The elephant in the room: the academic side of KS2-3 transition

I began my career as a primary school teacher in Year 6. This was all going swimmingly until I couldn’t face the pressure anymore of pretending I knew how to teach football skills to children who were already rooted in county teams; forced to demonstrate how to dribble a ball or shoot a basketball hoop. It was modeling the Haka in a pinafore dress* – somewhat incorrectly – that tipped me over the edge.

*Not recommended.

After moving to teach secondary for some years, I started a new full time role (last September) working for Greenshaw Learning Trust, and am loving the challenge. With a growing number of schools – half primary, half secondary – there’s immeasurable potential in the collaborative benefits of cross-school partnership. This might take the form of English HODs meeting together to share ideas and plans, discuss pedagogical approaches, moderate writing or share in CPD opportunities, or Primary Leads meeting to discuss frameworks for assessment in non-testing years, phonics or effective close reading strategies etc.

In recent months, I’ve noticed potential for enormous positive impact – and it’s a contentious area in the education-sphere which, honestly, baffles me.

Ten years into teaching and I still can’t quite comprehend why we, as dedicated and knowledgeable educators, don’t invest more in the academic transition between KS2 and KS3. Truthfully, the last few years have seen a real rise in pastoral improvements of this vulnerable period of change (which is fab) but, from a teaching and learning viewpoint, we appear to have seen no real gains – and this surprises me.

Over those ten years I’ve engaged in projects that have led me to visit countless schools across the country (not talking my own Trust here – though none of us would claim to be perfect yet either!) who’ve designed KS3 curriculum plans and SOWs that, while new and interesting, resemble little of the level of challenge that children are expected to achieve by the end of KS2.
aa
The familiar rhetoric I hear in conversations between the divorced worlds of Primary and Secondary tends to go like this:
aa
Primary:
KS3 teachers don’t even look at our assessments; they just roll out more baseline tests in Year 7 anyway. What’s the point of all our hard work?

Secondary:
KS2 teachers must be drilling children for Year 6 SATs. They come into my classroom and certainly don’t know much at all. KS2 tests must be flawed.

The truth is, both sides carry an element of truth but both are also riddled with errors.
aa
In my humble opinion, a more accurate picture looks like this:

Primary:

a broad curriculum
a cumulative approach to building knowledge
a tough KS2 assessment – requires rehearsal (some say ‘drilling’)
specialist teachers with a deep understanding of SPaG, the teaching of reading and writing, language acquisition, phonics etc.
children benefit from teachers who know their class extremely well due to the primary classroom model – 5 days a week, same students all year, same environment, knows the 360^o family context etc.

Secondary:

end of KS2 assessments do not assess subject knowledge of foundation subjects; further assessments needed at KS3 point of entry
more challenging knowledge content – reduced focus on basic skills, results in poorer appearance of basic literacy/numeracy abilities
vulnerability in transition – big fish in a small ponds become small fish in an ocean
pedagogical approaches / calculation strategies / terminology different between primary and secondary phases
teachers possess a huge wealth of knowledge, though may be less specialist in how to articulate extended answers and write thorough responses, which incorporate this crucial subject knowledge

The cosmic chasm between these two realms makes them incomparable.
aa
One hurdle lies in the fact that primaries hold accountability for their students right until their departure at age 11 or 12, but nothing beyond. Results are entirely dependent on the level of progress they make in that school. Secondaries, however, are dependent on KS2 results to set the bar for expected progress at KS3 and 4.
aa
Without much awareness from secondary teachers as to what is required by the end of Key Stage 2, no matter how much energy we’ve given to writing that SOW for Year 7, we’re unintentionally doing a disservice to our students who arrive, keen, raring to learn and extremely capable.
aa

In September 2015, Ofsted published a white paper, ‘Key Stage 3: the wasted years?’ which sought to highlight the depression in performance from KS2 to KS3.

Key findings from this report, among others, lists these three points:

Key Stage 3 is not a high priority for many secondary school leaders in timetabling, assessment and monitoring of pupils’ progress. 85% of senior leaders interviewed said that they staff Key Stages 4 and 5 before Key Stage 3. Key Stage 3 is given lower priority, where classes are more often split between more than one teacher or where pupils are taught by non-specialists.
Leaders prioritise the pastoral over the academic needs of pupils during transition from primary school. While this affects all pupils, it can have a particularly detrimental effect on the progress and engagement of the most able.
Many secondary schools do not build sufficiently on pupils’ prior learning. Many of the senior leaders interviewed said that they do not do this well enough and accepted that some pupils would repeat some of what they had done in Key Stage 2. Pupil responses indicate that repeating work is more of an issue in mathematics and English than in the foundation subjects.

Questions to consider:

Have you got a robust system in place that requires students to bring in samples of their best work on induction days – to record and share with teachers and tutors in advance of September?
Are you aware of the expectations at KS2 in reading (pg6), writing (pg8), and SPaG?
Have you spent time exploring the assessments students sit at the end of Year 6 in reading and SPaG?
Are your expectations at KS3 offering natural progression of challenge from this point onwards, or are you inadvertently creating a culture that allows students to plateau through KS3?
Do your Year 7 and 8 SOWs demonstrate high academic expectations, and does the teaching across your department reflect these?
Have you visited a local primary school to see teaching and learning in action?
Have you met KS2 Leads within your own academy trust/local area/feeder schools to hold professional conversations about what ‘challenge’ looks like in Year 6 and how you might be able to extend this the other side of the transition?

Top 6 FAQ: Synthetic Phonics

What is it?
Synthetic phonics is an approach to teaching reading which seeks to consolidate letter sounds first, before blending these sounds together to achieve full pronunciation of whole words.
Examples include:
s (as in ‘sun’)
mm (as in ‘comma’)
ai (as in ‘brain’)
rh (as in ‘rhyme’)
dge (as in ‘bridge’)
eigh (as in ‘weigh’)
ough (as in ‘dough’)
aa
What are the potential benefits?
a) This method demands explicit, discrete teaching of each individual sound within the English alphabetic code; not just the 26 letters, but the 45(ish) sounds – (additions include extras such as: oi, or, er) and 150+ spellings (e.g. r, rr, rh, wr). Synthetic Phonics provides a comprehensive toolkit for readers of all abilities, to be able to decode unfamiliar words rather than trying to teach endless individual words or to pick up clues around the word, which can often lead to multiple errors or guessing attempts.
aa
aa
b) EAL students often show rapid improvement through this approach, and therefore unlock access to the rest of the curriculum. Since EAL is an entirely different ballgame to SEN, it’s no surprise that these pupils make obvious gains very quickly once they’ve grasped the core patterns of the English language.
c) In comparison to its shifty cousin, ‘analytic phonics’, this approach does not rely on a learner being able to understand the context of the sentence it resides in, in order to decode (read) the word itself.
aa
What are the potential drawbacks?
a) Some fail to acknowledge the necessary bridge between teaching the sounds and reading fluently. Unless you commit to modelling how to blend sounds within a word, learners will take much longer to read with increased fluency. Demonstrating how to blend sounds, e.g. in ‘b-r-i-dge’ and ‘ch-oi-ce’, will develop stronger readers.
b) Our beautifully rich English language is bittersweet. We’ve conquered, stolen and borrowed so many words from so many places, cultures and eras that our alphabetic code is now a picture of perfectly ordered chaos.
What this means in reality is that spelling feels impossibly difficult for weaker readers. While synthetic phonics has done wonders for reading in KS1&2, unless teachers are persisting to teach spellings explicitly and frequently, learners will employ their decoding knowledge to attempt encoding (spelling) words. It feels comfortable to the novice writer To do so but, until they’ve had repeated exposure to high frequency words and phrases such as the example in the image below, and have been taught root patterns of specific sounds*, those wonderful phonic skills that enable one to read doesn’t always directly translate to spelling.

My niece’s phonetically plausible attempt at a story opener…
*See root spelling video of the word ‘one’ here.
aa
What about older students who’ve not succeeded with phonics previously?
I view this from a pair of rather binary binoculars. If synthetic phonics works for so many in so many places and with so many contributing factors to their learning journey, I can’t subscribe to the notion that this method would work with the majority but not the remaining few. I’ve taught synthetic phonics for a number of years to students with a wealth of different learning needs, and not once has this approach been unsuitable. Considering what we know about the learning process, (e.g. that VAK is RIP) it seems counter intuitive to suggest that some suit this method and others don’t. The pace and dynamics of the group may change, but the key here is to ensure that older students are included in the conversation, with transparency around why this is not a ‘baby-ish’ concept and how vital it is for learning and life. Greg Ashman’s post, ‘Phonics is like a vaccine‘ articulates this point brilliantly.
aa
What about comprehension?
This aspect of the eternal phonics debate is widely and wildly misunderstood. Skeptics, haters and change-dodgers use this as an excuse to abandon synthetic phonics. In my experience, the practice of phonics does not directly improve understanding, except that it absolutely does.
It’s simple:
1. Learn sounds
2. Decode whole words
3. Increase fluency to read whole sentences, passages, pages, chapters, books…etc.
4. Greater exposure to text – repeated exposure to new vocabulary
5. Increased comprehension. For me, this area is a non-argument. A parallel claim would be to argue that learning to walk does not improve dancing. Until you’ve put one foot in front of the other on repeated occasions in a number of different settings and on a number of different surfaces, moving at different speeds, there’s no way you’d be able to seduce with a steamy rumba or master the Macarena.
aa
How is it embedded?
Just as you wouldn’t take dancing lessons without a regular chance to dance, or attend football training sessions without frequent opportunities to play in a match, synthetic phonics won’t get you very far unless you have plenty of opportunities to read. And it’s both the interest level and the quality of text that really matters. Doug Lemov’s work on choosing rich texts full of challenge is comparable to none – see here. Early readers (at whatever age) will benefit from easily decodable books, moving onto simple chapter books and then increasing the difficulty level beyond that. Investing in the daily habit of reading will maximise the impact of synthetic phonics. Class readers, group reading sessions, parental engagement in reading at home and independent reading opportunities are crucial in cultivating enthusiastic readers.
aa
aa

10 changes to KS1&2 writing assessment with direct impact at KS3

The DfE have released further changes to the KS1&2 writing assessment frameworks this term. It is inevitable that these will have real impact on students’ knowledge and language acquisition as they reach KS3. Here are 10 amendments with potentially longer lasting impact.

10 changes and their impact:

1. KS1&2: Proof reading
At the end of Year 2, ‘proof reading’ has been added to the ‘greater depth’ level. To achieve this, students will be expected to make simple revisions to their own writing, checking for errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation etc. This continues into KS2.
KS3 impact:
It may be that embedding this practice at such an early age will result in students who are better able to use self-assessment as they move through the primary years. It will largely depend on how much investment individual schools put into this – Will the process be modelled? Will students be expected to do this regularly? Do students get effective feedback to know how and where to look for errors, and what to do when they find them?

2. KS1&2: Secure fit vs. Best fit
Having previously worked from a ‘best fit’* model prior to 2017, there will be a return to this following the attempt at a ‘secure fit’** model in Summer 2017.
*Best fit: T’s make a fair judgment of a S’s ability based on their own knowledge of the student and the work they consistently produce.
**Secure fit: T’s must ensure that S’s have met every single criteria from the assessment framework before claiming they have reached a certain level. The DfE states,

“A pupil’s writing should meet all the statements within the standard at which they are judged. However, teachers can use their discretion to ensure that, on occasion, a particular weakness does not prevent an accurate judgement being made of a pupil’s attainment overall. A teacher’s professional judgement about whether the pupil has met the standard overall takes precedence.”

KS3 impact:
There may be greater variation in the opinion of a collection of pupil’s written work. If you have a number of different feeder schools (some secondaries in London have up to 60 of these…) you may find that students arrive with conflicting grades. Schools are moderated at random to ensure accuracy of assessment is upheld, but there will naturally be some discrepancies as a result of greater flexibility. This will also directly address the fact that many students could not reach ‘greater depth’ last year due to poor spelling/handwriting.

3. KS1&2: Writing Conventions
Students will continue to learn writing conventions of different styles and genres. This includes knowing that an autobiography requires first person narrative, in contrast to 3rd person narrative for a biography.
4. KS1&2: Literary Devices
Teachers are expected to embed the explicit teaching of literary techniques such as similes, metaphors and analogies in their teaching of reading and writing.
5. KS1&2: Awareness of Reader/Author’s Intentions
Students are expected to comment on the impact of certain words and phrases chosen by the author and suggest what effect they may have on the reader.
KS3 impact: points 3-5
Teachers may consider revising their approach to tackling these areas above, reviewing how these are currently mapped out within the KS3 curriculum. It may be that KS3 Leads explore ways to dig deeper into some of these concepts if there is already a surface level understanding. It’s vital that KS3 leaders are mapping their own plans against the KS2 expectations in order to minimise unnecessary overlap, as well as reaching back to ensure students are recalling knowledge learnt previously.

6. KS1&2: Increased use of dictionaries
The use of dictionaries has now been added as an explicit statement on the 2018
writing assessment.
KS3 impact:
Students may reach KS3 with greater familiarity of a dictionary – and how they work. Students are sometimes presented with a dictionary or thesaurus at KS3 unable to locate the words they need, having not been shown explicitly how to use one. This addition to the framework may reduce issues around this at KS3.

7. KS1&2: Greater emphasis on composition
Having moved away from a focus on composition in 2017, the DfE have returned to this point for 2018. Students will be required to produce pieces of writing that contain an element of style once again – rather than working solely to a clinical list.
KS3 impact:
Students who may have reached expected standard or greater depth as a result of their ability to meet each piece of criteria on a checklist last year will now need to demonstrate that they can write with style. This may have direct impact on students who are tutored for grammar schools, or EAL students who can use a ‘subordinate clause’ or a ‘fronted adverbial’ but continue to find the syntax of regular sentences particularly difficult.

8. KS1&2: Reduced focus on SPaG in the writing assessment*
In combination with the point above, it seems as though the DfE have realised that the ‘recipe’ model of writing they had moved towards might not be the best answer after all. In ensuring written pieces contain a checklist of certain features with such precise specifications, students are losing the ability to write with style and flair, thus churning out cohorts of students who use endless amounts of extended noun phrases but only produce bland, clinical pieces of work. *Students will still be required to complete the discrete spelling, punctuation and grammar (SPaG) test.
KS3 impact:
Students may arrive to KS3 able to use subject terminology to identify SPaG techniques, but less able to apply them to their own writing. It may reveal that students can demonstrate their understanding of such tools in a discrete way on demand, but less able to embed them. This will be largely dependent on the approach of individual schools.

9. KS1&2: The DfE are exploring comparative judgment
In the DfE’s ‘Government Consultation Response‘ document to Primary Assessment
(Sept 2017) it states,

“A significant number of respondents were interested in the potential of comparative judgement as a method for assessing writing. We know that there is promising work taking place amongst the sector to explore the use of comparative judgement in the assessment of writing, notably the Sharing Standards pilot run by No More Marking. We were encouraged by the results of this year’s pilot, which involved 199 schools. We will work with No More Marking to evaluate larger pilots in the near future, to explore the potential of comparative judgement in the assessment system.”

KS3 impact:
These exciting developments in comparative judgment (see the work of @daisychristo and her team) may have direct impact on assessment at KS2, changing the entire process of transition from KS2 to KS3. It makes you wonder whether there will be opportunity here to reduce the vast chasm between primaries and secondaries, promoting greater collaboration of assessment in the best interests of our students.

10. KS1&2: The DfE are exploring local peer moderation

In the same document mentioned above, the DfE mention that they are looking into a local clusters model for peer-to-peer moderation. The consultation says,

“Many respondents expressed interest in a peer-to-peer model of moderation that would involve schools working together in local clusters, overseen by a local moderator. It was felt that this approach could further encourage the sharing of best practice, and support teachers’ professional development on moderation. To explore this model, we intend to run a small-scale pilot in the 2017 to 2018 academic year.”

KS3 impact:
As with point 9, we may see these models cascade beyond KS2 if results from the pilot stage look successful and methods are deemed fit for purpose. More information is due to be released later this academic year.

References:

DfE Consultation Response:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644871/Primary_assessment_consultation_response.pdf

Shareen Mayers:
http://rsassessment.com/2017/09/27/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-ks1-and-ks2-teacher-assessment-framework/

Comparative Judgment:
https://www.nomoremarking.com/
https://twitter.com/daisychristo

KS2 Teacher Assessment Framework:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647107/2017_to_2018_teacher_assessment_frameworks_at_the_end_of_key_stage_2_PDFA.pdf

KS2 Exemplar Writing Materials:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2018-teacher-assessment-exemplification-ks2-english-writing

I bought a piano… and am tasting my own pedagogical medicine.

I love music. Creativity has played a major role in my family for generations. My great grandparents played instruments. My grandma was trained to sing at the Guildhall School of Music & Drama, touring concert houses across the globe with her beautiful voice in the 60s, 70s and 80s. My Dad had earned a place at RADA before opting for church ministry instead (quite a career change, yes) and has mastered jazz piano ever since I can remember. My mum is less musical – more adept at art – but brilliant in her own right. The majority of my wider family can play an instrument of some kind; guitar, drums, piano, didgeridoo, flute, banjo, euphonium etc. You name it; we’ve tried it.

As a child I had piano lessons, but my potential for Beethovenian genius was snatched from my little hands each time we moved for my parents’ jobs, making it difficult to continue successfully. (As an aside: as a result of moving I also studied the Aztecs twice and never learned long division until I had to teach it to my Year 6 class at the age of 22.)

I’m pleased to say that, this summer, I succumbed to my ever-increasing desire to play again and bought a piano. I am totally loving it. Whenever I can in the evenings or weekends, I’ll sit for an hour and strike away at the keys in the hope that the chord I’m reaching for resembles something of the graphical note representation I see on the page before me. It’s still hit and miss if truth be told, but I’m definitely way better than I was eight weeks ago.

Why am I harping on about a piano?

Simply, this process of learning that I’m becoming more and more committed to is opening my eyes to the journey we expect our students to travel. The fact that I possess a novice-level understanding of the piano and how it works already might mean that I am building any further knowledge a little quicker, but it’s certainly not easy. I thought I’d put together a top five set of ‘quick learns’ that seem wholly transferable from my own learning experience to the classroom:

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE:
Learning anything new must build on prior knowledge, however weak the triggers may be. The brain seems to be constantly trying to make associations; between notes, within chords, from one piece to another.
EXPERTISE:
Making progress will be faster in the presence (and under the direction) of someone whose subject knowledge is far superior to your own.
INTERLEAVING REHEARSAL:
Practising in smaller measures – an hour here and there rather than a whole morning – seems to produce better performance. Opportunities for testing, resting and a chance to forget movements or parts of movements, then returning to a piece a day (or more) later is resulting in longer-term learning.
ADDRESSING ERRORS:
Keeping your fingers locked into the incorrect keys, when you fail to produce the sound you thought you were about to, allows you to check each note and find the misplaced one (or two, or three…). From there, you can find real clarity in the assessment of your own playing over time. Once you’ve identified common error patterns you’re repeatedly making you can focus on the minutiae of specific chord movements and retrain your mind and muscles to move how they should.
FEEDBACK:
Having an audience who is willing to listen to you and give feed back on specific aspects of your playing is a real win. You can lose yourself in the precision of the notes a little, so to have those who possess a level of musicality themselves offering suggestions for development; this can only be a good thing.

In such a brief reflection as this, I’m surprised as to how much of what we preach in the classroom transfers to learning a musical instrument – and beyond. There’s comfort in that.

Watch this space for an invitation to a wonderful Christmas soiree. Or Summer.
Yes, that has a more realistic ring to it.

Whole-School Literacy: why every school needs a Sisyphus.

This post is a response to Alex Quigley’s recent blog, ‘Why whole-school literacy fails!’.

If you have any knowledge of Quigley, you’ll know how unnecessary it is to build an opposing argument to his. There’s rarely a moment where my own viewpoint is misaligned with his when it comes to teaching and learning – and all things language. And, in truth, 80% of the post I do agree with. However, having lived out the role of a ‘modern-day Sisyphus’ as he describes (that of literacy co-ordinator) for a number of years now, I’m keen to offer an alternative angle on the importance of literacy and language in schools.
a

To keep it brief, it’s clear we agree on some key fundamentals:

There is no more important act in education than helping children to learn to read.
Developing our students as confident readers, writers and speakers is the core business of every teacher, regardless of age, phase or subject specialism.
The matter of ‘literacy’ really is a boulder of gargantuan proportions, beyond the will and wit of any individual leader (including especially me).
The domain of literacy is so wide and so complex.
The education profession has been known to package ‘literacy’ into a small, relatively useless box, which sits on a shelf until Sisyphus gets an hour’s PPA time to shift data around on an excel spreadsheet or photocopy handwriting sheets for tomorrow.

When I consider what it was about this post that fired me up enough to respond, I suppose it’s the knowledge – and driving passion – that underpins my work; one that promotes a different kind of literacy. It’s not the implied bolt-on accessory that I’ve seen countless times in so many schools. Like Alex, I’m fully behind Geoff Barton’s message of clarity in his book, ‘Don’t Call It Literacy!’, where he argues that teachers so often see literacy as an additional burden to teaching; just another box to tick or a passing fad, like so many others they’ve seen come and go before.

I hear exactly where Alex is coming from when he explains the overwhelming responsibility of a role such as this, and he’s right. It’s colossal. To oversee the assessment of literacy and language, ensure students who need additional support (e.g. phonics) receive it, make sure that staff feel fully-equipped to deliver robust teaching around core language within their subject domain and assess the long-term impact of these interventions in offering greater access to the curriculum – it’s almost impossible.

sisyphus_happy_excerpt

I guess, for me, the wrestle occurs in negotiating the solution to the boulder-up-the-hill dilemma. Having trained in primary teaching before moving to secondary, one huge shock in that transition was the realisation that teachers across the school were expected to apprentice students into effective reading for comprehension, and model extended writing in their subject without any prior training. For me, the solution to raising the bar with language and embedding a deeper knowledge of literacy across the curriculum is inextricably linked to having a key figure in place to drive these vital whole-school priorities forward.

The difference, then, between the Sisyphus analogy and my own utopian ideal, is in the careful appointment of the role, but also in the discernment of building structures that would likely scaffold the creation of robust systems. To me, a perfect candidate for ‘Literacy Co-ordinator’ is someone who is open to the vast complexities of the role, yet understanding of the need to build capacity by establishing focus teams around core priorities. Alex’s list below is a great starting point:

Reading for pleasure;
Reading issues(such as poor decoding, weak comprehension, dyslexia, and the readability and accessibility of texts for our students);
Academic vocabulary;
Teacher explanations, talk and questioning;
Improving writing;
Improving spelling and writing accuracy;
Speaking and listening;
Enhancing teacher knowledge and providing training for all of the above;
Developing parents’ knowledge and understanding of all of the above.

I’d add these three after a quick think:

a) discrete teaching of roots, prefixes and suffixes
b) effective transition from KS2 to KS3, knowing the long journey of language acquisition that students have already taken
c) effective oracy – presentation, communication, assimilation

Y7 Welcome 2016 JM reduced file.jpg As I’ve said, there’s much I agree with. Teams are better suited to developing whole-school systems required for long-term positive impact on language and literacy. The use of allocated non-contact time to address literacy targets and data sheets has big potential to do a real disservice to stakeholders, if one is blind to the true needs of students and staff alike. One person alone cannot master this field. FACT.

I just question that the answer, in light of the above, is to admit defeat and remove the role from schools entirely. I’d much rather ensure that literacy co-ordinators have regular opportunities to deepen their own knowledge and understanding of the non-negotiables listed above, supported by senior leaders and cluster teams to ensure that school priorities are mobilised as effectively as possible, all working towards a shared goal. Without a driving force behind these principles, I’m concerned that time constraints in this busy profession would ultimately mean that those schools not yet awakened to the utter importance of embedded literacy and language would witness a decline in this area.

It’s true: the absence of a literacy co-ordinator has got to be better than the appointment of a poor one who demonstrates negative impact. I’m just not prepared to see this role as a dead root in the tree of school life yet; there’s so much more to be done.

And, for me, there needs to be a central force – be it a single person or a couple more – who possess responsibility for carving out the vision of literacy and language, ensuring no student or member of staff on this ever-evolving journey is left behind.

Reading for pleasure checklist

The BBC website published a short article yesterday on the fall in numbers of young people reading for pleasure after primary years. It’s not particularly headline news as we’ve seen this pattern emerging for a while, but it does help to keep this issue high on the radar (or ‘readar’ if you’re into less-than-average word puns).

This year, in addition to timetabled sessions in our reading lounge (once every two weeks during English lessons), we have also trialled an additional regular independent reading session for Year 7 students. They are not long enough really, but they are a step in the right direction towards greater opportunities for reading for pleasure. With one eye already looking to September, we are in discussion about how to consolidate and build on this year’s successes, to make sure this priority remains a real focus for our students.

We have a mixed demographic that boasts students from a wide range of cultures and backgrounds – highlighting a real range of reading experiences and habits too. Some students are fortunate enough to have regular support from home; others not. Some have parents who are capable, eager readers. Others have parents who cannot read at all or do not have the finances to buy books of interest at home. I’m quite sure we have a growing responsibility to develop systems that support students – and their parents – with reading, both at school and at home. This might be in the form of purchasing books, running workshops to demonstrate good practice, providing regular opportunities to celebrate reading, and so on.

I realise the risk of blogging about reading when you have experts like Doug Lemov (@Doug_Lemov) and Robert J. Marzano (@robertjmarzano) who have offered so much in this field. I did just think I could offer the checklist of ten points below that I’ve started thinking about, which we will look to implement next academic year. It’s a working document, so do feel free to have a look and throw any comments or ideas my way.

The words ‘checklist’ and ‘pleasure’ are not two words you’d put together often, but I do believe it’s crucial to have structures in place to scaffold independent reading.

Others have blogged about reading for pleasure here: Alex Quigley David Didau

5 reasons why secondary schools should establish a Language Leads team.

I’ve had the real privilege of establishing a Language Leads team this year at my school. I’m constantly surprised by the fruits of this group; comprising one capable teacher representative from each faculty or department.

With full intention to build on our successes and learn from the relative trials we’ve faced so far, I present five reasons below that demonstrate why I feel a group of this nature is so valuable in a secondary school setting:

A Language Co-ordinator may be worthwhile, but only if there is built-in capacity to scale initiatives upwards and outwards. A team such as this provides a mechanism robust enough to disseminate research-informed language principles through regular context-specific opportunities, across the academic year.
a
Secondary teachers may not have been trained in how to teach the art of reading and/or writing. When I transitioned from teaching primary to secondary, my eyes were widened to the stark reality that some teachers had never been coached to teach writing, and yet were expected to apprentice classes into a particular style of academic writing. A team of this kind offers a scaffolding framework where Language Leads can meet half-termly and cascade information to their colleagues around specific areas of literacy and language.
a
Bringing together subject knowledge from across the school is vital. In order for core vocabulary to be chosen and planned for effectively, Language Leads must possess a deep understanding of the concepts covered within their subject. With systems in place, students can build a bank of Tier 2 and Tier 3 words across the curriculum, receiving multiple exposures to new words through repetition and quizzing, thus consolidating understanding of key concepts over time. This year, we’ve had a particular focus on Marzano’s work around vocabulary, ensuring that recommended strategies are being implemented in the classroom – with support.
a
Empowering teacher representatives from every department results in greater ownership at a school-wide level. If training is only ever delivered by the English team, colleagues tend to consider language as an optional bolt-on that sits apart from their subject. In fact, in order to implement change of any value, teachers must embed language instruction within the context of their subject domain. We’ve explored the Genre Pedagogy approach to teaching extended writing this year, which has led to a real shift in the expectations teachers possess around language.
a
A team such as this offers a forum for Language Leads to voice concerns, celebrate successes or raise questions on behalf of their department colleagues. While a clear vision and a certain level of strategic planning are necessary in order to move new ideas from the abstract to the concrete, the group should be ever-evolving to meet the needs of learners and allow room for creativity, so long as this feeds into the overarching aims of the team’s purpose. And this purpose, ultimately, is to have a positive lasting impact on the development of literacy and language – for all students.

It’s an organic collaborative process – both the formation and ongoing shaping of this team – but one I’d highly recommend other schools exploring. To have dedicated, knowledgeable professionals who are motivated to drive language in this way at a school-wide level; it’s a wonderful thing.

Metacognition Series: 3 of 6

This is the 3^rd blog post of a 6-post series on Metacognition. You can find post 1 here and post 2 here.
(If you’ve read the previous posts, skip straight to the key themes below. I’ll keep the intro the same at the top of each post.)

INTRO
In my recently-appointed role as a Lead Learner, I have been charged with delivering a series of six enquiry sessions for teachers on the theme of Metacognition*. Both a challenge and a privilege to lead such a great, diverse group of teachers with varying levels of experience and responsibility, I’ve been taking my research very seriously. (*For more information on our CPD Programme, designed by my colleague, Phil Stock, see his blog post here.)
aa
The sequence of posts I intend to write over the course of this year will 1. outline key areas addressed in sessions, 2. share questions that have arisen from our group discussions (sometimes as a result of the pre-reading that has been set), 3. offer points of interest from research studies that I continue to contemplate at each stage.
aa
I should make it clear from the outset – I have no doubt in my mind that metacognitive strategies can significantly enhance the learning of an individual, be they 5 or 95. With a grandparent of 89 who recently completed a BA degree in Humanities, I (and I know he does too) fully adhere to the notion that a high dose of metacognition and self-regulation can vastly improve the educational journey for a learner. It is the whos and whys and whens and hows that I believe need further thought.

Prior to this session, teachers were asked to bring two items that would aid them during the planning time allocated within the session:
1. Their research and enquiry question* – these were written independently by teachers, who selected a very specific teaching element and target group to base their research on. Questions were devised in accordance with the guidance* shared with staff and agreed by line managers during appraisal meetings in the first half of the Autumn Term.
2. Any planning or knowledge of subject content due to be covered in the New Year.
*Screenshot taken from Phil’s post
aa

aa
8 themes from session 3:

We addressed a query that arose in session 2
During one of the rich discussions we have shared as a group, a question was raised regarding the difference between two the concepts of ‘self-control’ and ‘self-regulation’. At the time, I admitted to not knowing what the research would suggest on this and could only speculate at possible answers. After some reading around this, I found the following quotes that served as a basis on which to summarise that:

Self-control: definitions seem to possess a shared trait of explaining a physical reaction to a stimulus. Self-control requires an individual to make wise decisions in the moment.

Self-regulation: definitions suggest that this concept helps an individual to guide or adjust their behaviour in pursuit of some desired end state or goal.

aa
It is worth mentioning that these two terms are also often used interchangeably, so it is not quite as black and white as it may initially seem.

2.We recalled key themes from session 2

Once again, teachers were presented with a challenging multiple-choice quiz in order to familiarise themselves with themes from the first two sessions. These were completed independently, after which the answers were shared and discussed as a group. I should declare here that, despite the success of my first recap quiz used in session 2, I came under significant – though entirely civilised – attack from teachers present, for the phrasing of one or two of my questions.

In one section of the test, teachers had to judge statements to be true or false. For one of those statements I had written, “A regimented classroom culture can discourage self-regulation.”

Now, the response I had expected to receive was ‘true’, which was a little disconcerting when the choir of united voices before me replied ‘false’. This harmonious moment of unison soon became a cacophony when I overconfidently responded ‘WRONG!’.

In my mind, the word ‘regimented’ looked like a classroom of learners who lacked autonomy, conjuring visions of a teacher who was spoon-feeding curriculum content, denying students opportunities for deep thinking.

In the minds of everybody else, the word ‘regimented’ looked like a calm, orderly classroom.

It was evident where I had gone wrong and apologised without reserve. Needless to say that everybody scored a point for that question, irrespective of the answer they had given.

This was a fruitful learning experience for me, reminding me how careful one needs to be when constructing questions for formative assessments. A high quality test is critical if we hope it might reveal any valuable window of insight into the on-going learning processes of our students.

We shared reflections on the pre-reading**

As has been the case in all three sessions so far, teachers were brilliantly forthcoming in sharing their personal reflections on the reading we have engaged in. Conscious of time constraints on this session (mindful of reserving time for planning), we didn’t spend huge amounts of time dwelling on this though, again, some very interesting points arose. Two comments of note included:
a) The video talk by Dr Derek Cabrera greatly helped in provoking one to think about the value we place on thinking in our lessons. It leads us to question whether the pedagogical approaches we employ to share information about our subjects are the right ones.
b) Reference was given to a concept discussed in John Hattie’s chapter on self-control, called ‘ego depletion’. Many studies, including the work of psychologists such as Roy Baumeister et al (1998), propose that, “Self-control is a finite resource that determines capacity for effortful control over dominant responses and, once expended, leads to impaired self-control task performance, known as ego depletion.”

Teachers discussed the implications of this concept in relation to the demands we put on our students in a variety of learning situations.

**Pre-reading list focus:
Dr Derek Cabrera, How Thinking Works (online video clip)
John Hattie, Visible Learning and the Science of How we Learn
Chapter 26, Achieving Self-Control

We took a shallow dip into the field of Executive Function
In response to a dialogue that arose in session 1, a brief amount of time was spent considering the concept of Executive Function. An overview video from Harvard was shown, outlining the premise that EF is, in essence, the CEO of all cognitive processes. According to Harvard,

“Executive function and self-regulation skills are the mental processes that enable us to plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks successfully. Just as an air traffic control system at a busy airport safely manages the arrivals and departures of many aircraft on multiple runways, the brain needs this skill set to filter distractions, prioritize tasks, set and achieve goals, and control impulses.”

We are taught that EF skills depend on three types of brain function:

working memory
mental flexibility
self-control

We attempted a task that challenged our Executive Function ability

To understand the demands our EF skills are consistently required to monitor, we looked to the unfaltering wisdom of the Two Ronnies. While not technically qualified as cognitive psychologists, these men have been pioneers in broadcasting the complexities of EF. Watch their informative Mastermind sketch here.

Following this, teachers were challenged to attempt the same task in pairs, responding with an answer to the previous question instead of the current one. Here is one of the two sheets I devised to test teachers’ mental flexibility.

After a few hot minutes of serious brain activity (and much laughter), we reviewed how the task had gone. The two main comments that arose were:
1. It was more difficult to ask the questions, since your brain is having to read, listen, look ahead and score at the same time.
2. It was much more difficult to answer when you had to complete an operation in order to reach an answer, while also storing the next question in your mind.

One teacher raised a concern that this could have a significant negative effect on our learners. A student might easily fail to cling on to an influx of information we have given, if we have not considered the demands we are placing on their working memory at any one time.

6.We made associations between our questions and the Metacognition session content
As mentioned in the intro of this post, staff referred back to their individual research and enquiry questions, making connections between these and the content we have covered so far in sessions. This was a brief discussion, before moving into more tailored groupings for effective planning and preparation time.

7. We regrouped according to enquiry question focus and began planning
Prior to this session, I had spent time reminding myself of teachers’ enquiry questions and carefully grouped them according to the focus of their upcoming trial (not necessarily by department). These were broadly grouped around themes including: self-assessment or self-monitoring, applying technical or higher level vocabulary to work, social or emotional attitudes to learning, ability to apply strategies taught. This list is not exhaustive but incorporates many of the key focuses shared by teachers in our group.

In these subgroups, teachers discussed their hoped student outcomes as a result of new strategies they will seek to implement in the New Year. They also identified relevant strategies from a menu I had collated to best suit their subject area and enquiry focus. Strategies were selected from a range of research studies and articles I’d read in preparation for these sessions, including a reference table outlining many of the great techniques explored in Doug Lemov‘s book ‘Teach Like a Champion 2.0‘.

8. We looked ahead to January, considering how to monitor any progress
While a six-week period is a short time in which to measure improvement in the deeper learning of students, we will intend to pause and consider how the trial is going in February. Teachers were informed that, when we meet on February 10^th, it would be great to hear from each member of the group:
a) what strategies have been implemented
b) what has / has not worked so well and
c) what improvements to learning, if any, have been noticed in that time
aa
Any evidence can be simply anecdotal, video footage, photo evidence, student work, formative assessment, student interviews or surveys etc. It is left to the teacher to make the best decision as to how to measure any change, though it was advised that some form of pre and post comparison might be useful. The trial will continue for the remainder of the year, though this next session will serve as a good review point along the journey to reflect and revise the metacognitive approaches employed.
aa
Following the session, I shared a step-by-step timeline of actions that need to take place between now and February. This includes arrangements for planning, delivery and reviewing. I will also be sharing any reading I find that links to teachers’ questions in the interim period, as well as being available for on-going support.
aa
I’m geekily eager to see how the next phase goes.

Metacognition Series: 2 of 6

aa
This is the 2^nd blog post of a 6-post series on Metacognition. You can find post 1 here.
(If you’ve read post 1, skip straight to the key themes below. I’ll keep the intro the same at the top of each post.)
a

The sequence of posts I intend to write over the course of this year will 1. outline key areas addressed in sessions, 2. share questions that have arisen from our group discussions (sometimes as a result of the pre-reading that has been set), 3. offer points of interest from research studies that I continue to contemplate at each stage.
aa

I should make it clear from the outset – I have no doubt in my mind that metacognitive strategies can significantly enhance the learning of an individual, be they 5 or 95. With a grandparent of 89 who recently completed a BA degree in Humanities, I (and I know he does too) fully adhere to the notion that a high dose of metacognition and self-regulation can vastly improve the educational journey for a learner. It is the whos and whys and whens and hows that I believe need further thought.

8 themes from session 2:

We recalled session 1 themes
Teachers were presented with a challenging multiple choice quiz in order to familiarise themselves with themes from the first session, putting metacognitive strategies into action from the start. These were completed in silence (I know what a bunch of cheaters some of them are*). Following that, answers were shared in pairs and then “official” answers were revealed and discussed as a group.
aa
*Joking. It’s all of them.
aa
aa
We grappled with the complexities of the pre-reading
Engaging in a superb reflective conversation regarding the pre-reading material**, we discussed whether some of the research available on self-regulation might cause a teacher to feel somewhat impotent in attempting to promote metacognitive and self-regulatory strategies. One teacher questioned what impact we have as educators in developing a learner’s metacognitive skills, since the role of genetics appears to play such a significant part in this area. This was a heavy but fruitful discussion and, as the session progressed, many of the questions that were raised at the beginning were responded to in one way or another, thus leading us to resolve that we do have a big responsibility in this area – particularly with regard to:
a) nurturing a calm, focused learning environment,
b) modeling thinking strategies we expect our students to use, and
c) continuing to establish effective teacher-student relationships, all of which can greatly enhance the learning journey.
aa
**Pre-reading list:
1. Daniel Willingham, Can teachers increase students’ self-control?
2. John Hattie, Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn, Ch. 9: Acquiring complex skills through social modelling and explicit teaching
3. Education Endowment Fund, Metacognitive and Self-Regulation Strategies
4. Research Leads Improving Students’ Education (RISE), “Metacognition Short RISE Case Study” (not available online)
aa
We observed a metacognitive strategy in action
Soon after the first session was over, one teacher informed me that they had completed the pre-reading and had planned to explicitly model a metacognitive strategy in their lesson the following day. Being the eager soul that I am, I requested that we filmed it and used it to share in Session 2, to which he kindly agreed. As a group, we watched a short clip of this strategy in action. The footage demonstrated the breaking down of a paragraph structure into smaller steps, with the students and teacher together verbalising the process before attempting to write. We considered the strengths of this model, with the teacher commenting on their lesson and expanding on details of the actions that followed.
aa
We contemplated our current education system
The question was posed to teachers regarding how much space we allow for thinking to take place in our education system. When we are planning and researching as teachers, we think. Of course we think. I’m certain that any half-decent teacher will be thinking when preparing for an upcoming lesson or series of lessons. I’m also pretty sure, though, that a good teacher will go one step further and think meta-cognitively about how to deliver an idea to a class full of pupils, structuring their lessons in accordance with that. Those good teachers are characterised by their initiative, prompting them to consider these questions when planning:
aa
What should I teach? Why is this important? How will this connect to previous sessions? What prior knowledge do my students already have in order to make necessary associations with this new information, to enhance memory storage and future retrieval? What hurdles do I need to anticipate in the learning process? Which questions should I plan to ask that might lead to a greater understanding of this concept? What positive learning outcomes will we see if this is a successful lesson?
a
It is the difference in the thought processes between those half-decent teachers and those good teachers that matter.
aa
As a profession, we need to be asking,
‘Does [our education system/my school/this unit of work/the lessons I plan] provide enough opportunities for learners to think deeply about ideas and concepts? Are we fostering a culture that recognises the value of independent thinking? Or have we taken the burden of thinking away from our students who wait at the ready, through no fault of their own, to be fed from the metaphorical spoon? <- Definitely a loaded question.
aaa
Two relevant clips from the same TED Talk by Dr Derek Cabrera, a cognitive psychologist in the US, were shared. The intention was to offer teachers an opportunity to contemplate how vital the process of deep thinking is for learners.
aa
aa
Clip 1: Watch from 3.40m-5.13m
*Spoiler alert*
Clip 1 Summary
Cabrera: “We are, as curriculum designers and teachers and educators, over-engineering the content curriculum, and we’re surgically removing the thinking so that our kids are simply following instructions, painting by the numbers and getting the grade.”
aa
Clip 2: Watch from 7.45m-11.50m
*Spoiler alert*
Clip 2 Summary
The 4 universal thinking skills Cabrera insists are essential for learners to engage in are:

Making distinctions: the ability to define terms and create more sophisticated, nuanced ones. If learners can grasp definitions and take ownership of meanings and distinctions, they are “bringing something into existence”.
Looking at the parts and the wholes of systems: the ability to identify the smaller parts that make a whole and that a whole is a combination of smaller parts – “they can construct new ideas and deconstruct old or existing ideas”.
Recognising relationships: the ability to make connections between subjects. Our education system pockets learning into discrete subject areas, isolated from one another. Cabrera acknowledges the stark contrast between this format and the rest of the world. He argues that, “the world is a very interconnected place”.
Taking multiple perspectives: the ability to view a situation/idea/relationship from a number of different perspectives. Cabrera suggests that, “everything looks different when you take a new perspective” and advises that this skill leads to increased empathy, increased compassion, increased pro-social thinking and emotional development.
aa

We considered the infamous ‘Marshmallow Test’
Studying the complexities of Walter Mischel’s notorious experiment on self-regulation and its findings, we acknowledged the vast contribution to education that this study and subsequent similar replications have made. Accepting the high correlation between those children who were able to deny themselves one marshmallow in the valiant effort to wait for another (after a substantial amount of waiting time) and their positive SAT scores/ healthy BMI scores/ lower rates of addiction or divorce etc., we agreed that this study did demonstrate plausible helpful findings in the area of metacognition. However, as a result of much research from later studies and the analyses of cognitive psychologists who have publicly critiqued the Marshmallow Test, it remains unclear whether we can safely assume that the results really did demonstrate different levels of self-regulation or not. Critics who find fault with Mischel’s early findings question whether the test revealed less about self-regulation and more, in fact, about an individual’s respect for authority or their response to a reliable stimulus. From this perspective, it could be argued that children who have greater respect or trust in authority are more likely to wait longer in a timed trial, in comparison with those who have lesser respect or trust for authority and are, therefore, less likely to wait.
aa
In order to provide a balanced overview of the Marshmallow Test findings, one subsequent research study in particular was shared. In 2010, Rochester University in the USA replicated the study with one additional stage prior to the marshmallow test.
aa
aa
Participating children were asked to sit in a room on their own, where the marshmallow test would be carried out later on. Before the test, each child was asked to wait in the room and decorate a piece of card that would be used to make a personalised plastic cup. All of the children were told by an adult that they could begin decorating the card with the few measly pencils available. The adult promised to return with a much better range of art materials in a few minutes, but the children were encouraged to make a start while the adult was gone.
aa
Group 1 (the ‘reliable environment’): After a few minutes, children in this group received the better resources, as promised.
Group 2 (AKA the ‘unreliable environment’): After a few minutes, children in this group were visited by the adult again but without the resources, apologising that they did not have the art materials they had promised.
aa
It was after this additional stage that the original marshmallow test was then carried out. The findings were astounding. The average wait time in the marshmallow test for both groups are shown below.
aa

aa
Average wait times:
Group 2 (the ‘unreliable environment’): waited 3:02 secs
Group 1 (the ‘reliable environment’): waited 12:02 secs
aa
This is big stuff.
aa
If these studies reveal what they appear to reveal, this depth of understanding of our learners could offer some serious insight into the influences that shape self-regulatory behaviour. It is this contextual information that teachers could then lay as a firm foundation on which to establish the most effective pedagogical approach for a particular group of students.
a

We learnt that self-regulation is not inherently individualistic
According to John Hattie, educational researcher and author of ‘Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn’ (2014), one’s capacity for self-regulation is not predetermined by their genetic make-up, but is more a result of the social constructs to which they have been exposed.
aa
In his book, he states,
“What has emerged over recent years is a conception of the individual placing self-control, determination and willpower, at the core. But there is a twist: the ability to use self-control is not an inherently individualistic matter. It is neither stoicism nor moral rectitude. Instead, it is a matter of social development and learning.”
aa

We identified four possible categories of self-regulation
A meta-analysis of self-regulation studies carried out in the Netherlands (2012) identified four key headings under which a plethora of self-regulation strategies could be grouped.
aa
These are:
1. Cognitive
2. Metacognitive
3. Management
4. Motivation
aa
aa

We compared ‘self-regulated achievement’ with ‘self-regulated learning’
Acknowledging the pressures of an education system where teachers have been continually judged on student performance rather than a more natural, steady progression of a much deeper learning, we engaged in a very civil but stimulating debate, where contrasting perspectives on the overall purpose of education were discussed.
aa
I’m paraphrasing, but this was the general gist:‘What is our ultimate goal as educators? Are we teaching self-regulation simply for our students to then reach the work force and become exploited by employers? Or do we have a responsibility to guide and support them in their thinking as independent and mindful citizens?’
‘But don’t you have to demonstrate compliance in order to fit into the social construct of a workforce?’
‘Is an understanding of social norms, then, the same as churning out factory-educated children who are incapable of thoughts?’

aaaa
Questions prompted by this session:

In light of the research around the huge influence of those early formative years, what strategies can we employ to enhance the self-regulation habits of our learners?
How can the social constructs within a school environment (adult-student, student-student, adult-adult) positively model the power of metacognition and self-regulation?
Do we allow our learners enough time to think deeply about new ideas and concepts on a daily basis?
Do we offer opportunities for learners to make distinctions/ identify the parts of a whole and the whole as parts of a system/ recognise relationships/take multiple perspectives?
aa
It was another energising session, fuelled not only by the research but also by the minds and experience of the teachers present. Following next week’s session (3 of 6), each member of the group – myself included – will have roughly six weeks to trial a number of recommended strategies, deeply rooted within their own subject domain, ready to share feedback on early observations when we meet for our 4^th session in February.

Metacognition Series: 1 of 6

In my recently-appointed role as a Lead Learner, I have been charged with delivering a series of six enquiry sessions for teachers on the theme of Metacognition*. Both a challenge and a privilege to lead such a great, diverse group of teachers with varying levels of experience and responsibility, I’ve been taking my research very seriously.
(*For more information on our CPD Programme, designed by my colleague, Phil Stock, see his blog post here.)
aa

aa
8 themes from session 1:

We defined the term ‘metacognition’
Put simply, metacognition is ‘thinking about thinking’. It is the process by which a learner becomes aware of their own cognitive processes and, as a result of this, makes a deliberate response to any given stimulus.
We considered the theoretical background
A summary of Jean Piaget’s four stages of cognitive development were shared, comparing the similarities and differences between this earlier work and the later work of John H. Flavell on the Theory of Mind; namely that Flavell perceived metacognition as a skill that occurs much earlier on in development than Piaget first thought.
aa
aa
We acknowledged the distinction between cognition and metacognition
Cognition = all mental processes and abilities in which people engage on a daily basis such as memory, learning, problem-solving, evaluation, reasoning and decision making
Metacognition = thinking about thinking. It allows us to complete a given task well through planning, monitoring, evaluating and comprehending, making a person more aware of his/her cognitive processes
aa
aa
We identified the two main strands of metacognition
a) knowing about cognition and b) regulation of cognition
We considered learning activities that would fall under each of these two headings, understanding that many cognitive psychologists would not consider metacognition to have taken place unless the regulation of cognition stage had been completed. If knowing aspects of one’s own learning does not lead an individual to adjust their working habits in order to lead to greater learning capacity, then the full process of metacognition has not yet finished.
aa
aa
We analysed research ratings of metacognition
Sharing the Education Endowment Fund’s (EEF) Toolkit rating, we acknowledged the positive impact that metacognition can have on learning, aware of the low cost and high strength of evidence in employing metacognitive strategies in the classroom.
aa
aa
We recognised the importance of teaching metacognition explicitly
As teachers, we cannot possibly assume that all learners possess an innate ability in metacognition, a skill often determined by inherited traits or exposure to various models witnessed in the home. There is a real need for us to demonstrate how to employ metacognitive strategies in order to enhance the learning journey. Back in 1999, the DfEE stated,
“There is a need to be explicit about what we mean by better forms of thinking. If students are to become better thinkers – to learn meaningfully, to think flexibly and to make reasoned judgments – then they must be taught explicitly how to do it.”
I then illustrated this by showing a video clip on John Tomsett’s blog post (the student-student clip at the bottom of the post), where a student verbalises his own thought process, which he undertook to reach a correct mathematical answer. It is this environment of sharing thoughts and strategic steps that will give students the opportunity to question and reflect on their own thinking.
aa
We considered effective formative assessment techniques
Drawing on the wisdom of educational researchers such as Dylan Wiliam, we looked at why and how multiple choice questions can act as a great metacognitive teaching strategy for learning, posing a demand on learners to adopt higher order thinking techniques to reach a particular answer.
aa
aa
We learned that metacognitive strategies MUST be rooted within a subject domain
A tecnique that requires students to step back from the learning process and consider their own thinking can not be taught as a discrete tool, isolated from a subject area. The purpose of metacognition is to reflect on your own learning in order to enhance understanding and, by the nature of learning, this can only be attributed to a particular subject area at any given time. Without the foundation of subject knowledge, metacognitive tools could be considered somewhat redundant. As Joe Kirby, Assistant Headteacher and Head of English at Michaela Community School, Wembley, states,
“Over the last three decades, cognitive science has come to a conclusion that is scientifically robust: critical thinking skills require broad background knowledge. This is the reason why teaching abstract skills devoid of facts such as ‘evaluation’, generic strategies such as ‘skimming’ and unchallenging content like celebrities, TV, Twitter and Cirque du Freak doesn’t help academic achievement: the opportunity cost.”
He goes on to say,
“When my class struggles to think critically about a text, it’s often because I’ve starved them of the deep knowledge they need.”
aa

Questions that arose during the session:

Aren’t some of us employing some metacognitive strategies already in our classrooms?
Do some learners already possess strong metacognitive strategies and therefore require little instruction on how to employ?
Is there time to teach these strategies on top of curriculum content pressures?
How great is the role of genetics and do we have much influence?
What is the role of executive functioning in relation to this?
aa

It was a super first session with a great range of contributions from the teachers present. Biased for sure, I struggle to think of a better way to enhance our own classroom pedagogy than through collaboration with other teachers who possess a wealth of knowledge and experience that is different from our own. Surely gathering as a group of professionals to wrestle with these complex but game-changing concepts could potentially have significant impact on the lives of our learners.

	teachingbattleground on Top 6 FAQ: Synthetic Phon…
	Lydia on The elephant in the room: the…
	Kirsty McShane on The elephant in the room: the…
	Whole-School Literac… on 5 reasons why secondary school…
	Educational Reader… on Reading for pleasure chec…