive to mix up revision topics. Won’t I get confused? Answer, no: by switching topics you are giving your brain time to forget what you’ve just learned, then challenging it to recall the same information again when you return to it. This is crucial to the learning process. The difficulty is desirable because it produces stronger learning.

Unfortunately, students are not the only people susceptible to the illusion that ease of process is a good proxy for learning. Teachers can fall victim to this hallucination as well. A lesson in which students nod enthusiastically, answer guided questions correctly and appear fully engaged can create a powerful impression of success for the teacher. Yet genuine understanding may not be demonstrated days or weeks later, when students attempt to apply their knowledge independently.

Parents are vulnerable too. Watching a child spend three hours revising comfortably and calmly can feel immensely reassuring. Yet the quantity of revision and the quality of revision are not necessarily the same thing. Effective studying often looks rather strange from the outside. Students engaged in genuine retrieval practice may spend long periods staring into space, scribbling incomplete answers, making mistakes and struggling to remember information. It looks less impressive than a beautifully highlighted revision guide or a perfectly copied set of notes. Yet it is far more effective.

Forgetting itself plays a role in the process. As I have explored in many previous posts, memory is not a camcorder. Learning requires us to retrieve and reconstruct information repeatedly over time. Some forgetting is inevitable and even useful, because it creates opportunities for the retrieval that strengthens memory.

Perhaps the most important lesson from cognitive science is that knowing something and feeling as though you know something are not the same thing. The human brain is remarkably good at creating an illusion of understanding. We mistake familiarity for mastery, recognition for recall and activity for progress. The challenge for teachers, tutors and students alike is learning to distrust those feelings. Real learning is often slower, messier and more uncomfortable than we would like.

In praise of boredom

One of the strangest conversations I have with parents takes place every summer. It usually begins with a degree of anxiety.

“What should my child be doing over the holidays?”

The question is perfectly understandable. Parents are bombarded with messages about the dangers of lost learning and the importance of maintaining academic momentum. The implication is often that six weeks spent doing anything other than educationally enriching activities represents an existential threat to their children’s development.

I understand the concern. Last week, I explored the evidence that long summer holidays can contribute to widening educational inequalities and the research in this area is difficult to ignore. Children do forget things over the summer and those from more affluent backgrounds often have access to experiences that continue to support learning long after schools have closed their doors. A knowledge of this can convince some families that it is their duty to be providing a plethora of enriching and exciting activities throughout the summer, in a desperate bid to avoid disadvantaging their children.

Yet there is a danger in taking this argument too far. If we are not careful, we can end up viewing every moment of childhood through the lens of educational productivity. The logical conclusion is absurd: a summer spent quietly reading, daydreaming, wandering around the garden and yes, complaining of boredom, becomes infinitely less valuable than one packed with endless organised activities and carefully curated experiences. In fact, the reality of learning and progress is a great deal more complicated than that.

One of the most persistent misconceptions about education is the idea that learning and development only takes place when somebody is active. Schools reinforce this impression because they are places where learning is expected to be visible. Exercise books are continuously filled with what we laughably like to call “evidence of progress” and the regular book checks I faced as a teacher, in which Senior Management went hunting for said “progress” is one of my least favourite memories from my time at the chalk-face.

Here’s the truth. The human brain is doing a remarkable amount of work when it appears to be doing very little. Neuroscientists have long known that memories continue to develop after initial learning has taken place and learning is not a single event but a dynamic process. Information is encountered, encoded, reorganised and gradually integrated into existing knowledge. Sleep plays an essential role in this process, but extended periods of reduced cognitive demand appear to matter as well. Far from switching off when formal education pauses, the brain continues to sort, organise and strengthen what it has already encountered.

Students frequently assume that more study automatically leads to more learning. In practice, there comes a point at which additional effort produces diminishing returns. The brain needs opportunities to process information rather than simply receive it. The brain is not a machine that performs best when operating continuously, rather it requires periods of activity and periods of recovery. Schools are designed to provide the former. Summer holidays, at their best, provide the latter. Anyone who has ever solved a problem while taking a walk will recognise the phenomenon. Many of our best ideas arrive not when we are concentrating intensely but when our minds are allowed to wander. Writers experience it, as do scientists, mathematicians and artists. We have all, I think, had the peculiar experience of abandoning a difficult problem only to discover that a solution presents itself hours later whilst we are doing something entirely unrelated.

Researchers have become increasingly interested in what is known as the brain’s “default mode network”, a collection of interconnected regions that becomes active when we are not focused on a specific external task. Although there is still much that we do not understand, this network appears to play a role in reflection, imagination, planning and the ability to make connections between seemingly unrelated ideas. In other words, some of the brain’s most important work, the cognitive capability that defines us as a species, takes place when the brain appears to be doing nothing at all.

Boredom has a terrible reputation. Understandably, parents dread hearing the words “I’m bored” and children often speak of boredom as though it were a form of mild torture. Yet, boredom may be considerably more useful than we give it credit for. Psychologists increasingly view boredom not as a defect but as a signal. It tells us that our current situation is no longer sufficiently stimulating and encourages us to seek something more engaging. Without boredom, there would be little motivation for humans to explore, create or discover.

None of this should be taken as an argument against educational enrichment. Reading remains valuable. Museums remain valuable. Family outings remain valuable. Summer programmes and holiday clubs can be transformative, particularly for children who might otherwise lack access to such opportunities. What we should resist, however, is the temptation to view childhood as a continuous optimisation project. Not every hour needs to be productive. Not every activity needs to be educational. Not every moment of apparent idleness represents a missed opportunity.

Thinking back to my own childhood, I can remember long stretches of summer holidays that felt endless. There were no smartphones and no streaming services and entertainment was not available at the touch of a button. We had three television channels and they were not available 24 hours a day. If there was nothing worth watching, there was nothing worth watching; there was no infinite scroll waiting to rescue us from our own thoughts. Many of the activities I remember most vividly emerged directly from boredom. An improvised fashion show in which a group of us demonstrated the new and interesting ways that we could wear our PE kits (knee socks became evening gloves). Designing and building a showjumping arena in my back garden with a next-door neighbour. Collecting worms into an improvised wormery, courtesy of some grass clippings and a shoe box. (Don’t worry, my father made me release them). This is not empty nostalgia. Boredom acts as the bridge between passive consumption and active engagement. Faced with enough boredom, children begin to create their own solutions.

The challenge, of course, is that not all boredom is equal. There is a world of difference between a child who is bored in a secure environment filled with books, opportunities and supportive adults and a child who is bored because there is simply nothing available to engage them. This is one reason why discussions about the summer holiday can become so complicated. The same period of unstructured time that encourages creativity and independence in one child will reinforce disadvantage in another: during lockdown, we saw this in extremis and the educational gap between the haves and the have-nots is even wider as a direct result of that time.

The solution is not to eliminate boredom altogether, nor is it to ensure that every moment of the summer holiday is carefully programmed. Instead, the challenge is to create environments in which boredom can become productive pressure rather than a frustrating, inescapable trap. Perhaps this is where modern childhood has become particularly complicated. Many adults, myself included, worry that children spend too much time on screens, and their attraction is precisely because digital devices are extraordinarily effective boredom-elimination machines. In the modern world, the moment boredom begins to appear, it can be instantly suppressed with videos, games or social media. While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these activities, one cannot help wondering how many opportunities for creativity and self-directed exploration disappear along with the boredom we so fear.

A general lack of guidance

I struggle to understand why so little guidance is given in many schools about how students should go about the process of learning. To be clear, I’m not talking about school assemblies on “study skills”, which I realise that most teenagers will zone out during. No, guidance needs to come directly from each individual classroom teacher, the subject expert; it also needs to be explicitly taught, modelled and demonstrated on a regular basis. Schools need to agree what methods they are going to recommend and this needs to be reflected right across the school in all subjects, tailored specifically to what works best in each academic discipline.

Startlingly often, students are still being told: here is your Latin set text, now off you go and learn the first section. I was guilty of this in my first few years of teaching — rote-learning comes relatively easy to me and I didn’t really comprehend the fact that most students need to be shown how to go about engaging with the process of committing something to memory. Furthermore, I was working in a very high-achieving grammar school, where we were not really encouraged to support students proactively with their learning; it was assumed that all the students in the school could cope well in academia without such support. This was a foolish assumption, but it was the one we were subliminally encouraged to make.

When it comes to the literature element of the Latin GCSE, whether or not a student knows the translation of the set text off by heart and whether they can relate that knowledge to the the Latin version in front of them is without doubt the single most important differentiator between a student’s success and failure in the exam. Despite this inescapable fact, few Latin teachers appear willing to dedicate classroom time to the learning process, so wedded are they to the conviction that students can manage the learning in their own time. Many of my tutees have been told time and again that they don’t know the text well enough, that they need to learn it, that they need to spend more time doing so. Yet when I ask them, “what methods have you practised in class?” they stare at me, blankly. I have come to realise that most students are not being taught how to learn things off by heart, beyond the most rudimentary of suggestions.

Now, I am not naive. Having taught in secondary schools for 21 years, 13 of those years in a comprehensive setting, I am more than well aware of students’ uncanny ability to claim that they have “never been taught” something that they have in fact been told on multiple occasions. However, the extreme cluelessness of so many of my clients when it comes to what to do and their apparent awe when they are taught some very basic methods such as colour-coding and the first-letter technique do leave me increasingly convinced that many classroom teachers are simply not dedicating enough (or in some extreme cases any) classroom time to learning methodologies. I’ll bet most of them are doing what I used to do in my first few years of teaching — giving students a few bullet points of advice on how to go about learning the texts, then assuming that those students will remember this going forward. But why do we believe such nonsense? We would not (I hope) present them with the endings of the 1st declension in one lesson then assume that they will remember those endings for the rest of time — so why on earth should that be the case when it comes to study skills?

One possible reason is teachers’ anxiety about time. One of the greatest strains that GCSE Latin teachers are under is time pressure. Very few schools offer enough space on the timetable for our subject and I am fully aware that making it through both set texts within the time available is a mammoth task. I rarely finished the second set text prior to the end of March; on the few occasions that I managed to do so, it was real cause for celebration. Yet despite this, as my career progressed, I allocated an ever-increasing amount of classroom time to teaching students how to go about the learning process and also to giving them short bursts of learning time to actually get on with it in silence. Any spare few minutes that I found myself in possession of at the end of a new section or a new concept, I would allow them to bow their heads and spend 10 minutes using the first-letter technique to get a few sentences of the text under their belts. I wonder whether classroom teachers are afraid of allowing students this time, as if it somehow undermines the important of our teaching role. I used to remind students that I was painfully aware how much pressure I was putting them under, asking them to rote-learn a new chunk of text almost every single week. So part of the deal I made with them was that — whenever I could — I would let them have a few minutes of classroom time to kick-start the process.

The benefits of allocating this time are twofold. Firstly, it literally does get the children started on the process and is an opportunity to remind them once again of the methods that have been recommended: I used to put them up on a summary slide, even when they could all recite the methods without hesitation. Secondly, while students are studying, a teacher can circulate the room and check whether they are actually using the recommended methods — there will always be a few determined recalcitants, who claim that the recommended methods “don’t work for them”. This is when a teacher needs to be strong. The evidence for what works and what doesn’t work in terms of how we learn is overwhelming, and unless that child can perform perfectly in every test you give them then they need to get on board with the methods.

As for what the methods should be, I recommend a variety but one is definitely stand-out brilliant and so far has worked for every student I have ever met. So if you haven’t read my old post on how to use the first-letter technique then do so straight away — you will never look back! For broader guidance on effective study I would recommend looking at the work of Dr. Paul Penn, Professor of Psychology and author of The Psychology of Effective Studying. His book is fantastic, as is his YouTube channel.

Reflections on Inflection

One of the biggest challenges that confronts students of Latin is that it is a heavily inflected language, meaning that the endings of words carry a large portion of the grammatical information.

English, by contrast, tends to express meaning through word order or auxiliary words. In Latin, nouns, pronouns and adjectives change their endings to mark case, number and gender; this means that a single word can appear in numerous forms that look unfamiliar at first glance. Verbs also change their form extensively to indicate tense, mood, voice, person and number. As a result, learners cannot simply scan a sentence from left to right and piece together meaning based on the sequence of words in the way they might in modern English. Instead, they must train themselves to recognise patterns in the endings, identify which role each word plays in the sentence, and mentally reconstruct the basic structure before a translation can emerge. This process of analysis can feel especially daunting for the novice.

Likewise, when learning vocabulary, it is not enough to learn the basic word. If a student simply learns that ferre means “to carry” (it’s the origin of the word ferry in English) they then fail to recognise it in most other forms. In the perfect tense, the verb changes completely: “they carry” would be tulerunt. Likewise, it’s participle is different again: “carried” (or “having been carried”) is lati. These forms need to be learnt if the student is to stand any change of recognising the word in a translation.

To be clear, all languages do this to some extent. Whenever a student is despairing as to the myriad of ways in which a Latin verb can change, I like to point out to them that if they were learning English as a non-native speaker, then they would have to learn that the verb “to be” changes from is, to are, to were, to am, to has been and so on. They would have to learn that the comparative of good is better, that the superlative of bad is worst. All languages have such challenges and while there are always underlying patterns that one can work with, even these can seem overwhelming at the beginning.

It is an easy assumption for novices to make that they can do their vocabulary learning entirely on their own, without a subject expert. While it is true that such learning is something that can and should be done regularly as part of private study, it is in fact essential that a tutor get involved with it in order to support students with the process of learning how the words look in different forms. Much of what I spend time on is the process of showing students words (most especially verbs) in their different forms, especially those which occur most commonly in the examination. A student may have learnt the fact that cado means “I fall”, but does this mean that they will recognise ceciderunt as “they fell”? Without support, this is highly unlikely. One of the skills of what I do is to focus my support on such words and to advise students and those supporting them on the learning that they can do on their own: for example, adverbs do not conjugate or decline, so those are a really good area where students can invest the time at home.

Very few schools test their students on the vocabulary list in different forms, but the very best ones do. I can count on one hand the number of schools where this is done regularly and effectively, but the difference between a student drilled in this way and one that has been merely tested on the original form of the word is palpable. Some schools invite students to learn the principal parts of verbs but this is relatively unusual and most commonly treated as “a bonus” when the reality is that learning verbs without a knowledge of their inflected parts is actually a waste of time.

One of the biggest problems with all existing text books is their lack of focus on vocabulary acquisition. While modern languages tend to build units of learning around vocabulary and place the accretion of key words at the centre of students’ learning, Latinists continue to treat vocabulary learning as a bolt-on and place little to no emphasis on weaving it into the grammar teaching that goes on. This really is bizarre and with the advent of Chat GPT and other free platforms capable of generating simple Latin sentences there really is no excuse. Schools should be re-writing the curriculum and basing the sentences used for grammar practice exclusively around the GCSE word list. When it is now possible to dump a word list into your AI platform of choice and ask it to churn out as many sentences as you desire using that vocabulary and practising the grammar point you are working on, there really is no excuse whatsoever.

While schools continue to rely on text books such as the Cambridge Latin Course and Suburani, students will continue to be let down when it comes to vocabulary acquisition, never mind the grammar. As we await the inevitable changes to the GCSE course it is difficult not to feel somewhat depressed about what will happen next. A new vocabulary list will be issued, not dramatically different from the last one, but different enough to mean that all previous materials will require checking and editing. (Last time it happened, 25 words were removed from the prescribed list, and it took a couple of years and a lot of begging for the board to release the list of words that they had removed rather than leaving teachers to work it out: as I recall, it was produced on request at various INSET gatherings and was never in wide circulation). Current text books such as Taylor & Cullen’s Latin to GCSE will thus remain useful but not quite in line with the examinations on offer and most schools will continue to use already-published courses which bear little to no relation as to what’s on the GCSE list. When I start working with a student, I already know which words will be a problem for them. For example, every single student that has studied using the Cambridge Latin Course will think that the common word poena means “poet” when in fact it means “punishment”. This is because the CLC teaches them the word poeta early on and never introduces them to the word poena.

When practice makes too perfect?

Every teacher wants their students to succeed. All teachers put in hours of effort to build the competence and confidence of their students. Yet across most schools in most subjects, there is a subtle but pervasive problem: teachers giving students tasks that directly contradict the conditions under which students will ultimately be assessed. Perhaps the most common way I see this manifested is when teachers set an exam question for homework but do not set a time limit. Students are encouraged to produce their best answer, without the contraints of timed conditions. On the surface, such a task may seem not only harmless but supportive: but what are the risks involved?

Teachers rarely encourage harmful practice out of sheer carelessness: quite the opposite. Such practice arises from good intentions. Teachers often want their students to slow down, to think carefully and to produce their best work. Removing time pressure feels like a way of fostering both their learning and their skills. Teachers are also conscious that timed tasks can cause stress and many, understandably, fear overwhelming their students; ironically, it is most often the already-anxious student that is most damaged by the practice of no time-limits, since the temptation to spend an excessive amount of time on a task in order to produce a perfect answer may be overwhelming for them. Likewise, such students are usually the most deeply affected by the looming prospect of time pressure in an exam. Thus, in their desire to reduce pressure on their students, teachers may unwittingly create more pain for the most anxious of students in both the short-term and the long-term.

Another reason why teachers may set a task without time parameters is that when students are given more time, they often produce more complete work. Completed work gives the teacher more to comment on and the student more to reflect on. Students are more likely to manage to write something at length if they are not under strict exam conditions and thus teachers have more to work with when it comes to marking and feedback. Again, however, we are faced with a painful irony as a result: not only are students practising the wrong skills, their teachers’ time is being wasted as it is being spent giving detailed feedback on irrelevant skills. To be frank, everybody loses.

What is thus most surprising about some teachers’ reluctance to impose time-limits on their students is that they fail to see how setting time-limits is a win-win situation for everyone. Not only will the student benefit from the fact that they are practising precisely what they will need to do in the examination, that student will benefit in the short-term from a homework task that is time-bound and manageable. Far too often, students are set open-ended tasks which can expand to fill the time they have available: for anxious and/or high-achieving students, this can be almost infinite. Likewise, the time that teachers have to spend on marking and feedback is minimal and needs to be tightly-managed, for the sake of their own workload and to ensure that the time they do spend on that task is valuable and effective. I will never forget Professor Paul Black (50% of the brains behind the now-ubiquitous educational concept of Assessment for Learning) stating to a roomful of teachers that we were all marking too much, too often, for too long and (here’s the really devastating bit) that we were all wasting our time. That was 25 years ago. And we’re still doing it.

Outside of workload, a further risk that arises from setting students exam-style questions with no time limit is the illusion of competence. Cognitive psychology has repeatedly demonstrated that students — and indeed their teachers — can be misled by what feels effective in the moment. When a student has unlimited time on a practice essay, their cognitive load is relatively low. There is no pressure to recall information quickly, organise ideas under time constraints or make strategic trade-offs between detail and speed. As a result, tasks feel more manageable and the final product looks polished. Students and teachers might both reasonably conclude that they are exam-ready on that topic, but this belief is built on a false foundation. What are they actually ready for? In real exams, time limits force rapid decision-making. Perhaps what is most important is that students must develop an understanding that examinations do not demand perfect, polished answers: to expect this under time pressure would be grossly unreasonable. Students must learn the importance of producing a sensible, structured response that is as well-crafted as can reasonably be expected in the time allowed. This is not the same thing as what one might produce given infinite preparation and review time, for example when drafting a manuscript for publication. When exam practice is performed without time constraints, students may master individual components of the task (knowledge, technique, structure) but they will fail to integrate them at speed during the exam. Students who have never practised in timed conditions may also experience extreme panic when they first encounter them, at a time when it is too late to build that resilience.

Research tells us that learning sticks when students are forced to retrieve information under conditions that mimic the challenge they will face. Slow, open-book, or time-unlimited tasks do not recreate the retrieval demands of an examination. They allow students to look things up, pause, think in a leisurely fashion or redraft their answers. Yet again, they are practising the wrong skills, as these behaviours are impossible in an exam room. For a skill to transfer from practice to final performance, the practice must include the key features of the performance context. Practising sections of a piano piece slowly can help with accuracy, but to perform at performance tempo, you must ultimately practise at performance tempo: you must also avoid repeating mistakes in your practice, lest they be embedded. The same principle applies to writing essays, solving equations and analysing sources.

Musical practice is not the only example of a process that academic teachers could learn from. The older and more experienced I get, the more I realise what an oversight it is that academic teachers do not listen to and learn from our sporting peers. Athletes understand the training process: they understand how to break challenges down into achievable goals and what is needed in order to practise for a final performance. More and more, I talk to my students about their studies in a way that draws on the processes used by competitive sports men and women.

With many students facing their Mock examinations at around this time, the extent to which they are prepared for those is very much on everyone’s mind. Without a doubt, most teachers understand all too well that students need to be familiar with the look and feel of assessment questions, and try to produce questions which mimic the phrasing and typical format of the questions that they will face. They also know that students need to practise retrieving their knowledge without notes, prompts, or textbook guidance. Yet the thing that is most commonly overlooked with exam-matched practice are realistic time constraints. I would argue that to encourage students to practise answering these without the additional parameter of time constraints is a dangerous and counter-productive waste of everyone’s time.

Unknown Unknowns

“I am wiser than this man: for while neither of us appears to know anything … I do not assume that I know what I do not know.”

Plato’s Socrates, Apologia, 399 BCE

As they commence their tutoring, most students who come to me report that they are struggling in Latin. This, of course, is no surprise. Yet, when asked to explain why they are struggling, their answers are frequently vague. Some students may attribute their failure to what they believe is a lack of innate ability (“I’m just no good at this”), while others have simply no idea. Very few are able to reflect upon the likely causes or to pinpoint when things started to fall apart.

Research in cognitive psychology has consistently shown that students’ own perceptions of their learning are not accurate. This is true even among high-performing learners. My own anecdotal experience informs me that students rarely have any real idea of why they are struggling. As a general rule, most students cannot identify the areas in which they lack knowledge, and some overestimate their grasp of the basics. It may surprise people to know that the easiest students to help tend to be those who come to me in a state of despair: those are, in fact, the students who really know that there is a deep-seated problem and they are only too keen for any solutions that might be offered to them.

Students who come to me convinced that they have a reasonably good grasp of the basics are sometimes reluctant to engage with initial investigations into their knowledge of the fundamentals. This is because they tend to come to me with the fixed idea that, since they started to struggle only as the subject became more difficult, it is therefore the difficult topics that are the problem. In almost every single case (there are — of course — rare exceptions), what they do not realise is that they started to struggle when things got difficult precisely because their grasp of certain fundamentals was hazy in the first place. With students like this, the first thing I have to do, unfortunately, is to rock their world a little: the only way to help them is for them to realise that their basic grasp of the subject is not as secure as they assumed it was. Once they understand this, everything can be resolved.

As human beings, we generally assume that we have privileged access to our own mental processes. However, cognitive science has repeatedly demonstrated that self-knowledge — particularly knowledge about one’s own cognitive performance — is limited and often inaccurate. This insight is foundational for understanding why students misjudge their learning difficulties. Learners experience their cognitive effort subjectively, but subjective feelings of fluency or difficulty are poor indicators of genuine understanding or mastery. For instance, when studying a text, a student may feel that they “know” the material because re-reading it feels smooth and familiar; in reality, their fluency results from familiarity rather than durable comprehension or a solid knowledge base. While learning requires active self-monitoring and regulation, our introspective access to the mechanisms of learning is highly fallible, and a student’s subjective experience of learning is not necessarily a reliable guide to their actual competence.

A further barrier to students’ insight into their own struggles is the prevalence of misconceptions about how learning and memory work. Studies consistently show that learners hold naïve beliefs about the process of learning — for instance, that re-reading and highlighting are effective strategies, or that one can “multitask” while studying without cost to comprehension; if your son or daughter insists that they can listen to music while studying, this regretably false conviction will be familiar to you. Such beliefs can then shape a student’s behaviour and self-assessment. For example, when students fail after employing such strategies, they may conclude that they are “bad at the subject,” as this feels safer than questioning the strategies themselves. Cognitive research has shown that effective learning requires active engagement (such as retrieval, elaboration and connection-making) rather than passive exposure (such as re-reading and highlighting). However, because active engagement is much more cognitively taxing, students tend to avoid it. This failure to recognise the cognitive mechanisms which underpin successful learning can lead students to misinterpret their failures. For example, a GCSE Latin student who does nothing but re-read the vocabulary list multiple times and then cannot recall the meaning of the words in a translation test may conclude that they have a poor memory; in reality, the issue is inadequate and ineffective retrieval practice.

Students do not necessarily know why they are struggling in the subjects they study, not because they lack intelligence or motivation, but because the human mind is poorly equipped to reflect on its own cognitive processes. Research proves this. Learners often rely on misleading cues such as fluency and effort and may exhibit systematic overconfidence with the basics due to familiarity. Emotional and motivational factors can further distort self-assessment, compounding the inevitable fact that the novice status of most students deprives them of the structured knowledge needed for accurate self-diagnosis. A student anxious about mathematics may perceive problems as more complex than they are, reinforcing the belief that they are “not a maths person.” This self-perception can become self-fulfilling, as avoidance prevents improvement and reinforces failure. When students fear failure, they may prefer to attribute difficulties to uncontrollable causes (e.g. “the exam was impossible”) rather than to confront any deficiencies in their methodology. Conversely, overconfidence and fixed mindsets about ability can lead students to dismiss feedback and persist with ineffective strategies. Ever tried to convince your teen to try a different method of study and been knocked back? You are not alone. Convincing learners to try different strategies is notoriously difficult.

Cognitive research thus reveals a fundamental irony of education: those who most need insight into their learning difficulties are sometimes the least able to confront it. This means that teachers and tutors must never assume that students understand the reasons behind their struggles. Instead, support for all students should include explicit instruction in metacognitive skills (the methods of study) — we must assume that they don’t know how to go about it. Only by learning how learning works can students begin to see why they struggle and, ultimately, how to overcome those struggles. Despite all of this research, it is simply mind-boggling how little of this is still going on in most schools.

All of these thoughts have been triggered by a frankly bizarre discussion I had online with a couple of tutors this week. One remained absolutely convinced that the best way to tutor was to ask the student what they are struggling with and to start there. I must say I find this phenomenally foolish. While I do always ask students what it is that they are struggling with, this is largely with the purpose of gaining an insight into how they are feeling about the subject. Their response to the question gives me enormous insight into their emotional relationship with Latin and with their studies in general. To take their self-reporting at face value, on the other hand, would be monumentally daft and would betray my experience as a professional. Students rarely comprehend what it is that they need help with, and why should they? They are not the expert! That is what they have come to me for. I listen, I take note of their anxieties and fears and then I go back to basics. Every. Single. Time. If (as does happen in vanishingly rare cases) their grasp of the basics is cast-iron and Teflon-coated, then we can move onto the complex stuff at pace. More often than not, however, a student who claims to be struggling only with the more complex grammatical niceties of the subject, will in fact lack a few blocks in the foundations of their core subject knowledge. Finding these holes and fixing them is what I specialise in.