Beautiful Works: Issue 01 by Beautiful Works

BW01

a 21st century learning journal

Pilot: January 2016

5. The craft of teaching. Oli de Botton 7. Beyond rags and riches: the reductive power of known narratives. Jeffrey Boakye 15. Structure vs automony. Can we facilitate total creative freedom in our classrooms? Emily Crowhurst 20. A problem shared is a problem halved. Rachael Futo 29. A culture of critique. Jess Hughes 37. To what extent can scaffolding increase the quality of classroom talk in Spanish? Joe Stewart 40. How can coaches monitor studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; progress in oracy and develop effective interventions? Heather Birtwistle

Editors: Joe Pardoe

@historypardoe

Jess Hughes

@jess_k_hughes

Contributors: Ahmet Ahmet Heather Birtwistle Jeffrey Boakye Emily Crowhurst Oli de Botton Meg Drummond Jade Fahie Rachael Futo Kate Gilbert Leah Gilliatt Anna Goodhand Jess Hughes Rosie Smyth Joe Stewart

44. Mastery vs spiral: a comparative analysis of baseline oracy assessment models. Ahmet Ahmet & Leah Gilliatt 52. How does talking like a mathematician improve group and individual problem solving skills? Rosie Smyth 64. How can I train my students to use questions to develop their own, and otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thinking? Kate Gilbert 71. Which strategies create and foster effective talk? Jade Fahie 74. To what extent does talk for writing impact upon analytical writing? Anna Goodhand 80. How can we encourage oracy in the home? Meg Drummond

Jess Hughes and Joe Pardoe explain the thinking behind this journal.

Editorial

Plato wrote that education is not about putting ‘knowledge into souls’ but that it is instead about ‘conversations of the souls… to turn the soul in directions it never considered turning’. Therefore, learning is about constant dialogue and questioning of ideas. It is about considering new and different perspectives, talking about personal experiences and questioning a point of view. The aim of this journal is to provide a new space for educators to talk about their experiences and provoke discussion and debate. This is not an attempt to promote one style over another or to say there is a correct way of doing things. In fact, it is the opposite - it is a chance to recognise that we all approach education from different perspectives and each of these perspectives has certain advantages and disadvantages. Different approaches work for different people in different circumstances - this is a platform to share all of these different experiences and to question your own approach as well as holding other approaches to account. This reflects Graham Nuttall’s views that there is no such thing as a good or bad teacher; education is dynamic and dependant of context. An approach which works in one context, might not necessarily work in another. A good lesson today, might not be a good lesson tomorrow. Therefore this is a context based discussion; this is what I tried, this worked, this didn’t, what do you think? This is why we believe integrity is so important to this journal. It is not about justifying a particular pedagogical approach, but more about examining why something did or did not work in your classroom. This journal also has much bigger aims. It is an attempt to shift the power in education back to those people at the front line. This is about local context studies. It is about classrooms. It is putting academic research into the hands of those living it. But it is also about empowering classroom teachers to feel that they can, and should, contribute to the wider academic debate. Finally it is a chance to lead an ‘examined life’. It is a chance to stop and think about learning and question the causes of successes and failures. Geoff Petty writes that education is at the same point medicine was in Medieval Britain: people are trying all kinds of cures to relieve symptoms and some succeed while others fail. If we stop and question the reasons behind successes and failures, then both outcomes are important for learning as a community of professionals. If we talk openly about what we are trying in our classrooms, examine our success and failures and are open to debate, this journal should contribute important perspectives to the education profession.

SCHOOL CULTURE

Oli de Botton introduces this edition of Beautiful Works and the craft behind it.

Expert teachers are craftsmen and women. They are not simply practitioners, rehearsing skill and embedding technique. They are not just thinkers, exploring ideas and furthering debate. Excellent teaching is craftsmanship: a constant reflection on the link between hand and head, problem solving and problem finding, deep thought and faithful execution. As Richard Sennett describes, “every good craftsman conducts a dialogue between concrete practices and thinking.” 1 And as craftsmen and women, brilliant teachers have that most cherished of ethics - an unending desire to do good work for its own sake.

School Culture: Oli de Botton

The craft of teaching

To improve teaching, schools need to nurture craftsmanship. They need to be workshops in the fullest sense of the word. Like today’s most successful organisations, they should be places of discovery and dialogue, autonomy and accountability, process and production. Environments where conflict leads to progress and authority is bestowed on those who can master the craft. In the school workshop practice leads to research which leads to changed practice (and round again), in the service of improving outcomes for children. There are things a school can do to foster of craftsmanship, and things that will mitigate against it (we know from trying them!) Top down managerialism, targets and data have their place, but only as a backstop. Too much factory line ‘Fordism’ and we loose the complexity of the craft. The complexity that means one strategy for one child may not work for another. The complexity that ensures that no lesson or project can ever be delivered and received in the same way twice. The complexity that seeks student motivation via the interplay between relationships, subject knowledge and pedagogy. This journal is our first attempt to reflect on the teaching craft we are seeking to develop. As a new 4-18 school we have had the extraordinary privilege to think afresh about our approaches. Guided by a view that schooling should be done differently to prepare children for the future and ensure greater equity, we have explored ‘oracy’, ‘project-based learning’ and ‘well-being’ in our first three years. We don’t have answers, but we do have reflections. Some of these are expressed in the following pages and include arguments for: - Using maths inspired problem solving approaches to add rigour to project based learning (and school leadership) - Deploying ‘reader colleagues’ with purpose to improving writing (and peer critique) - Developing oracy at home to develop oracy in school 1

The Craftsman, Sennett, R ( 2009)

School Culture: Oli de Botton

- Embedding harkness debates as a means of improving technical vocabulary The journal also includes trialled assessment tools, teaching strategies and reference to primary and secondary sources. Underpinning the production of this first volume of Beautiful Works, has been a new approach to teacher professional learning which we launched this year. Teachers new to the school have undergone six week modules in two of our key approaches (‘oracy’ and ‘project based learning’). Teachers advocated their learning by leading sessions for their peers and reflecting via presentations. The rest of the staff conducted structured research, culminating in the articles in this journal. This approach to professional learning was based on the following principles: Blended: Effective teacher learning combines immersive experience, practical application, robust dialogue and engagement with research and external experts. Project based: Modules, with clear enquiry questions and products promote ownership and curiosity. Outcome rather than input focused: Time can be liberated if outcomes are prescribed and timelines fixed. Professional sharing: All teachers should take responsibility for collating their work, presenting it in an accessible way and disseminating it widely. This is how we develop a strong community of practice. Peer-led and peer accountable: Deep professionalisation relies on peer review and critique. Differentiated: Teachers are at different stages of development in different aspects of their craft. The transition to this way of working has not always been smooth and we are tweaking as we go. However, our commitment to getting it right remains strong.

The search to improve teacher practice is the most important we face as a school. This is true at the system level too. Given that exit from and entry to the profession is marginal in terms of numbers, all schools need to consider Professor Dylan Wiliam’s ‘love the one you’re with’ strategy 2. Simply put, if great teaching transforms lives, then we need to make sure the vast majority of teachers are receiving the support and challenge they need to become great teachers, or better still craftsmen and women.

(Wiliam, 2013)

Jeffrey Boakye discusses the reductive power of known narratives. There’s something dangerous about mainstream thinking. The mainstream, in its control of discourse, seems to function through aggression. It takes, dominates, appropriates, dictates and ultimately decides what Is and what Isn’t, what should and shouldn’t be. In this, non-dominant voices find themselves at the mercy of lines that have been pre-defined by society’s rulers (pun intended). And like all rulers, mainstream discourses tend to be rigid, brittle, inflexible and terrified of being bent out of shape.

School Culture: Jeffrey Boakye

Beyond rags & riches

Before I take the metaphor too far and lose you completely, I should explain the reasoning behind this essay’s opening statement. A short while ago, I was busy recycling when I stumbled across a copy of ES magazine. A cursory flick-through revealed a feature spread on UK Grime artists Krept and Konan. If you don’t know, Krept and Konan are, to quote ES magazine, ‘Lords of Hiphop’. If you know a bit more, you’ll be aware that they are a duo of South London-based Grime MCs who came up through a largely underground following and are now making chart hits straddling both sides of the Atlantic. ES magazine is a free publication distributed to commuters across London.

South London-based Grime MCs Krept and Konan.

School Culture: Jeffrey Boakye

There’s nothing niche about it. For this particular publication to be featuring Krept and Konan was an exciting prospect for me. I’m no connoisseur, but I follow Grime and am fascinated by its relationship with the mainstream. Grime is, among many things, the soundtrack of vibrant disaffection; kind of violent, energetic, playful and agitated all at once. Arguably, it’s an urban-born protest genre, reaching into a long heritage of Black British music. To feature in a magazine designed to distract Jo and Joanna Average on their way home from the office was, for me, intriguing. Flick to the article in question and it was clear that Krept and Konan had ‘arrived’. The article was a huge showcase of their new-found success, as marked by the glossy pictures of them in designer clothes, standing next to Rolls Royces, posing with Rolexes and lounging in private jets. Beside a subheading that ran:

Growing up surrounded by gang crime, rappers Krept and Konan found escape in South London’s urban music scene. Now everyone from Kanye to Ed Sheeran is a fan and they’re poised to break America. They tell Richard Godwin about doing time, being chauffeured by Drake and why they just want to make their mums proud. And... I didn’t like it. Because... I expected it. Let me explain. Rags to riches The article is essentially a Rags to Riches story. More specifically, the exact same Rags to Riches story we have been presented with time and time again in the world of Hiphop. Socially deprived, economically impoverished criminal element picks up mic and makes millions through rap. The end. Superficially, this, like all Rags to Riches, is a tale to be celebrated. But we have to consider the context. The Hiphop Rags to Riches is a mainstream endorsement couched in the politics of disempowerment. Hiphop is beleaguered by the Rags to Riches narrative. Think about it. A successful Hiphop artist is almost expected to come from some kind of social deprivation, as though their salvation (and acceptance by the mainstream) is tied to their ability to overcome socioeconomic poverty. This is seriously reductive. If the mainstream only accepts the success of the ‘other’ when that success is linked to a Rags to Riches narrative, then the Rags become overly important, and the Riches become overly valued. It is no accident that the ES article purports to understand Krept and Konan, but the reality is far more complex. Strictly speaking, they aren’t even a Hiphop act, but the article headline calls them ‘Lords of Hiphop’. The mainstream brain has kicked into gear to understand, package and pigeon-hole them as an understandable ‘other’.

On Thursday 10th December 2015 I had the privilege to hear Breakin’ Convention leader Jonzi (@jonzid) speak about his life in Hiphop at a HiphopEd seminar. He wove a rich, varied tapestry of art and culture, high and low, that went so much further than the Rags to Riches narrative. Jonzi stated very

Narratives are nothing new. And nothing new is known through them. In his exhaustive and excellent study of narratives The Seven Basic Plots, Christopher Booker explores the notion that there are a finite number of narratives that we (as a species) continue to find and recreate to make sense of our selves and our stories. This is not offensive in itself, but paired with social inequalities and power paradigms? Something very dangerous can occur.

School Culture: Jeffrey Boakye

clearly that the commercialisation of Hiphop is not at the core of a culture that essentially requires no money to explore. So money cannot logically be an end goal. But, of course, Rags to Riches insists that a successful Hiphop artist is one that can stand next to a Rolls Royce in a gold watch.

Christopher Booker’s The Seven Basic Plots. Things fall apart Shortly after I presented some of these ideas at HiphopEd, Darren Chetty (HiphopEd and academic @rapclassroom) leaned in to offer that these politics of narrative are exactly the focus of Chinua Achebe’s classic novel Things Fall Apart. If you haven’t read it, the novel details the life and times of a tragic protagonist, Okonkwo of the Nigerian Igbo tribe. And after chapter upon chapter exploring the intersection of generations and cultural skirmishes alongside the moral fluctuations of a seriously enigmatic tragic hero, it ends with a musing from the British Commissioner:

One could almost write a whole chapter on him. Perhaps not a whole chapter but a reasonable paragraph, at any rate. There was so much else to include, and one must be firm in cutting out details. He had already chosen the title of the book, after much thought: The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger. As I say, there’s something dangerous about mainstream thinking. The Commissioner, in his representation of a colonial mindset, only understands what the thinks he knows of the Igbo. And of course he completely Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart.

School Culture: Jeffrey Boakye

underestimates the richness and humanity of their entire culture. His casual reduction of an entire culture and one man’s (unknown) story to something worthy of ‘a paragraph’ is at once depressing and terrifying. Beyond rags and riches The presentation of Krept and Konan as a simple example of Rags to Riches is similarly problematic. It ignores so much that it doesn’t know, and worse still, fails to ask the kind of questions that might offer a new perspective to the mainstream brain. For example, one of the defining characteristics of Krept and Konan as artists is a propensity for punning and wordplay, almost of the Christmas cracker variety. Their lyrics are riddled with puns and double entendres, some quite clever, some worthy only of a groan. It was this that singled them out in the Grime scene in the first place. I find this to be a defining feature of not only their work, but many Grime artists in general, something decidedly British that has roots in variety theatre and Stand-up as much as in MC heritage. But the mainstream lens isn’t wide enough for this conversation. Anything beyond the established narrative is a distraction and therefore irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that Krept and Konan might share some kind of postmodern lineage with punchline peddlars of old, because they are, quote ‘rappers [who] found escape in South London’s urban music scene.’ End of. Things falling apart in education? Admittedly, there must be a responsibility for those ‘in the know’ to offer these new perspectives. But the marginalised voice is rarely given an opportunity to be heard, listened to and acknowledged. This conflict comes into sharp relief with regard to formal education. During my presentation, I played an impromptu game of ‘Cohort Bingo’ with the audience. Call out as many cohorts as you can, as discussed by educators in educational institutions. They came thick and fast. EAL. Black Boys. G&T. Looked After. SEN. Radicalised. At Risk. NEET. White Working Class. Etc. Schools, by identifying these cohorts, are at risk of doing to children (and by extension whole sections of society) what the Commissioner does to Okwonko in the final paragraph of Things Fall Apart. As soon as we decide what a someone’s narrative is, we deny them the right to shape their own story. And worse still, we ignore their story as it might have existed so far. I’m finding that Education is treated as one big Rags to Riches arc, with students too often treated as broken Cinderellas in need of the Prince Charming of assessment to get them to the university ball. As a result, we focus too intently on the Rags element. Can they read? Are they poor? Are they naughty? Are they clever? Do people like them get the Riches we want them to get? All of this stops us from asking more profound questions about their journey.

This cohort-heavy approach to education comes from a fascination with the other, and fascination and fear are close bed-fellows. The Commissioner’s motivation is to pacify ‘primitive tribes’ largely because colonists are always

Extract from article by Carleth O’Brien (Carwarden House Headteacher) in TES.

School Culture: Jeffrey Boakye

afraid of the unknown. The dark threat needs to be tamed, right? And the first step towards that taming is understanding. But this, I feel, is the most dangerous step, when ‘understanding’ is a construct built upon ideological foundations. Even the most benevolent teacher mindset can find itself guilty of this. Many conversations about children at school start from a premise of deficit, finding problems that need to be overcome and mitigating against them. This, in part, is what is responsible for the cohort-fixation syndrome described earlier. In a recent TES article Carwarden House Headteacher Carleth O’Brien offered that we might ‘subliminally limit expectations’ of students with SEND, simply by naming them as such.

In this, traditional modes of assessment play a significant role. Data driven assessment, in its desire to standardise and manage progress, takes views students as normal or other, working from a position of pre-defined understanding. Far more useful, but for messier to manage, is a formative approach to assessment, in which narratives can be allowed to flourish, led by ongoing interactions between teacher and student rather than preset expectations. In my own practice, I have found that class profiles actually evolve during the course of the year, growing in unknown and unknowable directions, fuelled by teacher engagement, monitoring and assessment. This allows for a fresher perspective and more open minded approach to students as individuals - personalisation of distinct selves rather than differentiation for presumed groups. For these reasons, educationalists have a serious responsibility to challenge mainstream discourses in exactly the same way that Chinua Achebe challenged race/colonial discourses in his novel (and how I should probably challenge ES magazine by writing an essay on the British wit of Grime). Until then, we will be at the mercy of accepted narratives that shackle far more than they liberate. Definitely something to think about.

PROJECT BASED LEARNING

Emily Crowhurst asks if we can, or should, facilitate total creative freedom in the classroom.

Project Based Learning advocates student autonomy and the creation of a culture that will allow students to lead their own learning. I will explore the extent to which we should put learning into the hands of our students. Is there such a thing as too much creative freedom? How do we maximise its effectiveness? Music projects lend themselves to creative freedom and exploration but, as music teachers, we are often concerned with the acquisition and development of mental and physical skills as key indicators that musicians are emerging in our classrooms, and that they are ready to be ‘free’ creative thinkers. It is this which has prompted me to ask questions about how far student led learning can and should be pushed. It is reasonable to assume that most practitioners strive to create a culture where the skills emerge and evolve through the act of immersion; through talk and through doing. But does this really happen as we might think, or do students just learn to ‘get by’ convincingly (arguably a more useful life skill) rather than really mastering those techniques? Indeed, does this even matter? Of course, this all depends on one’s vision of music education, its purpose, its ideals and its values. My investigation explores the way contrasting levels of scaffolding and autonomy impact the outcomes and student perceptions of two Year 9 classes participating in the same samba project.

Project Based Learning: Emily Crowhurst

Structure vs autonomy

Research question The below research question and subsidiary questions were devised in response to initial thinking and reading on autonomy and structure in the classroom setting. Some specific and broader predictions on these questions follow thereafter. Can we facilitate total creative freedom in our classrooms? Should we? Subsidiary questions What is the impact of different levels of creative freedom on the way students reflect on the process of their work, their own skills and the end product? Are there certain things students need to know/master before they embark on musical creativity more freely? Predictions - Both classes will create effective end products, however, in Class 1 the outcome will be harder to predict by the teacher owing to the absence of structure and scaffolding. - Class 1 will feel a greater sense of ownership, motivation and independence over their learning owing to the greater allowance of creative freedom.

Project Based Learning: Emily Crowhurst

- Learning will be easier to track and therefore differentiate in Class 2 owing to the increase of teacher control over the way creative learning is structured. - Some Class 1 students will feel isolated/unmotivated to progress without more direction. - Class 1 students will be stimulated by freedom but this will go in waves. Methodology This study has been executed from a constructivist stance, rejecting the notion of objective meaning in favour of that which is individually constructed. Whilst this poses an obvious weakness in terms of the lack of breadth with which findings can be applied, the depth of investigation in this small-scale focus allows for specific and personal outcomes to be observed that may in turn result in broader assumptions and further investigation. It also takes an interpretivist stance owing to the nature of the investigation and its specific, humanist context. The two classes were approached in a contrasting manner by the teacher in order to facilitate varying degrees of creative control amongst the students. Both classes were required to compose and perform a class samba piece over three double periods as one of their project outcomes for the term. They both had exposure to samba playing for three weeks prior to this process. Class 2 was delivered in a more typical way, allowing for creative freedom within a structured framework, whilst Class 1 were given the outcome requirements and resources and left to structure their own learning. Essentially, the class was left to self-organise as a means of observing autonomy in the classroom. Over the course of three weeks each student completed the same questionnaire at the end of each double lesson, answering five qualitative questions followed by a likert scale style final question about motivation. In addition students filled out self-assessment sheets against skills criteria and video recordings were made of material they had composed each week. Research summary (raw data) The questionnaire responses given by students during the investigation are recorded below. Week 1: Student comments from Class 1 (total autonomy) Q1/2: Were there any points when you felt you needed more freedom/support? If so explain how:

“I don’t need any more freedom in the music lesson” “I think we had a lot of freedom” “I needed more support to deal with people talking over others” “I needed more support when we were all speeding up and no one would listen” “I felt the amount of freedom was just right” “We didn’t need any more freedom because we got to choose the methods of learning and how we worked effectively” “I think we should be sent to work in rooms more in order to work as a team” “I didn’t feel like I needed extra support in any part of the lesson. I got all the help from the students” “I needed help to get the class quiet and to come up with rhythms” “When everyone was trying to work on their own thing we needed the teacher to help

Q4. How do you feel about what the class created?

“I feel good because we created our own piece of music” “I feel more confident” “We made a piece, but we need to practice and make it better” “I feel proud that we were able to do it” “It was OK but too much was going on. I got confused” “I enjoyed it very much” “It was really good but we need to tighten it up and make it simpler” “It wasn’t that great because we couldn’t handle it” “It was alright but it needs more practice” “I think it ended in chaos” “I think it is work in progress” “I felt as if it could be better but it will gradually be good” “At the moment it sounds messy” “At the moment it sounds a bit like a train wreck!” “It sounded terrible” “It was up to scratch even though we had little time” “I felt it was good but it could be cleaner” “It was messy” “I think if we practice more we will get it on point” “It was a good start” “I feel great” “It was very loud”

Project Based Learning: Emily Crowhurst

everyone listen” “I felt we needed more support with the timing and in general to help us create our own samba piece” “Yes because sometimes people just started playing without listening” “We needed more support when we were trying to put all our ideas together” “We needed more support when I chose to break off into the practice rooms” “I felt like we needed Miss Crowhurst’s help when a leader or someone had an idea and the class needed to be quiet”

Q5. How did you feel about your own contribution to the lesson? Number of positive reflections:15 Number of indifferent reflections:2 Number of negative reflections: 6 Student comments from Class 2 (creativity within a structured framework) Q1/2: Were there any points when you felt you needed more freedom/support? If so explain how:

“I don’t think I needed more support” “No, the lesson was fun” “I needed help when I was practicing in the room today because I couldn’t understand how to get the sound right” “It would be good if we could go into the practice rooms more to rehearse where it’s less noisy” “I feel I had enough freedom during the lesson” “No because we were given time to make our own rhythms” “I don’t need any more freedom” “In my opinion I had all the freedom I needed” “No because we all managed to share our ideas”

Project Based Learning: Emily Crowhurst

Q4. How do you feel about what the class created?

“I enjoyed working with this class” “It sounded pretty good” “Good. It’s powerful” “It was great and we did it in unison” “The class created an amazing piece with all the instruments” “I feel that everyone got a chance to share their ideas with the group” “ I think that it is good but there is still room for improvement” “I feel happy” “I think it was good but if we had more time we could have made it longer” “We had lots of ideas and we created good work overall” “I feel normal because it is still the same music but with a twist” “It was creative” “I think we worked well as an ensemble” “Really good” “I feel that the class worked together well” “It was fun and enjoyable” “Very good because it’s creative” “It was generally very good” “I feel happy because it shows what we have learnt and achieved” Q5. How did you feel about your own contribution to the lesson? Number of positive reflections: 11 Number of indifferent reflections: 6 Number of negative reflections: 3

Analysis of findings Class 2 were more consistently happy with the amount of freedom they had, and despite being in a more structured environment, frequently commented on desiring no additional freedom. Class 1 had more extreme reactions to complete autonomy with regards to their feelings about the class’s output. Autonomy was evidently incredibly effective and rewarding for some, but frustrating for others Both classes had high numbers of positive reflections on their own contribution, although there were more extremes within Class 1. Class 2 was almost unanimously positive with regards to their perceptions of what the class created. Class 1 had a greater variety of responses with some extreme positives and some extreme negatives. Both classes had high numbers of students who felt very motivated or motivated to develop and improve their samba piece, although two more students in Class 1 than Class 2 expressed that they felt unmotivated. When linked with their responses to Q4 about their own contributions, there was a relationship between this and not feeling able to contribute or having their ideas rejected by the class. When Class 2 expressed a desire for more freedom, it was often linked to having more time in smaller groups to work more independently. When Class 1 expressed a desire for more support it was often linked to group management rather than a feeling of having insufficient skills or ideas (although this was mentioned by one student with regards to idea generation). Both classes were happy overall with the amount of structure/autonomy they had, even though they experienced these in very different ways. At the mid-way

Discussion and conclusions Despite a contrast in learning environments with regards to autonomy and structure, students shared similarly high levels of motivation and felt positive about their contributions and the amount of support/freedom they were given. Outcomes were also broadly similar, although the processes each class went through were contrasting, and much more uncomfortable for me as the teacher when entirely student led. Overall the findings indicate that whilst there are skills to be gained from autonomy within the classroom, structure and scaffolding, when carefully managed, can still allow for the creative control students desire, whilst allowing the teacher to maintain the ability to engineer the best possible learning outcomes. Both sets of students have had very different experiences, both largely positive and therefore worth acknowledging as examples of good practise worthy of a place in our classrooms. So if we ask ourselves â&#x20AC;&#x153;can we facilitate total freedom in our classrooms effectively?â&#x20AC;? then, with the establishment of a class culture in which a community of learners is established, the answer is, of course, yes. Should we? When we want to challenge our students in this particular way or offer them the truest sense of ownership then again, yes, but such ownership takes time and a limitation of this short term study is that we were not able to see the more long term contrasts/benefits of total autonomy vs structured learning at this point. It is also important to recognise that creative freedom does not necessarily mean that structure and direction is not necessary, and the teacher, as facilitator of learning, has a careful balancing act to execute in order to enable ownership of learning in a way that is at its most effective and not simply because we think we should.

Project Based Learning: Emily Crowhurst

point, video footage suggests that Class 2 have so far created a more developed piece and the group as a whole looks much more cohesive. However, both classes still have a further double period to bring ideas together and one would expect a process in which students take complete control to take longer.

Further questions for research The research provides a very small insight into the contrasting results of structure vs autonomy in the classroom, and has already prompted a number of further questions for research. It is the aim of this research to now dig deeper and embark on a more long term investigation in order to gain more credible results that can applied more broadly. What are the implications for class outcomes and motivation if the contrasting environments of autonomy and structure were continued over a longer period of time? Is it more important for students to feel they have ownership of their learning than to have created something successfully via a carefully planned route by the teacher?

Project Based Learning: Rachael Futo

A problem shared...

...is a problem halved. Rachael Futo explores the role of collaborative problem solving. This article is about the role of collaborative problem solving, not restricted simply to a maths context but throughout every element of the school. Problem solving is required in coaching relationships, classrooms and issues facing staff and leadership. This article draws upon research I have undertaken by observing a consultancy firm, talking to employers and trying out materials in my own classroom practice. Why is problem solving important? There are at least three reasons that schools should raise the teaching of problem solving up to the very top of their agenda. Problem solving is: - A crucial ‘success skill’ for learning (requiring content knowledge) - A top priority for employers - A ‘fundamental human skill’ (not just a maths tool) John Larmer includes ‘critical thinking/problem solving’ as one of three crucial success skills, suggesting that the development of these skills is at the heart of PBL and therefore at the centre of the learning for the students. Importantly he also notes that “success skills can only be taught through the acquisition of content knowledge and understanding”. So problem solving cannot be taught in the absence of content, an area where past programmes in ‘thinking skills’ and ‘learning to learn’ have often fallen short. Forbes Magazine, citing a 2014 survey of 260 employers, describe the ability to solve problems as one of the top two skills demanded by employers. Not only do students need these skills for future career success but given that School 21 is sending Year 10 students into the world of work in small teams, it is essential to prepare them with the ability to problem solve in these groups in order to be successful in a real world context. Thirdly, problem solving does not just exist in the domain of maths, but it permeates all areas of life. Jordan Ellenberg, in his book How to Not Be Wrong, suggests that problem solving is a fundamental human skill that we use to understand the world around us. In essence, it is everywhere; “there is structure

in the world; we can hope to understand some of it and not just gape at what our senses present us; our intuition is stronger with a formal exoskeleton than without one”.

Why collaborative problem solving in particular? In each of the above studies, the importance of collaboration is a recurring theme. The only skill trumped by problem solving in the NACE survey cited by Forbes is the “ability to work in a team structure”. ‘Collaboration’ is another success skill for John Larmer. In addition, at School 21 it appears to already be

In my initial research I was interested in finding out which of the problem solving strategies students used the most. The results (Fig 1) suggests that students found engaging with someone else’s strategy the most useful approach to problem solving. This highlighted for me two things; that collaborative problem is already happening to some extent (and successfully at least in some cases) and that purposeful talk within the classroom, and in this instance maths specifically, has been vital to facilitate this.

Project Based Learning: Rachael Futo

the most popular problem solving approach.

Fig 1: Survey of responses from students within the maths classroom.

Finally, perhaps the element that will finally shift collaborative problem solving into the spotlight most of all: Pisa have included it in their 2015 tests. What do we mean by ‘Collaborative Problem Solving’? In 2003, Pisa introduced problem solving into their testings and then for the first time they have now, in 2015, introduced a collaborative problem solving element. This will mean that students across the world will be measured on their ability not only to problem solve as individuals but also in groups. Pisa define collaborative problem solving as “the capacity of an individual to effectively engage in a process with two or more agents” to “share understanding and effort” to “pool [...] knowledge, skills and efforts to reach the solution”. Specifically, they define it as requiring three core competencies; - Establishing and maintaining a shared understanding - Taking appropriate action - Establishing and maintaining team organisation. Possible approaches, fieldwork and observations Although structuring a problem is in essence the application of a mathematical way of thinking to a real world problem, it seems reasonable to investigate

Project Based Learning: Rachael Futo

problem solving approaches that are used beyond school and maths classrooms alone. Entrepreneurs and strategic consultants are two groups who are often called upon to address complex problems. As part of my research, I have studied some problem solving methods that they use in collaborative ways in their work. These are: - Entrepreneur/Innocent Smoothies: ‘The Four Corners Approach’ - Consultancy (e.g., McKinsey & Co.): ‘The Issue tree’ Here I will discuss each approach, how they worked in their original context and how they can be useful in the classroom. 1. The Four Corners Approach The principle behind the four corners approach is to look at a problem from at least four completely different perspectives. This was introduced by Innocent as a reaction to teams presenting different versions of essentially the same approach rather than providing genuine alternative options. Richard Reed came into School21 to run a creative problem solving workshop and gave our students a problem that he had faced whilst CEO of that company. The problem set was a real problem they had faced. The price of fruit was increasing and therefore the costs of producing the smoothies was rising. However they didn’t really want to raise the retail price above the £2.99 it had been for several years. What should they do? Classroom uses

Fig 2 illustrates the output from the student groups using the ‘four corners’ approach. The option Innocent actually used was to sell bottles at the same price but make the bottles smaller.

As with maths problems there is more than one way to solve a problem and what I like about this strategy is that you can differentiate the corners and give the students roles to be able to solve the same problem. An example would be; “I think of a number times it by three, add two to it and I get 38. What was my original number?”. One student must solve this using cubes, another using bar models, another may use algebra and the other student may use guess and check. Collaborative problem solving does not mean that the students must solve

Fig 3: Students work on matching the cards together and showing bar models and building blocks of the same problem.

An adaptation of this approach would be that each corner builds from the last corner. One way in which I have done this within lessons is by handing out roles to the students; what I know, ideas of what I need to do, solving it, solution. Each student is responsible for an area that builds on the previous and they can go back and check. Another way is by getting the students to work collaboratively on filling in the graphic organiser in teams of 3. I found this structure to be really useful for the students and they were easily able to then apply this whilst working independently. Fig 4: Use of four corners using a progressive strategy.

Project Based Learning: Rachael Futo

the problem in the same way but have a shared understanding in the final goal of the problem. A similar example is below.

2. Issue trees An issue tree is used to help you break down the problem into more manageable, discrete chunks. During my research phase, I observed a problem solving session at a consultancy firm using an issue tree for a project they were working on at the time. There were five of us seated around the table and the project question was articulated. The methodology I observed went as follows; i. Thinking time - defining the problem The purpose of this stage was to allow every member of the team an opportunity to have something to contribute. Some of the members of the team like to think independently first before going to a group situation. I shall discuss this point further in the risks section of this report.

Project Based Learning: Rachael Futo

One member of the team was asked to present their interpretation of the problem. This allowed the team to see if they were all on the same page. They redefined the problem through discussion, then they were able to present the next strands. ii. Creating the issue tree Each branch of the issue tree represents a defined element of the original problem. The branches must be ‘MECE’ which stands for Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive. This essentially means that each branch of the tree must be distinct from the others, but that taken together, they represent a complete picture of the problem. What I liked about this approach was that by organising the problem in such a way, the team can then take a section of the problem each to work on without stepping on each others toes. This seemed highly effective when working in an environment with short deadlines. iii. Considering impact After the issue tree has been discussed, reviewed and critiqued, the team move forward with looking at which areas will have the most impact and the relative feasibility. Evaluating this at the start helps with understanding the vision of what they intend on achieving in the project. What I found interesting about this session was how effective it was in creating a comprehensive list of ideas then structuring those ideas. It struck me that this could be useful not just for the students but in terms of the teachers and school leadership and our approach to complex problems. Another observation was the language I heard: ‘pull in, pull out’, ‘comfortable with complexity’, ‘zoom in, zoom out’. This is very similar to the language we use in our department whilst talking about problem solving. In practice Where I see this as useful in the classroom, is during project based learning. An example that springs to mind is the Arts/History project I recently viewed at the local cinema. Students were asked “What was it like to live in London in the 50’s and 60’s?”. Students came up with a number of areas which they would investigate: popular culture, the role of women, racism, the economy, politics, abolition of the death penalty, attitudes to sex and homosexuality. After dividing this project up into manageable but important chunks, the students came back together in their teams to produce a documentary.

One challenge and opportunity we face is creating projects with rigor that allow the students to problem solve in authentic ways. An example of a problem based project recently carried out was ‘How can we create a haven for wildlife?’. If this were a genuine problem, we would have allowed students more freedom to investigate ways in which to attract wildlife to the school garden. We, however, had an agenda to lead students to building an allotment plot (which was very successful) and as a result, my concern is that the problem solving for the question was done by the teacher. Problem solving did however occur in the

Whilst I was with the consultancy firm, they also helped me work on an intervention programme for my year 10’s to improve their progress within a year. Here is an example of that problem solving session: Fig 5: Example of an issue tree used for structuring Y10 intervention.

Project Based Learning: Rachael Futo

project when we told the students they had 300 cm of wood and a limited amount of angles to make a plot. These constraints allowed them the freedom to create the box to suit their specific designs; those with the wrong measurements would be physically impossible. This project is an example of where the essential question is not necessarily the problem that is being solved. This poses a key question for me; can we create genuine problems and allow students the freedom to solve them in whichever ways they break them down into on their issue tree?

Applying this learning to my classroom practice Working alongside the maths department, we came up with our ‘essentials for problem solving’. We agreed on the following elements being particularly important; zooming in and out of the question, making links to prior knowledge, having a process where you can keep going back to the start and chunking the problem. Jeremy Judge, a maths teacher at School 21, suggested the metaphor of a mountain. Here is an example of what we have produced. Fig 6: Problem Solving Mountain learning mat.

Project Based Learning: Rachael Futo

Students in my classes were put into carefully selected problem solving groups and were introduced to the Problem Solving Mountain. Initially we spent time demonstrating the different strategies and how they are helpful. The students were then given complex problems to solve together using the Problem Solving Mountain. When students were stuck on a particular element of the problem, they were asked to take a step back and use the Problem Solving Mountain to identify which stage they were at. Often here they would need to label what strategies have they done so far.

Fig 8: Example of building a model and drawing it out.

Fig 7: Example of testing out an idea.

Fig 10: Example of students generalising to algebra.

Fig 9: Example of drawing a diagram.

Project Based Learning: Rachael Futo

Fig 11: Example of students labelling their work and problem solving together - a video was also made of a student explaining his strategy to another group.

Student feedback

“I felt more confident working with my team and on the whiteboard by drawing pictures” “I was comfortably drawing pictures on the whiteboard because its easier to see” “I think we learnt a lot about each other’s strengths and weaknesses” “Problem Solving Mountain helped us as the three of us had different methods: x liked to use algebra, y liked a table and z likes bar models but we can see easily what each other are doing and because you know it makes you feel more confident. I think we showed more confidence today as a group. We also identified with whose method what the easiest.” Other similar models Coaching model The Grow Model, developed by Sir John Whitmore in the 1980s, works around Goals, Reality, Options and Will. This is similar to our problem solving strategy; clarifying the problem, understanding the problem by breaking it down and linking to prior knowledge, finding ways in which we can solve the problem and deciding what the plan of action is. Though coaching is seen as a more personal and 1:1 approach, if we view coaching as problem solving, coaching then has a formal structure and basis. Two potential risks 1. Group Think: How do you avoid group think with students are working collaboratively? Group think is a term coined by psychologist Irving Janis (1972). It is where a group of people desire conformity and harmony and therefore will not present alternative cases. Though within the classroom this is not uncommon and as practitioners we have strategies for dealing with this, is it enough? Are the students actively engaging with the problem?

Project Based Learning: Rachael Futo

2. Introverted versus extroverted thinkers: How does collaborative problem solving work if you have an introverted personality type? From what we know about extroverts, collaborative problem solving appears to work in their favour but what happens to the introverts within the classroom? This is something that was addressed in the problem solving meeting I observed. You will remember the first step of the ‘Issue Tree’ model that I documented was personal independent time. The team I worked with understood each other’s needs and used this to their advantage. Within the classroom however, the students are not always clear on how each other like to work and how they can get the best from each other. Questions arising What is unique about collaborative problems solving? Are there certain problems that should be solved together and others separately? In conclusion If we believe that collaborative problem solving skills are essential both for the students in school (whether in maths, during a project or in another aspect of school life) and for success in the world beyond, then it seems reasonable to explore problem solving methods used in the outside world. In this paper I explored just two, ‘Four corners’ and ‘Issue Trees’. Both appear to have applications in the classroom. In addition, the considerations that the real world makes, such as avoiding ‘group think’ and marginalisation of ‘introverted thinkers’, should also be made within the classroom context. References: http://math.about.com/od/Problem-Solving/ss/Examples-of-Problem-Solving-with-4-Block.htm http://directorymathsed.net/download/Zollman.pdf http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2015/04/15/the-college-degrees-and-skills-employersmost-want-in-2015/ http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/problem-solving.html http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20 Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/ct.php http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/10/11/the-10-skills-employers-most-want-in-20something-employees/ http://bie.org/blog/gold_standard_pbl_essential_project_design_element

How can we create a culture of ‘readercolleagues’ within the classroom, asks Jess Hughes. After a year working on critique, I have a year 8 class who can give kind, helpful and specific critique and actively self regulate unkindness and guard against vague comments without my intervention. They have learnt to give and receive constructive criticism; the environment is one of safety and (generally) openness to feedback; students see the value of critique and are on task and focussed in sessions. Why then had I been so frustrated by critique in my classroom? I believe that I had created a glass ceiling of critique in my classroom. Students were very ‘able’ critiquers and drafts were improving but it was not actually helping them to become better writers. I think the problem lies in the version of critique seen in ‘Austin’s Butterfly’.

Project Based Learning: Jess Hughes

A culture of critique

To explain this, I need to return to when I first started using PBL critique protocols in 2014. My initial difficulties were around getting students to give ‘specific’ comments. In my bid to increase the specificity of student critique comments, I looked carefully at Ron Berger’s Austin’s Butterfly, trying to replicate in my students the highly accurate comments that Austin’s peers give. However, in this, I lost sight of the true purpose of critique: to help the writer to improve their work, and improve their skills as a writer.

Fig 1: Austin’s Butterfly. The model next to Austin’s final draft.

This sense of ‘improving the work’ is of course clear in Austin’s Butterfly, where a first grade student in Boise, Idaho redrafts a scientific drawing of a local butterfly based on peer critique comments, culminating in a stunningly accurate drawing. His work improves beyond recognition in the 6 drafts he makes. However, in ‘Austin’s Butterfly’ (which is incidentally, an excellent model for good critique practice and in particular, how to be ‘kind helpful and specific’)

Project Based Learning: Jess Hughes

there is one limiting factor that does not apply to writing; Austin’s aim was to create an exact copy of the Tiger Swallowtail he was tasked with drawing. His peers were feeding back on what they saw in front of them – on where a line was placed and how pointed a wing was compared to the original. They did not address the thinking of the creator and his broader skills: his creativity, his structuring, his composition, his tonal shifts. The list could go on. This is the key difference in critique of writing. My students have no exact copy to recreate. Their ‘models’ are just that - a model - and therefore, their critique cannot be the same as that of Austin’s classmates.1 In “Recovering the Conversation: A Response to ‘Responding to Student Writing’”, Carol Kutz claims that, “Multiple drafts [allow for] dialogic respectful exchanges between writer and reader”, and states that teachers should “become reader-colleagues for their students. [...] Honest, focussed critique addresses thinking and composition”. I would go beyond this and say that everyone in the room should be a ‘reader-colleague’ for each other. Indeed, in critiquing writing I would argue that the key to success lies in the exact shape of the role the critique takes on. They are not, as in Austin’s Butterfly, telling the creator how to match the original with perfect accuracy. They are more than this; they have opinions, responses and emotions; they are a reader. Austin’s butterfly is a ‘commacop’ critique; those students are copying a model, and correcting when the creator moves away from that model. Students of course need to be able to error correct with this level of detail: it is a vital tool for any writer, and being able to do so in someone else’s work is often a step in being able to self-correct such mistakes. But with many students, this ‘comma-cop’ critique is the limit of their suggestions. These students give no really transformative suggestions because they put a restriction on how they can respond; they are hunting for a mistake, and when they find it, they consider their work done. Interestingly from the student interviews I carried out, in classes where this ‘comma-cop’ approach was common, students found critique inherently less useful than amongst their ‘reader-colleague’ peers. Nancy Sommers discusses in ‘Across the Drafts’, “the power of feedback, its

absence or presence, to shape their writing experiences. As one student told me, ‘without a reader, the whole process is diminished’”. This reveals the answer to successful critique of writing. The critiquer must be the reader; it is they who gives the writing process purpose. How then, do we make sure that both the teacher and students are readers as opposed to markers of student work? The answer to this must lie in the way students respond to each other’s work in critique; if they respond purely as a marker, they ‘diminish’ the writing process. Instead we must ensure students respond as a reader does - on what appeals to, challenges and resonates with us. Of course, there is a place for a more ‘copy-

Importantly, this does not in any way reduce the need for a good model in writing. In fact, I’d argue it only increases the need for this. Without a strong model of their desired genre, students would have nothing to base their critique comments in or craft their improvements around. This is a given in any English classroom, PBL based or not, and a detailed discussion on what models to select can be found in Ron Berger, Leah Rugen and Libby Woodfin’s Leaders of their own Learning (2014, Jossey-Bass). 1

This article is not a blueprint for ‘best practise’ in critique. It is not an evaluation of critique models and it does not make any conclusions regarding the format critique should take in the classroom. It is important to assert here that this article will not engage in discussing the merits of a gallery critique over a wholeclass discursive critique. This is a reflection on my explorations into changing the critique culture in my classroom from one of ‘box-ticking’ and ‘errorspotting’ to one of genuine reader response; a culture of true ‘reader-colleagues’ who critique work in a way that will be genuinely beneficial to the writer. Before embarking on this classroom-based research, I made 3 predictions: 1. Student writing will make greater improvement if they can act as ‘reader colleagues’ as opposed to ‘comma cops’ when they critique. 2. Student writing will improve when teachers and students stop correcting student work. 3. Students are good at following a critique ‘process’ but not giving critique that impacts across drafts.

Project Based Learning: Jess Hughes

editing’ critique, but this should not be the go to critique method.

Over the course of 16 weeks I conducted this research over 3 of my classes. They were groups from year 8, 9 and 10, with varying reading/writing abilities and varying levels of experience in critique practice. In this time: I undertook a series of student interviews, finding out what students felt about critique and its usefulness and mapping how this changed over time; I collected data around their writing skills; and I trialled critique methods, using focus groups and students reflections along with hard data to map impact. I began with all 3 classes checking the embedded nature of kind helpful and specific and ensure students had retained critique understanding from last year. I then explored in all 3 classes what impact changes to critique protocols, restrictions and purposes did to their comments, and in turn to the changes made in their work. With every class, I monitored impact on writing accuracy and voice and also tracked students’ reflections and views on what they had got out of each critique. From what emerged from this classroom-based research across the groups, what was most interesting for me was revealed in a series of critique explorations carried out with my year 9 class. This (which I will go on to explain) allowed me to look at ensuring that the changes students make to their work based on feedback impacted not just on that piece of work, but across the drafts. It revealed that they would make lasting changes based on comments that questioned the very decision making process behind their writing – not just the piece of writing itself. As Sommers maintains, there is a “profound influence […] created through feedback […], not only upon students’ writing development, but also upon students’ sense of themselves as thinkers. […] When students respond

to feedback as an invitation to contribute to something of their own to an academic conversation, they do so because students imagine their instructors as readers waiting to learn from their contributors, not readers waiting to report what they have done wrong.” This points to students asking question of the writer, rather than editing in a correction noticed by their critique.

Project Based Learning: Jess Hughes

I used these critique sessions with year 9 to experiment with this idea of responding only as a reader. For this to happen, I asked students to frame each of their comments as a question. Statements were banned, opinions removed and advice dropped. Students found this initially confusing (‘We need to give a WWW and an EBI as well right?’). I set students a clear and restrictive critique structure; they could only pose questions and highlight writing that interested them. No statements, advice or opinions were allowed. These restrictions were born out of a conversation with a colleague in the English team who was trialling a similar approach in his response to the writing of his students. It was fascinating to see the transformation of student comments with these simple restrictions (see Fig 2).

Fig 2: One student’s response to another’s work under this ‘interest/question’ framework. The questions she asks address the very thinking behind the writer’s decisions. They make the link between reader and writer clear to the writers and make the idea of ‘reader’ incredibly tangible. None of this was written by a teacher.

The student reflections on this critique were very telling; students said they enjoyed hearing and were sometimes surprised by the things that other students picked out. It helped them define what to keep and what to edit and they found having this pure reader response challenged their own pre-decided alterations. Many (though not all – work on questioning certainly needs to be done) of the questions students were asking were really challenging writers to consider the reader in their decision making - it gave their writing an audience, and therefore improved their understanding of the mutually enhancing process of reading and writing - in their redraft, you could see many students writing like a reader. This continued and grew across the term and culminated in students making clear choices with their reader in mind, talking about what they wanted the reader to think and becoming less clichéd and forced in style. I made sure that my marking during this term matched this interest/question model; I too only posed questions and highlighted what interested me. I found this liberating. No longer did I feel the need to identify where a student had correctly used a semi-colon or written a simile. Instead I was completely free to highlight or probe anything and everything that interested me. My responses felt far more honest, free and surprisingly, made marking a far more enjoyable

Interestingly, a week after the first ‘interest/question’ critique, I removed the constraints and asked students in the same group to carry out a gallery critique. Students set a critique question around their work and were tasked with giving kind, specific and helpful comments. This was the only restriction they were given. Given the high quality critique from the previous week (shown above), the results were somewhat surprising (see Fig 3). Students were suddenly giving much less useful critique (see prediction 3) than the comments given when students asked to act as a reader:

Project Based Learning: Jess Hughes

experience.

Fig 3: Students’ responses during the gallery critique. Note the focus on small scale change rather than process.

It was as if they resorted to an old inbuilt mode of giving feedback which was inherently unhelpful beyond the draft itself. Nothing focussed on process or style. Everything was short term and narrow. Overridingly critique comments were unspecific and far less challenging to the writer than the open ’questioning’ critique of the week before. So why is this? Is this far less useful critique born of how we format critique across the school, related to their perceptions of critique or their past experiences of critique? This clearly foregrounds the need to instil the ‘reader-colleague’ restrictions spoken of above. If we can change the culture of all peer-peer and teacher-student interactions relating to critique, we will see a significant impact not only from draft to draft but also across drafts. But to do this, we need to influence each critique interaction that takes place. This research led me to 3 important conclusions, which will help in instilling a culture of ‘reader-colleagues’ as opposed to ‘comma-cops’. 1. Purpose is key Without a clear ‘reader-colleague’ focussed purpose behind a critique, students, and particularly weaker writers, will revert to copy-editing. When I restricted critique sessions around ‘what interests you’ students seemed freed up to respond far more naturally. The old mantra ‘structure liberates’ seems apt here.

Project Based Learning: Jess Hughes

2. Students should pose ideas as questions, never as statements Students should be encouraged to pose their feedback as questions rather than as statements (e.g. ‘Why have you used a short sentence here?’ instead of ‘I like this short sentence.’) This seems to have a double-edged benefit: it forces the person receiving the feedback to make bigger changes to their writing style as it gets to the very heart of their process, which should impact across the drafts and also appears to assist in making the student giving the feedback avoid copy editing. 3. Students must be able to identify the difference between copy editing and giving ‘reader-colleague’ advice. It needs to be made explicitly clear to students when they are taking each role and restrictions needs to match which of these roles students are taking. To coin a phrase used by a colleague in relation to PBL in general, I feel critique should be itinerant; the structure should be tight with a clear focus, but the critique output, the formative comments, must be flexible, ready to move in an unexpected direction and always reactive to what is put in front of them. If a student arrives at a piece of work looking out for a mistake, they will ignore their instinctive reader response. These findings have brought about some important changes in my classroom. Most notably, I have continued marking, and structuring student critiques around the two areas of posing probing questions and highlighting things that interest the reader. As I set increasingly challenging projects to my classes over the coming terms, it will be interesting to map the impact of these changes on student writing and the culture of critique in my classroom. References: Berger, R., 2003, An Ethic Of Excellence, Heinemann Berger, R., Austin’s Butterfly https://youtu.be/hqh1MRWZjms [accessed on 20/11/15] Farnan, N., Lapp, D. & Flood, J., 1992 “Changing Perspectives in Writing Instruction” in Journal of Reading Vol. 35, No. 7 Harris, M., 2012, “Composing Behaviours of One- and Multi-Draft Writers” in Concepts in

Composition: Theory and Practice in the Teaching of Writing

Klein, A., Kelly, P. & Pinnell, A., 1997, “Teaching from Theory: Decision Making in Reading Recovery” in Instructional Models in Reading Kutz, C., 2006, “Recovering the Conversation: A Response to ‘Responding to Student Writing ‘ via ‘Across the Drafts’” in College Composition & Communication Vol. 58, No. 2 Nuthall, G., 2007, The Hidden Lives of Learners, Nzcer Sommers, N., 2006, ‘Across the Drafts’ in College Composition & Communication Vol. 58, No. 2

ORACY

Joe Stewart explores how scaffolding can increase the quality of Spanish classroom talk. What does quality talk look (or sound) like in the MFL classroom? In an ideal world (or my ideal world as a Spanish teacher), you would walk into a lesson and see children interacting with each other in the target language whether it be via paired or group discussion, student-teacher interaction, or even performance. The aim of this ongoing research is to look at how scaffolding can help to increase the quality of spontaneous talk within the classroom.

Oracy: Joe Stewart

¡Vaya! Scaffolding talk

My previous research looked at how a collective reward could increase the use of spontaneous talk in the target language. Students were given ‘chat mats’ which had various phrases for different types of talk (talking to the teacher, expressing opinion, exclamations etc). However, the spontaneity came in the form of repetitive, sometimes meaningless interjections from students for the sake of a reward. With this in mind, I realised that the quality of the talk doesn’t just stem from a student’s previous knowledge embedded somewhere in their brain. That knowledge had to be dug out, nurtured, scaffolded even. Most of all, I wanted that spontaneous, unplanned talk to be meaningful and worthwhile. Research and methodology I felt it was important to see in which situations students flourished when using the target language. I tracked instances of target language use across four different types of talk; spontaneous talk (in the form of interjections), scaffolded talk (during paired or group conversation), teacher pupil interaction, and performance. In doing so, this would inform practice as to which kinds of talk benefit different cohorts of pupils (mid to low starters, personality, learning preference). The data could then be matched against various cohorts of students across year and ability groups. What are the implications for teaching? There are countless times where I’ve thrown a question at a student only for them to freeze up and crumble under the pressure of having to answer an unplanned, spontaneous question. What must they going through? Surely this can’t feel good? By focusing on the aforementioned types of talk and tracking the instances amongst pupils we can then tailor the oracy in lessons to suit the styles that students respond better to rather than use a ‘one size fits all’ approach which therefore personalizes their learning in terms of speaking. Background on ‘Communicative Language Teaching’ Since the 1980s, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has emphasised learning to communicate through interaction in the target language. Whereas language, up to this point, had been been ‘largely rehearsed and automatised’ (Meiring and Norman, 2002, p.27). With CLT, the idea was that learners would be encouraged to communicate from the very beginning, and to experiment

Oracy: Joe Stewart

and create language independently through trial and error, in the belief that the target language system is best learned through the process of struggling to make oneself understood (Finnochiaro and Brumfit, 1983). During this time, national policy documents regarding the teaching and learning of foreign languages have also given prominence to teacher and learner use of the target language, including specific references to spontaneous use. Most recently, the 2014 Programmes of Study for KS2 and KS3 (2013), all give prime importance to the ability of learners to initiate and develop conversations in the target language. According to the latter, students ‘initiate and develop conversations, coping with unfamiliar language and unexpected responses’, leaving us to conclude that language education policy also supports the spontaneous use of the target language in the foreign languages classroom. What do we mean by spontaneous talk? It could be easy to picture spontaneous talk as students simply just coming out with the language during a lesson, using exclamations from the chat mat such as “¡Qué gracioso!” (How funny!), “¿estás loco?” (are you crazy?) or “¡vaya!” (wow!). Don’t get me wrong, it is great to hear the students engaging with the target language but again, it can be impulsive and meaningless. However, spontaneous talk is an unscripted interaction, in which teachers do not know exactly what language the students will produce. The speaker, student or teacher, only has something to say as a result of having heard and understood what has been said to him/her. Talk is therefore both listening and speaking, reception and production. Talk is communicative language use, as distinct from language rehearsal (Jones, 2002). This talk may be learner-initiated or in response to a teacher’s question. It may be within oral talk or part of everyday communication between tasks. However it occurs, it will be produced not read, improvised not rehearsed (Hawkes, 2012). But why is unplanned talk so important? These are the main reasons for focusing on spontaneous talk: - Students equate the ability to speak in the target language with learning the language (it is the subject to them). - Students believe that what they can produce in unrehearsed situations is what they really know. - Spontaneous TL use (or lack of it) has been highlighted in every Ofsted report (since records began). - Theories of language learning prioritise interaction as the primary site of learning (Long, 1985; Swain, 1995, 2000; Lantolf, 2000). What does this look like in the classroom?

“Overall there is insufficient emphasis on helping students to use the language spontaneously for real situations. Consequently too few students could speak creatively, or beyond the topic they were studying, by making up their own sentences in an unrehearsed situation” (Ofsted, 2008, p.12).

Hawkes (2012) suggests several reasons as to why students are not using the target language frequently enough. Some of these include:

The latter has certainly featured in my practice, especially when analysing texts or critiquing a peer’s written work but how could such a task be scaffolded so that the students could engage with it in Spanish? I would argue that my students have a fairly solid grounding in the grammatical concepts required at their level therefore critiquing or analysing a text would not be too challenging for them, given that the task is aimed around their ability. A scaffolding for such a task would look something like this: Hay que… (you have to…)

cambiar (change) adjetivo añadir (add) (an adjective) revisar (revise) conectivo (a connective) tiempo (tense)

Oracy: Joe Stewart

- low levels of teacher target language use (although we cannot assume that high levels of teacher target language use result automatically in high levels of student target language use) - increased use of English tasks – ‘learning to learn’, ‘AfL’, ‘thinking skills’ – brought in with the KS3 National Strategy

- está en el presente/pasado/ porque… (because…) futuro (it’s in the present/ past/future) - es masculino/femenino (its masculine/feminine)

By using each block, students can create a sentence that would help them to discuss the work (they would need to use their knowledge of articles to use the 3rd column as they can be interchangeable) with the hope that over time students would recognise the formation of sentences using an a modal verb phrase (hay que) with an infinitive (2nd column). By doing this, the time taken up by AFL activities can be used in a more meaningful way and gives every student the opportunity to communicate in the target language. Conversations can also take place with the use of scaffolding, getting more challenging as the conversation develops. During the 3 week period, there were more instances of unplanned talk when students were provided with scaffolding (sentence stems, prompts, vocabulary list) rather than spontaneous interjection, teacher-student interaction or performance. I suppose the dilemma is: how do we get the same level of target language use, only without the scaffolding? Is it that over time, as students require the language, that it will then become embedded? Or do students simply become dependent on it? References:

Lantolf, J.P., 2000 ‘Second language learning as a mediated process’, in Language Teaching 33: 79–96 Long, M.H., 1985 ‘Input and second language acquisition theory’ in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition (377–393), Rowley, MA: Newbury House Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), 2008 The Changing Landscape of Languages: an Evaluation of Language Learning 2004/2007, London: HMSO Meiring, L. and Norman, N., 2002 ‘Back on target: repositioning the status of target language in MFL teaching and learning’ in Language Learning Journal 26, 2: 2–35 Swain, M., 2000 ‘The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue’ in J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (97–114), Oxford: Oxford University Press

Oracy: Heather Birtwistle

Monitoring oracy

How can we monitor students’ progress in Oracy and develop effective interventions, asks Heather Birtwistle.

Since September 2012, School 21 has been working with Cambridge University to develop a method of assessing students’ oracy skills. Students have been taught oracy both discreetly in oracy lessons, and indiscreetly within coaching time and in subject lessons. Furthermore, weight is given to oracy as students are expected to present their work orally at portfolio presentation days and give 5 minute Ignite speeches annually, the scores of which are credited towards the end of year graduation. Despite this, historically there has been no formalised method of tracking students or to monitor their progress as they advance through the school; this seems to run counter to other discreetly taught subject. The oracy tracker has been developed to allow coaches (tutors) to monitor and track students’ oracy across time and to allow coaches to carry out interventions to support students’ progress in speaking. The oracy tracker has been divided into the following sections: - oracy opportunities across the school (1 page overview) - individual oracy trackers (1 page per student) - oracy tracking in assemblies and coaching time, interventions (1 page per week) - oracy assessments at key interim points (1 page per student, 3 times per year) Oracy opportunities across the school Students at School 21 are given multiple opportunities to use their oracy skills outside of the classroom context; examples include teacher interviews, delivering assemblies and interviewing/being interviewed by external visitors. Whilst the school has tried to ensure that all students receive equal opportunities regardless of academic achievement, no formal tracking of this has previously taken place. The grid allows the coach to monitor the speaking opportunities that students have received and makes sure that all students receive a breadth of speaking experiences. Fig 1: The oracy opportunities page in the tracker.

Using these descriptors, teachers can track studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; current achievement against the four strands, through plotting the skills on a radar plot at different times of the year. Assuming students make continual progress across all four strands, the inner quadrangle should increase in size at each assessment point. Where students are not making progress, the teacher will be better aware of the area that the student needs to develop. This provides a launch point for further discussion with the students.

Oracy: Heather Birtwistle

Individual oracy trackers The School 21-Cambridge University oracy assessment rubric divides oracy into four strands: physical, linguistic, cognitive and social/emotional which are measured against descriptors described as apprentice, developing, confident and expert.

Fig 2: The individual oracy tracker.

Oracy tracking in assemblies and coaching time Just as students cannot be expected to improve academic skills without receiving feedback, the same should be expected of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; oracy. Despite this, without a formal tracking system, it is difficult to be rigorous about where a student is on the oracy scale (apprentice, developing, confident, expert), and teachers may give highly subjective suggestions. This section of the tracker enables coaches to monitor students in what they say during assemblies and coaching time. I have suggested that the teacher should use two colours for these two different talking contexts so that comparisons can be made between how students engage and speak between the two. This can lead to opportunities for intervention discussions, for example, â&#x20AC;&#x153;In coaching time you always make excellent eye contact with who you are speaking to, however, in assemblies you

Oracy: Heather Birtwistle

often look at the ground when speaking to the audience…” To remind the coach of specific interventions that can be made each week, each double page (1 week) spread has a space to include reminders to give to students. Additionally, the tracker includes the option of tallying the number of contributions students make in assemblies when speaking to a large audience. This is particularly useful to assist a student’s reflection on their confidence in addressing different sized audiences.

Figs 3 & 4: For tracking student conributions in assemblies.

Assessment points Teachers are able to monitor student attainment through key assessment points during the year. At these points teachers and often external guests are given an opportunity to assess each student as they do a presentation or are interviewed about their subjects against the ‘I can’ statements. These provide points which can then be added to the individual student trackers.

Fig 5: The ‘I can’ stamements under the 4 strands.

Within School 21, further work is still being carried out regarding how to accurately assess oracy. Depending on the purpose of assessment, it can be questioned whether giving the students an oracy score is useful. If the aim is to produce students who are confident speakers, capable of expressing themselves, their ideas, and their understanding within a dialogic classroom context, then providing students with regular formative feedback on their speaking is far more useful than occasional summative feedback. However, where a school is investing time and resources into the teaching of these skills, it seems that rigorous summative assessment is also required. Through use of the tracker, teachers are able to do both.

Oracy: Heather Birtwistle

Challenges with assessing, monitoring and intervention of oracy skills Although this model has been suggested as a method of tracking students at School 21, it is difficult to determine how other schools, who do not have a strong oral culture, would be able to implement such a tracking strategy. One suggestion is that students self-assess themselves against the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;I canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; statements each half-term/term. However, without guidance, it is difficult for students to accurately self-assess. In my own practice, I have seen students in my coaching groups become increasingly self-aware of their current achievement within oracy through a combination of feedback and critique.

Oracy: Ahmet Ahmet & Leah Gilliatt

Mastery vs spiral

Ahmet Ahmet and Leah Gilliatt undertake a comparative analysis of baseline oracy assessment models. Over the last two years, School 21 has been working in collaboration with Cambridge University to produce a tool for the assessment of oracy. The result thus far is a grid which breaks oracy skills into separate strands, each with several sub-sections for which the student can be assessed as either bronze, silver or gold standard. One key question is how this resource can be used practically by a class teacher to assess their students. Another is how the oracy curriculum and oracy assessment can be of use with children who begin Year 7 with poor communication skills. This study begins an investigation of two ways in which this grid can be adapted: a mastery approach of foundation level oracy skills and a spiral approach in which all skills are assessed and improved simultaneously. Part I Mastery: rationale Though the Cambridge assessment grid is potentially useful for all students, some adaptation of this resource might be necessary for SEN/EAL children whose oracy skills may be below ‘bronze’ or ‘foundation’ level for several assessment points. Before the main oracy curriculum (and consequently the Cambridge assessment grid) can be of use, children may need to have achieved a basic level of clarity as well as demonstrating that they have the social and emotional skills to begin to work as part of a functional group. Clarity could therefore be considered as a separate strand of oracy; the social and emotional strand should undergo a change in emphasis at pre-foundation level, ensuring that all children demonstrate the ability to consider the feelings of others. Both these skill sets should be assessed as distinct strands so that clarity and a consideration of others are prerequisites of oracy studies. It should not be presumed that these skills will be improved as a by-product of a curriculum of the skills assessed by the Cambridge assessment grid. Methodology Children were assessed over a 50 minute lesson, speaking in small groups. An adult sat with each group, facilitating the tests and assessing three children using the criteria, tasks and assessment grid detailed below.

Clarity Can a listener understand what I mean? a) Pronunciation: pronounces words with clarity and precision, without muttering or slurring. b) Speaks at a volume and pace that can be understood. c) Sentence structure: speaks in clear sentences; all the words are in the right

Suggested assessment task Choice of pictures (character, setting, event) to describe in detail. Aim to speak for a minute; prompts could be given. Fig 1: Assessment sheet used to assess clarity.

Oracy: Ahmet Ahmet & Leah Gilliatt

order. d) Grammar: uses correct grammar and standard English (verb tenses, agreement of subject and verb). e) Concision: says what is necessary; includes only relevant information; avoids repetition.

Social and emotional How am I making others feel? a) Demonstrates that they are attending and listening to what other speakers have said. b) Enables a conversation/discussion/debate to continue by making contributions. c) Takes turns and encourages others to contribute in a sensitive way (Do you agree…?). d) Maintains a calm, professional demeanour (e.g. manages nerves when speaking and strong opinions when listening). e) Makes an effort to keep listeners interested and judges what listeners know or do not know about the subject being dealt with, as well as their level of interest. f) Uses language of possibility (perhaps, maybe, could we…? should we…?) to ensure a healthy group dynamic. Suggested assessment task Talking points/simple problem solving e.g. build the tallest…, what happens next…? Ongoing as part of regular P4C lessons in first half term; focus group could be chosen on successive weeks or days.

Oracy: Ahmet Ahmet & Leah Gilliatt

Fig 2: Assessment sheet used to assess the social and emotional..

Findings Following the assessment, each child received one best fit score of 1 - 5 for clarity and one for social emotional (using the descriptions for each skill and equating ‘Never’ to 1, ‘Always’ to 5). From the group of fourteen low and middle starters, four children achieved a score of 4 for one or both elements, suggesting that it would be appropriate for them to move to the spiral assessment encompassing the four oracy strands. These four have targets linked to the spiral assessment grid; the other ten children have a target related to their clarity or social emotional skills.

Reflection The assessment grid and the tasks were fit for purpose, quick and easy to administer, whether delivered by the class teacher or student achievement coach. It would be possible for a class teacher to assess 5 children in a 20 minute time period within an oracy lesson (or another lesson incorporating oracy skills). Without this assessment, it would have been difficult to differentiate between children starting Year 7 with poor oracy skills. This assessment could be appropriate for use with the whole Year 7 cohort as baseline or as an alternative oracy assessment for those who are judged to be at foundation level.

Methodology Using the Cambridge University framework, I began to design an Oracy scheme of work to weave in and embed the assessment tasks. The scheme of work was on the theme of Prometheus and created an engaging learning environment to successfully facilitate the assessment. There were three tasks within the assessment (see Figs 3, 4 and 5): a talking points debate task; a speaking presentation task and a cognitive talk task. I then identified four students that provided a range of skills. The first task was the presentation task. Using the storytelling aspects of the Greek myths, the students used their storytelling skills, developed by the oracy strands (physical, linguistic, cognitive, emotional), to present their oracy skill for assessment. In the second task, the myth presented an ethical dilemma that needed solving. The complexity of the issue provided a strong platform for students to cognitively and linguistically express their talk, whilst also expressing their individual emotional response for the debating assessment component. In the final cognitive assessment, the students, in pairs, were seated back to back and given a picture. They were to instruct their partner in how to recreate the provided picture using Lego. This enabled them to access a range of cognitive skills for assessment.

Oracy: Ahmet Ahmet & Leah Gilliatt

Part II Spiral: rationale How do we assess oracy at baseline level? This is the dilemma that underpins my rational. An initial meeting with the oracy department presented a requirement from Cambridge University to create and facilitate a baseline assessment to map and track student progress through their journey of oracy, providing the oracy department with a loose framework with the need for individual practitioner interpretation. This then instigated the collaboration with Leah Gilliatt in order to research and trial a mastery and spiral assessment. The pilot assessment provided a dialogue of comparison and the ability to reflect on both methods of oracy assessment.

Talking Points Task

During a harkness debate around the ethical dilemmas of Prometheus and Zeus, the teacher will chair and scribe the conversation.

Presentation Task

This is based on storytelling. In the first two weeks of the SoW there is an opportunity for students to tell both their own story and begin the story of Prometheus. This will enable the student to use the skills and be assessed as a baseline.

Assessment Scoring

For each skill within a strand you score individually, then the total indicates the grade. 5 = Expert

4 = Confident

3 = Developer

2 = Apprentice

1 = Foundation

Oracy: Ahmet Ahmet & Leah Gilliatt

Lego Cognitive Task Fig 3: The cognitive task, in which students described a picture for their partner to recreate using Lego.

45 - 37 = Expert 36 - 28 = Confident 27 - 19 = Developer 18 - 10 = Apprentice 9 - 0 = Foundation

Fig 4: The talking points task, in which students debated an ethical dilemma.

Oracy: Ahmet Ahmet & Leah Gilliatt

Talking Points Task

55 - 45 = Expert 44 - 34 = Confident 33 - 23 = Developer 22 - 12 = Apprentice 11 - 0 = Foundation

Oracy: Ahmet Ahmet & Leah Gilliatt 50

Presentation Task Fig 5: The presentation task, in which students told stories.

75 - 61 = Expert 60 - 46 = Confident 45 - 31 = Developer 30 - 16 = Apprentice 15 - 0 = Foundation

Reflections On reflection the assessments did provide a strong tool for spiral assessment. Each task enabled students to access intricate skills, which then informed an overall assessment grade. On repeating the tasks it would be advisable to consider the practicality of assessing the whole class. As this created a cohort ‘leveller’ assessment, one would need to consider how the whole class might be looked at using the same spiral method. Time, staff numbers and scheduling are all in need of careful consideration.

Oracy: Ahmet Ahmet & Leah Gilliatt

Findings

Conclusion Both mastery and spiral models of assessment can be of use and indeed, could be used effectively in tandem. A mastery model provides opportunity for assessment of foundation level skills which are a prerequisite of access of the four strand oracy curriculum (assessed by the Cambridge grid). When these basic skills have been demonstrated, progression to a spiral model of assessment which incorporates the four different oracy strands is an appropriate reflection of the way in which the oracy curriculum currently operates in Year 7. Further questions - Should all children be expected to reach a ‘usually’ grade across the board of the mastery assessment before progressing to the spiral model? - Does the mastery model limit opportunities to capitalise on a child’s strengths? (e.g. a child who may lack clarity but is a strong physical performer.) - Can the spiral model be of practical use with a whole class? Is it just as useful to have an assessment of a cohort? - What would a clarity intervention look like? What would a social emotional intervention look like? How far is it practical to personalise interventions? - How can assessment help us to capitalise on the benefits that oracy offers to literacy? - How can assessment help us to capitalise on the benefits that oracy offers to wellbeing?

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

Maths talk

How does talking like a mathematician improve group and individual problem solving skills, asks Rosie Smyth. In this piece of research I have been looking at what good oracy looks like in a Maths classroom and specifically what it looks like when students are problem solving. In Maths we use a problem solving toolkit when solving problems. Two of the strategies are to ‘talk like a mathematician’ and to ‘engage with someone else’s strategy’ but until now there has been no consensus as to what talking like a mathematician means. Although pupils are given plenty of opportunities to work in groups to talk through a problem, we have no way of assessing whether their talk is of good quality or knowing how to help students improve their maths talk. I was keen to develop the use of oracy within the maths department, define what talking like a mathematician means and to trial at least two talk protocols with groups when problem solving. The two main focus areas in my research were: -what impact does improving pupil talk in maths have on problem solving ability both independently and collaboratively -which talk protocols are the most suitable for group problem solving. Fig 1: Our Maths department problem solving strategies.

Methodology My methodology for this research was a combination of quantitative and qualitative research: a pre and post survey of student attitudes to problem solving; observations of group work and teacher judgement; ongoing independent assessments throughout the research period for Year 10; interviews with pupils. Research Hiebert, Carpenter et al (2007) state that “students who reflect on

what they do and communicate with others about it are in the best position to

A second view agrees that when learning maths, students engage in a process of learning through problem solving, exploration, observation and practice. However, it argues that it is mainly through the direction and assistance of their teachers that they make mathematical connections (Reid Forrestal and Cook 1989, 9).

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

build useful connections in maths”. One suggestion for how students learn maths is that “ideas are constructed through interaction with others. Discussion helps students to master the language of mathematics and to clarify their conceptions of the subject” (Coles and Copeland, 2002, 8).

I agree that discussion is essential for pupils to make links between mathematical topics and to understand why some methods work or why a solution is wrong. In an ideal classroom I believe that students would be mastering the language and discussing the maths in enough depth to make connections themselves. In reality, I have found that their ‘talk’ is not of a high enough quality and so it comes back to the teacher to direct questions and guide the discovery of connections. This is why I hoped that by improving student talk in maths lessons, it would have a knock on effect of deepening their understanding and improving their ability to problem solve independently. In Classroom Discussions: Using Math Talk to Help Students Learn (Chapin, O’Connor, and Anderson, 2009) there are five teaching practices associated with improving the quality of talk in lessons. 1) Talk moves that engage students in discourse: Including revoicing, repeating, questions such as ‘what do you think about that?’ 2) The art of questioning. 3) Using student thinking to propel discussions: responding to student comments with questions such as ‘what do we think about that’ - removing the teacher from offering judgement. 4) Setting up a supportive environment. 5) Orchestrating the discourse by offering opportunities for students to use formal and informal talk in a lesson. It was based on these five practices that I developed the talk protocols for use in group problem solving tasks. Both the protocols described below offered sentence stems to initiate discussion and planning of a problem. Resources The first resource I created was an assessment grid that linked to both the national curriculum using and applying levels and School 21 oracy strands (see appendix 1). I broke the using and applying skills into the oracy strands of Physical, Linguistic, Cognitive and Social Emotional and mapped it from apprentice to expert. This was for teacher use only as a guide to what ‘talking like a mathematician’ looked like and how it progresses. Based on the research, I know that teacher questioning is still a vital component of developing student talk and so I used Bloom’s taxonomy to create a question prompt sheet for teachers to use within lessons (see appendix 2).

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

For my two talk protocols I used one which I had been using already and one which built on the Lit programme used in English. The process of planning how to solve a problem is up for debate elsewhere but we have been using a model whereby students zoom out and zoom in to specific parts of the problem with a mountain metaphor designed by Jeremy Judge, another maths teacher. The basic outline of a problem solving process we agreed on was first predicting and looking at the bigger picture, then zooming in to clarify words and information, then making a decision on what to do and doing it before zooming out again to check whether the solution makes sense.

Fig 2: The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;problem solving mountainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

The first talk protocol was a shared planning sheet which students were required to fill in together. The planning sheet guides students with sentence stems to predict, clarify and decide on strategies to start with from the toolkit. The second side contains reflections for after they have solved the problem. I had little input on what pupils filled in on the sheet but could answer questions from the clarifying sections. I used this planning sheet with a Year 9 set 2 group for all problem solving tasks over a course of five weeks.

Fig 3: The problem solving planning sheet.

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

The second resource was based on the Lit Programme bookmarks which are used in English. Pupils worked in groups of 4, each taking the role of either predictor, questioner, clarifier or summariser using the sentence stems to prompt discussion. For the duration of the research there was always a teacher with a group who took the role of organiser and directed the students in their roles. This resource was used with a Year 10 Set 4 group over a course of 7 weeks. There were two teachers available at that time so two groups worked on problems while one group did an independent assessment for analysis.

Fig 4: The problem solving bookmark, based on the Lit Programme, which is used in English.

Student views Students were given a questionnaire both before being introduced to the talk protocols and after. From this we can analyse whether their attitudes to problem solving changed over the period.

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

The charts definitely show an improved attitude to themselves as problem solvers in the classroom. Whether this was down to more confidence as they developed as a result of the talk protocols is hard to measure. Students may have felt more confident because there was a specific focus on problem solving and talk during lessons.

Both sets of data show a significant improvement in the number of students discussing their strategies with each other before starting, particularly for Year 10. Whether the talk is of a good quality or not is a different question but both resources sparked pupils to engage with discussion and share their ideas with their groups.

When asked how useful students had found the talk protocol there was a clear winner for the year 10 bookmarks. However, it must be acknowledged that Year 10 also had the attention of one teacher on their table to help them use their bookmark. The impact of this might have skewed the results. I did a group interview with five Year 10 students and individual interviews with two Year 9 students to gain a deeper insight into their thoughts about the two talk protocols. A transcript can be found in Appendix 3.

When asked how useful they found the talk protocol four out of five Year 10

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

students were very positive about the bookmarks saying that it helped to structure their work and to understand the problems better. One student felt restricted by the sentence stems and like he was forced to use specific words rather than express it in his own way. The two year 9 students had opposite views - one felt it was helpful, especially the reflection part while the other felt that it was unnecessary as they could do it already in their head. All the students felt that the talk protocol helped prompt a discussion to hear other peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s views which they liked. One Year 9 student felt that the sentence stems were useful for people who didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know how to begin speaking. Overall the feedback from Year 10 was generally more positive. Both groups liked the predict and clarify sections and the emphasis on discussion but certainly the Year 9â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s felt restricted by filling in the sheet and that it slowed down the process for them. Many of the Year 10s felt that they were starting to ingrain the process and the roles into their independent work and it was helpful for exam technique. Teacher views Year 10 did three Unit 2 GCSE exam papers over the course of the half term. One at the beginning, middle and end. The raw scores show clear progression in exam scores over the half term. All of the assessments were out of 60. The improvement of students scores in these assessments cannot be solely attributed to the use of the problem solving talk protocol. Indeed, it is hard to measure how big an impact it had. Other factors, such as a quiet exam room for the last assessment, the fact that it was the last assessment of the term and therefore more content had potentially been covered means it is difficult to judge whether the talk protocol had any impact at all.

Fig 5: Table of results from GCSE assessments across the term.

From my observations of Year 10 students using the bookmark in the lessons, there was definitely increased engagement with maths problems from the beginning of the half term to the end. On average at the beginning students completed one question in a 45 minute session but by the end groups were completing on average three or four. The questions did not vary in difficulty from week to week. The students were happy to take different roles each week and with teacher prompting they used the sentence stems to help move the discussions forward. The roles were slightly unbalanced. For example, the predictor was often only called on at the beginning of the question to get everyone focused and initiate

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

the discussion but clarifier and questioner were used throughout the task. The bookmarks worked well to focus pupils and articulate the internal process which goes on when problem solving. In particular, the clarifier was important to determine which maths strategy or process was the best to use for each question - this often opened a debate amongst students as they decided whether it was multiply or add and which strategy was most efficient. On the APP grid this puts students at developing and confident - ‘I take turns to listen and I develop the well being of others through supporting and explaining’. The biggest drawback to the bookmarks was that they required a teacher to be there to direct the students in their roles. I did not leave students to run the group on their own but this is definitely something I will be working towards next term to see if students can use the talk protocols on their own. For the Year 9 I did not have as much hard data to analyse. The best comparison from week to week was the quality of the planning sheets as you can see below. In week one students were vague in the description of what the problem was about; ‘I think this problem is about different strategies and grit’. They asked clarifying questions such as ‘what does the question mean?’ which were not specific and showed that students were not challenging each other about the problem. Using the problem solving APP grid, at this early stage pupils were very much in the apprentice and developing end of the grid. Pupils were able to read the question and identify the key information but their working out shows a lack of sophistication - what they thought was a general statement was just a list of multiples to find the possible combinations. Fig 6: Working out from the granny problem week 1.

As the third week brought the Soft Boulder Problem pupils were much more engaged with how to dissect a problem. The clarifying questions were more specific and probed the information in the question further e.g. ‘Are we sure everybody has both legs?’. Examples of work from this time show pupils engaging with the strategies they said they would by drawing a picture and making a list to record the relationship between the legs. This puts them on confident on the APP grid.

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

Fig 7: Working out from the leg problem week 3.

By week five pupils were even tighter on their clarifying statements and plan for how to approach the problem, asking specific questions which would help start the problem solving process e.g. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Where does the japanese man live?â&#x20AC;&#x2122; which was a necessary starting point.

Fig 8: Week 1

Week 3

Week 5

Even though the students felt it slowed them down, it was a similar process to the Year 10 bookmarks (i.e. getting pupils to predict, clarify and plan). However, as one Year 9 pupil reflected this planning sheet would be equally suitable if a student was working alone rather than in a group so whether it is the best resource for improving maths talk is questionable.

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

Conclusions At the beginning of the research I aimed to improve the quality of talk amongst pupils while they were problem solving and to assess what impact the improved talk had on their problem solving abilities. I am reluctant to draw too many conclusions based on such a limited time period and small focus groups. To make more conclusions it is necessary to trial the talk protocols for a longer period with more groups, including a control group.The sentence stems in both the bookmark and the planning sheet had the dual effect of prompting discussion and also structuring the problem solving process for pupils. This adds a new layer to the research and is worth investigating further; were pupils performing better in problem solving because they were talking more or because they were following a guideline for how to plan a solution? I personally enjoyed using the bookmarks with the pupils, particularly because I sat with one group for an entire session and could insert my own questions using the prompt sheet to help pupils make deeper connections. Linking back to the research discussed above this supports the idea that teachers are paramount in helping pupils to develop their thinking and their input cannot be excluded. It is obviously not possible to sit with a group all the time and so the planning sheets were useful for independent planning and times when pupils must manage themselves. The written element offers evidence of the conversations pupils were having which I think is essential if we are to help pupils move their conversations forward. Going forward I plan to continue using both the planning sheet and the bookmark in lessons. I hope to train the Year 10s to the stage where I can sit out of their conversations and they begin using the sentence stems both when they work with others and when they are working independently. I think the planning sheet could be adapted to make it less â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;longâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for the pupils to complete. For Appendices see over

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

Appendix 1 - Interviews with Pupils

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

Appendix 2 - Teacher Prompt Sheet for Questions

Appendix 3 - Interviews with Pupils 1. How useful were the roles when doing group work? Year 10

A: Easy to use because they gave me ideas and explanations of what to do. B: Really useful because it made me understand the questions well. All of them clarifying and questioning and predict. C: I hated it because it made me feel dumb like I had a bad English grade - it made me use word sentences that I already know. D: It was good because the roles helped us to answer the question more easier. E: It was good because everyone speaks and we get through the questions and it is more structured but it is long. Year 9

A: I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think it was very useful because everything was inside my head so I already knew what I would try out. B: It helps us reflect on ourselves and how we work. It was useful because there was different variety of problem strategies. This showed me how to get there and find out the answers.

A: I could find out what other people are thinking and I can then understand why I got things wrong and the reasons behind it. B: Talk helps us more so all together in a group we can figure out the answers not just on our own. C: Definitely makes you a better mathematician. Year 9:

A: Everyone got their ideas out and it was easier to try new things. Everybody was talking and giving the facts and ideas. I didn’t like filling in the sheet though as it was long. B: It helped quite a bit because if we did not know how to start a sentence we could use it and have a two or three minute discussion. The writing slowed us down.

Oracy: Rosie Smyth

2. How did the protocol help you? Year 10

3. Do you ever use the talk protocol process when you’re working on your own? Year 10:

A: Yes I don’t exactly do it consciously but it’s in my brain and it becomes a habit. It gets into my head and I do it without realising. D: Yeah like if there is a diagram you predict whether it’s area or perimeter using the words in the question. E: A bit because I still struggle to understand to understand the questions - it helped a bit. If I do it 2 or 3 times a week it would help me in exams more. Year 9:

A: It’s not the way I would think normally - I usually find out what I know already and then see what the problem is asking for then try stuff. Talking helps me get everything out I write it down and then I know what to do. B: I think yeah because it helps you predict and clarify what you’re going to do. The process is good. Good to have the sentence stems even though some people already know how to start. If you talk through the problem you will know what you’re saying and not just in your head. You could miss a step if you do it mentally but if you talk you get everyone else’s ideas.

Oracy: Kate Gilbert

Questions for thinking

How can I train my students to ask questions to develop their own and other’s thinking, asks Kate Gilbert. Before joining School 21 I spent a couple of years working in the outdoors, and studying for an MSc in Outdoor Education at the University of Edinburgh. Entitled “Investigating Dialogue: Learning & Teaching in the Scottish Highlands”, my dissertation was explored whether the experientialist, studentcentric premises of Outdoor Education would be evident in the day to day interactions between students and teachers. I have always been fascinated by the role of interaction in the collaborative production of knowledge, and how certain knowledge is deemed ‘correct’, and it was this that led to me traipsing round many a windy, rainy mountainside, recording the interactions between mountaineering instructors and their students. After what felt like decades of transcribing data, and analysing it for patterns it started to become evident that whilst instructors’ responses had definite pedagogical functions, they also served as a means of retaining a tight control on student responses, and the production of what counted as correct knowledge. The dialogue recorded, transcribed and analysed, most commonly fitted into a sequence known as Initiation - Response - Evaluation (IRE). This was surprising in a number of ways, and since conducting that research, I’ve been interested in what the next steps would be for practise. Before discussing my own, more current, research, it is necessary first just to give a brief outline of studies of talk in the classroom. Setting the research in context The first studies on this area emerged in the 1960s. Amongst the most notable are Jackson (1968), who examined the consequences for students of the unequal relationships which exist between them and their teachers, whilst Bernstein was concerned with the role of language in learning. He argued that ‘the linguistic form is a powerful conditioner of what is learnt, how it is learnt and so influences future learning” (2003, p.54). His work on childhood language acquisition has gone on to shape our understanding of the significance of the sheer number of words that students learn before they even arrive at school.

Barnes explored patterns of teacher-student communication, examining internal and external constraints upon the learning process (Barnes, Britton, Rosen and L.A.T.E., 1969, p.12). Of interest to this study, he was particularly interested in the way in which different questions have the power to “constrain pupils’ thinking and participation” (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975, p.15).

This basic pattern is now recognised as the predominant exchange structure in educational practices and institutions (Alexander, 2004, 2008; Burbules & Bruce, 2001; Cazden, 2001; Lemke, 1990; Pontecorvo, 1997; Young, 1997; Wells, 1999) and has generated much discussion between critics and defenders In Mehan’s “constitutive ethnography” of classroom interactions (Heap, 1997 p.218) he suggested that the IRE sequence, in the way it compels response, actually constitutes adjacency pairs: one requires the other, “initiation acts compel replies” (Mehan, 1979, p.289).

Oracy: Kate Gilbert

Drawing on Barnes’ work yet moving beyond it, Sinclair & Coulthard (1975) aimed to produce a ‘descriptive system’ for the analysis of dialogue, and it was their seminal study of interaction within the classroom that showed that the majority of spoken interactions between teachers and students typically had a three part structure: initiation – response – feedback.

This statement reveals the uneven nature of the relationship between students and teachers (Cazden, 2001; McHoul, 1978, Mehan, 1979). In everyday conversation, initiation acts do not compel responses in the same way as adjacency pairs arguably do: there is greater opportunity for participants in an interaction to negotiate the frame (McHoul, 1978; Sacks et al., 1974). van Zee and Minstrell appear to agree with this, explaining that a “traditional view of authority is implicit” in the sequencing of IRE questioning (1997, p.231). A ‘traditional’ view being one in which the teacher is posited as the source of all ‘correct’ knowledge, an individual whose job it is to transmit this to students. One of the most powerful criticisms of the IRE sequence relates to the epistemological beliefs underpinning its use: the intimation that only teachers have the right to ask questions or evaluate students’ answers. By controlling the right to evaluate answers it might be argued that the leader is demonstrating their claim to knowing the ‘right’ answer (Brown, 2004, p.385; Pomerantz, 1984). This suggests a conception of knowledge as a fixed and immutable thing which is held by teachers, not students. Additionally, Nystrand (1997) argues that the evaluation of student answers can “effectively thwart dialogue by controlling or curtailing the nature of audience participation (1997, p.12). Pontecorvo (1997, p.175) holds similar views and explains how the IRE has been associated not only with direct instruction but also with the reduction of the students’ freedom of speech. Some, such as Lemke (1990) and Wood (1992), have, for the reasons discussed, called for the demise of IRE. However, IRE has also been described as the “workhorse of direct instruction” (Macbeth, 2000, p. 37) and this method of organising talk was seen by Heap (1985) as evidence of the joint construction of knowledge by pupil and teacher. Recent work on classroom interactions has taken a more even handed stance, drawing attention to the benefits of its appropriate use: “triadic dialogue is neither good nor bad; rather its merits – or demerits – depend upon the purpose it is used to serve on particular occasions, and upon the larger goals by which

Oracy: Kate Gilbert

these purposes are informed” (Wells, 1999, p.169). It was Wells’ last statement, as well as the conclusions I drew from my first research, that led me to undertake the research that underpins this paper. I realise that a lot has been written about how to improve teacher questioning in the classroom, from using open ended questions, to using Bloom’s to up the challenge level, we have talked endlessly about the pose-pause-pounce-bounce methodology but in all of these scenarios, the teacher remains the initiator, and the individual who chooses when the answer has reached an acceptable level. We talk a lot about empowering students, about developing their independence and their resilience, and I started thinking that to truly do this, I need to ensure that they start challenging their own way of thinking, and removing their reliance on me to do so. The Essential Question: How can I train my students to use questions to develop their own, and other’s thinking? Will this have any impact upon the quality of their verbal or written contributions? On the heels of this essential question, came others: is this possible, or indeed, even desirable, to train my students so that they could fulfill part of my role? Can they take responsibility for the questions, both the initial one but also all the follow up clarifying, probing, challenging questions that I use to develop student answers? Methodology Whilst it would have been desirable to first really examine what exactly I’m doing in the classroom (instead of just supposing that my questions ARE in fact useful!), the time constraints on this study wouldn’t allow this. Instead, I focussed on developing students questioning skills, using the 6 different roles that School 21 uses in its oracy curriculum. Fig 1: 6 roles of talk at School21.

For each of these roles, I created a playing card with the role, and a list of question stems that students could use. to structure their talk.

I trialled these cards with 1, Year 7 class over a period of 6 weeks. Students were sat in tables with 4 students on each table.

Fig 2: The cards created for structuring talk in lessons.

During this period, some interesting insights came out. One student commented that, “For the instigator I would have 3 instigators and then vote which one is the best for a discussion” rather than just having one instigator per discussion.” They were, in general, reflective and accurate when considering their roles. Student E, when asked what he had learnt, said that when he was acting as the instigator he had to “speak a bit more in the middle...to move the discussion on when we had run out of things to say.”

Oracy: Kate Gilbert

Initially, students were given their pack of cards but were only expected to use adopt one particular role within a lesson. At the end of each lesson, they reflected as a group upon how effective they had each been during the discussion.

After students have become comfortable using each of the different roles, we then started to use the cards more as a game. In some lessons, students lay out the cards in front of them, and if they used that role, they could play their card. The aim was for all students to use all of their cards by the end of the discussion. Whilst students enjoyed this aspect of the lesson: “The card thingy- we got to use the cards- it was like a game”, in some students it led to the desire to ‘win’ overtaking their desire to make thoughtful contributions. I found that encouraging the group to hold one another accountable, helped to improve this. Student C commented that he had learnt to “challenge what my group says properly.” After 3 weeks of using the cards and reflecting upon their skills, it was time to put it to the test in a Harkness debate. Developed by Edward Harkness, in the 1930s, he explained it as follows: “What I have in mind is [a classroom] where [students] could sit around a table with a teacher who would talk with them and instruct them by a sort of tutorial or conference method, where [each student] would feel encouraged to speak up. This would be a real revolution in methods.” (Harkness, 1930) During a Harkness discussion, the teacher can choose not to get involved, and instead merely make a note of who is contributing to the discussion, and how. This is done using a sheet like the one on the next page. I had run Harkness debates before with my students, however I found that all too often students were unsure of how to critically engage with one another’s ideas, or how to sustain a discussion.

Oracy: Kate Gilbert Fig 3: A tracking sheet used to map a Harkness debate.

The hope was that the weeks of using the cards would improve the quality of discussion.

Fig 4: The 20 minute Harkness debate with this class was around the question ‘To what extent was William the Conquerer a ‘good’ king?’

Students were discussing the essential question: “To what extent was William the Conquerer a ‘good’ king?” Before the Harkness debate, they used the cards to discuss a variety of different sources, all of which discussed some aspect of William the Conqueror’s leadership. Following these discussions in table groups, they were then divided into two groups of 12 (mixing up the table groups) and took part in a 20 minute Harkness session.

The results So, did the cards improve the quality of discussion amongst the students? In the Harkness discussion there was a marked improvement in students’ ability to adopt different roles within the discussion, and unlike in previous Harkness debates, the debate did not stall as students took active steps to move it on, and develop new questions to stimulate debate.

Students now participate in the discussion, unlike in the first discussion, in which only 60% of students spoke. This time, many of them took on more than

When asked about their learning, their comments revealed some unexpected insights. When asked what had helped them in the discussion, few of them mentioned the cards (only 5 out of 18), but many of them (16 out of 18) did reference “oracy” with student F, stating that what had helped was that I had “made us use our oracy skills.” Student H agreed, saying that “She taught us about oracy and the strands and what was best to use.” Many (13 out of the 18) of them also mentioned “freedom”, with student D commenting that: “She let us do our own stuff and were free to say what we wanted about the subject”, whilst student F said that the most enjoyable part of the lesson was“listening to other people’s opinions. The fact that we could ‘fight’ and have a little fun and let of steam with our ideas.”

Oracy: Kate Gilbert

one role over the course of the discussion.

Key findings - Developing different roles gradually worked well. - The cards served as a helpful prompt for students, but they also enjoyed using them. The ‘game’ aspect helped motivate students to develop their repertoire of questions. - Students use of questions, both to instigate and develop discussion, improved markedly in the final Harkness debate. Limitations If I were to do this again, I would ensure that I had a clearer starting point. My initial Harkness debate was not as well planned, and students were not as well prepared which may have led to the poorer performance. Student interviews were conducted regularly, but it would have been great to have been able to actually record student discussions and to transcribe conversations in order to more accurately track how well students were using the cards.

References:

Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. (4th ed.) Cambridge: Dialogos. Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. London: Routledge Barnes, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. Middlesex: Penguin Books Barnes, D., Britton, J., Rosen, H. and LATE (1969) Language, the learner and the school. Penguin, London. Bernstein, B. (2003). Class codes and control, Vol 1: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge Brown, M. (2002). Interaction and social order in adventure education facilitation sessions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Burbules, N., & Bruce, B. (2001). ‘Theory and research on teaching as dialogue’. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1102-1121). Retrieved from http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/burbules/papers/dialogue.html Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, N.H: Heinemann. Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8c Winston. McHoul, A. W. (1978). “The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom”. Language in Society(7), 183-213. McHoul, A. W. (1990). “The organization of repair in classroom talk”. Language and Society, 19, 349-377. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. London: Harvard University Press. Mehan, H. (1985). “The structure of classroom discourse.” In T.A. Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 120-131). London: Academic Press. Mehan, H. (1991). “The schools’ work of sorting students.” In D. Zimmerman & D. Boden (Eds.), Talk and social structure (pp. 71—90). Berkeley: University of California Press. Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-737. Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press. Pontecorvo, C. (1997). “Classroom discourse for the making of learning.” In B. Davies, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education (Volume 3). Oral discourse and education (pp. 169-178). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers. van Zee, E. & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227-269. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood, D. (1992). “Teaching talk: How models of teacher talk affect pupil participation.” In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the national oracy project (pp. 203-214). London: Hodder & Stoughton. Young, R. E. (1984). “Teaching equals indoctrination: The dominant epistemic practices or our schools.” British Journal of Educational Studies, 22(3), 220-238.

Jade Fahie explores which strategies create an foster effective talk. This paper is split into two parts: Part One explores the original study that took place and its findings and Part Two outlines the main points from peer critique, a reflection and the next steps in light of this critique.

Oracy: Jade Fahie

Creating effective talk

Part One Rationale Working in Year One I see students develop greatly over the course of the academic year. The students that were in my class last year moved into Year Two as confident â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;talkersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; able to actively listen to a discussion, take part in a range of talk protocols and provide further explanation in light of otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinions and ideas. On returning in September to a new cohort of students I realised that becoming a confident orator does not happen by chance. This led me to question what I had done as a facilitator to promote, foster and ultimately produce effective talk and how I could recreate this to ensure effective talk was always taking place in my classroom irrespective of year group and the time of year. Research by Myhill, Jones and Hopper (2006) shows that talk is effective in the classroom, yet there is relatively little research that investigates which strategies are most successful in not just creating but fostering effective talk in primary classrooms. This study attempts to identify which strategies are most successful in increasing effective talk. First observations In my initial observations of talk in my classroom I looked for indicators of effective talk such as good eye contact, body language displayed, whether conversation was on task and what responses had been retained by each talk partner. These observations were made in the 3rd week of the academic year of a Year One class. I identified that students found it hard to listen to their partner, the conversation was often very one-sided and students were more interested in what they had to say rather than listening and building on the ideas of their talk partner. Furthermore, students were unable to stay on topic and often drifted away to conversations about their weekend, playtime etc. Students were unable to sustain eye contact with their partner and were often fidgety and moving; exhibiting body language not conducive to effective talk. Methodology The suggested methodology for this study involved introducing students to different talk strategies and measuring the impact each strategy had on talk taking place in the classroom. Effectiveness would be measured before introducing any strategies; data would then be collected after each strategy was

Oracy: Jade Fahie

introduced to assess any differences in talk and whether talk was more effective in relation to the intended learning objective for the lesson. Students would be introduced to one strategy at a time and would be asked to use this strategy as a way of guiding their talk. The strategies introduced would be sentence stems, turn cards, role cards, talking points, guided conversation and active listening cues. Data collection and issues Issues were discovered with the chosen method of data collection and observation of the students during talk proved difficult. Lack of independence from many of the class members as well as changes to, and lack of, support staff in the classroom caused significant disruptions. Further to this, talk became stunted, stilted or stopped altogether as soon as I turned my attention to a set of talk partners. Students were conscious of the teacher listening in on their conversation or felt that they needed to direct their conversation towards the adult, seeking reassurance that they were doing the right thing. The behaviour of some students in the class meant that I needed to support them in their talk, a situation which compromised my ability to observe their talk objectively. Consultation with my working group led to the suggestion that it could be more effective to ask the students themselves to rate their talk on a continuum from 0 (not effective) through to 10 (effective), discussing how effective their talk was in relation to the question being posed and how well they had talked as a group. Students were introduced to the scale prior to the discussion they were to rate. Results Twenty one out of twenty six students rated their talk as 10, two students rated 8, two students rated 5 and one student rated their talk as 0. Most interestingly, the partner of the child who rated their talk as 0 rated the same talk as 10. At this point the child who chose 0 cried and said that their partner had not listened to them. Conclusion This study highlights that the children studied do not have a clear understanding of what effective talk is and therefore could not judge whether their talk was effective or not. I have identified three areas that I feel are in need of further investigation. Firstly, how can we ensure young students know what effective talk is? Without first explaining what effective talk is, it is impossible and unfair for teachers to expect it to take place. Secondly, what does effective talk look like in young students? As previously stated, becoming a confident orator does not happen by chance and as teachers it is essential for us to know what we expect of our students so they in turn know what is expected of them. Finally, how can we collect accurate data on talk taking place between young students without disrupting or hindering the talk taking place?

Next steps from study 路 Use published research to create a concise definition of effective talk 路 Create a checklist for children to understand what effective talk looks like

Consult with peers to identify a suitable method of data collection

Part Two Peer critique The following outlines the main points from the peer critique that took place at the end of the original study: · Why is talk important and what its place is in the classroom? · What ‘effective’ talk is and whether it changes dependent on the context, content and priority of the lesson? · If children feel more valued is there more purpose- therefore do they talk ‘well’ or more ‘effectively’ when they want to talk? · Striking the balance between ‘effective’ talk and ‘effective’ listening. · Should ‘effective’ talk be looked at in regards to intrinsic factors?

Oracy: Jade Fahie

Reflection The discussion that took place focused greatly on what ‘effective’ talk was and whether it changes dependent on the context, lesson content and priority at the time. It was clear from the discussion that ‘effective’ talk does not take place consistently across year groups, lessons and teachers and that there are a multitude of reasons that effect whether ‘good’ talk takes place. With this in mind there was agreement in children needing to know what was expected of them through a ‘Guidelines for talk’, but more than this children need to know why talk will help them with their learning and why they are doing it. Further to this, the ‘type’ of talk and the purpose were deemed important, rather than talking just for talks sake. With this in mind it is important to consider why talk should take place in a lesson and planning accordingly in relation to what talk you want to take place in your lesson: disputational, cumulative or exploratory (Mercer, 2008). Next steps from critique · To establish a checklist for talk with the children in class. · To define different types of talk and their purpose. · To define what makes a good ‘talker’ and a good ‘listener’.

Oracy: Anna Goodhand

Talk for analysis?

Anna Goodhand asks to what extent talk for writing impacts upon analytical writing. Year 10 students in English have been struggling to develop the depth of their analytical writing, specifically in relation to analysing a writerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s language and using appropriate subject terminology to describe the writerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s language choices. This prevents them from moving up at least one mark band on the GCSE literature paper and is therefore a significant limiting factor in their overall grade. This study aimed to evaluate whether the concept of talk for writing could be used to improve student language analysis. The idea of talk for writing is that it is very difficult to formulate thoughts and language in writing until the same structures and language have been practised verbally first.Therefore students learn to imitate structures verbally and then later transfer them into their writing. I wanted to use a small element of the talk for writing theory, which is the idea that repeated verbal practice supports writing. I planned to provide students with two key components of their analysis to use in verbal practice: quotations and language specific terminology. By practising verbally with this material in front of them, I wanted to establish whether their language analysis in written assessments would then improve. Methodology Students completed a literature assessment about Lord of the Flies at the end of the first half term, which was marked. This was before I focused on language analysis. I looked for the number of occasions that students attempted to analyse language and the number of occasions that students used subject specific terminology. Six weekly sessions were then held in the following half term in which scaffolded debates and scaffolded harkness discussions were conducted. Students discussed key themes within the text, with a focus on language terminology and analysing the writerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s language choices. During the debates, teams were awarded points for their use of terminology and language analysis. During the Harkness discussions, students were given verbal feedback about language analysis comments they made. I also made observations about how students responded to the activities and adapted the activities based on these observations. Students then completed a second literature assessment about the same text, Lord of the Flies, at the end of the second half term. I looked again for the number of instances of language analysis and use of subject terminology. Example materials Debates and Harkness discussions involved a scaffolded sheet with relevant quotations, subject terminology and some scaffolded questions to support thinking before the discussion started. The debate sheets also included a reminder of what points would be awarded for (language analysis, subject

Fig 1: Support sheet for Harkness discussion.

Oracy: Anna Goodhand

terminology). In the debates a score was also kept whilst students gave their verbal analysis.

Fig 2: Support sheet for Harkness discussion.

Fig 3: Record of Harkness discussions, including specific language examples. M, for method, refers to writerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s language.

Oracy: Anna Goodhand

Results Table 1: Change in use of language analysis and language related terminology.

Table 2: Participation in Harkness discussions and verbal reference to language.

Oracy: Anna Goodhand

Table 3: Overall change in use of language analysis and terminology compared to participation in Harkness talk activities.

Table 4: Overall change in use of language analysis and terminology compared to reference to language during Harkness discussions.

Oracy: Anna Goodhand

Anecdotal observations -Students appear more enthusiastic when given a clear side to argue for or against -Verbal praise during the first half of the Harkness discussion for those using language analysis appears to motivate others to analyse language -Students need more thinking time than they believe they need and say that they are ready to start discussion when the discussion is of poor quality -Students can easily identify, once they have started a discussion, that they need more thinking time -Students appeared to enjoy debates and discussions about the themes of the text -Students rarely willingly engaged with language analysis without some form of prompt -Students found it hard to probe their own and otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thinking in relation to language -When given quotation-specific questions about language, students found it much easier to comment on language -Students used the support sheets throughout the debates and discussions and they appeared to like having the support sheets -The debate scoring system provided an immediate form of AFL as students could see how many points for what they were saying and why they got this many points. This often spurred the opposite team on to develop the analysis because they could see what the previous team had missed points for (normally language analysis or subject terminology). Summary 3 students used no language analysis by the end of the second assessment as compared to 7 students using no language analysis in the first assessment. 5 students in the second assessment used no subject terminology compared to 11 students in the first assessment. 9 out of 14 students used more language analysis in the second assessment than the first assessment. 7 out of 14 students used more subject terminology in the second assessment than the first assessment. Of the 4 students who did not improve in their language analysis or use of subject terminology, 2 of them did not refer to language in their talk either. There was an average gain of 1.2 instances of language analysis in the second assessment compared to the first assessment and an average gain of 1 instance of use of subject terminology in the second assessment compared to the first assessment. Analysis The data suggest that practising analysis in talk first may improve the language analysis of most students. Most students benefited in either their analysis or their use of subject terminology or both. Talk to support writing does not appear to have been helpful however for three members of the group. It is possible that these students did not practise language analysis enough in their talk and that therefore they were still unfamiliar with the requirements when writing their assessments. Frequency of participation in the discussions does not appear to correlate with eventual language analysis (although this data set is incomplete).

It is unclear whether the debates (with a competitive incentive to use language analysis) or the Harkness discussions (with verbal feedback about language analysis) supported the development of language analysis or other activities during the half term. Equally, seeing example answers and shared writing or my increased focus on language analysis may have also had an impact on the final assessments.

Oracy: Anna Goodhand

Limiting factors The method did not assess the quality of the language analysis but rather the existence of language analysis within the assessment. This is partly because, in the GCSE exam, credit is given for any reference to language. The method also did not assess the accuracy of subject terminology use.

Not every instance of language analysis during the Harkness discussions was recorded because of behaviour management hampering the record keeping. Additionally, it was too challenging to record individual use of language analysis during the debates. This means that any correlation between language analysis in talk and language analysis in writing is hard to make. If students had not memorised quotations for the assessments, then this limited their ability to comment on language because they did not have any specific examples to refer to. This was the case for student A. Conclusions and next steps Students are generally motivated by talk activities to support analysis and for most students this skill improved enough to ensure they moved up at least one grade boundary in their assessment. To ensure a high quality of discussion and the development of the desired skills, students need to feel the pressure of performance (ie starting the debate or discussion) and then a second opportunity for quiet thinking time to be built into the discussion. A good pattern for this appears to be 5 minutes thinking time, start of debate/discussion, review of start of debate and agreement that students are not actually ready, 10 minutes more focused thinking time, 30 minutes high quality debate. Providing quotations, terminology and targeted questions before the debate or discussion starts promotes high quality discussion because the focus of the skills can then be on analysis rather than retrieval of knowledge and information. For future investigation -Would it help to incorporate a stronger imitation stage in the process of talk for writing? (there was possibly not enough scaffolding of the analytical language structures needed to express ideas) -Why did the three students not improve in their language analysis? -How can students become better at asking themselves probing questions about language?

Oracy: Meg Drummond

Oracy in the home

Meg Drummond explores how we can encourage oracy in the home. The research Joyce E. Epstein (Director of both the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships and the National Network of Partnership Schools, and a research professor of education and sociology at Johns Hopkins University) has developed a framework which outlines six key types of parental involvement, including learning at home. Some of the challenges she associates with home learning are making sure discussion is happening between the child and family to keep everyone aware and up to date with the learning taking place in the classroom as well as involving families in the all-important curriculum-related discussions. Epstein suggests that to find a solution to this we need to redefine what home learning looks like, how it is valued and what the content is. Epstein wants ‘homework’ to mean not only work done alone, but to be interactive activities shared with others at home or in the community and linking schoolwork to real life. She wants ‘help’ to mean encouraging, listening, reacting, praising, guiding, monitoring and discussing - not telling or showing. If these redefinitions are applied to home learning and how the family are involved, Epstein feels some of the positive results would be manifest through gains in skills, positive attitudes to school work, positive self-conceptions of ability as a learner, families motivating and reinforcing student learning and discussions amongst families (not only about what is being learnt but how this links to the wider world). “All of our research and the work of hundreds of educators and families in NNPS show that parents and teachers really want better ways to communicate about what children are learning and how parents can help students succeed in school. Well-designed programs of school, family, and community partnerships ensure that all families – not just a few – will be involved in their children’s education from the earliest years on.” 1 “Educators are increasingly aware of the importance of involving parents in the education of their children. Research shows that parent involvement improves student achievement. When parents are involved, children do better in school. Parental encouragement and assistance contribute to students’ higher achievement, report card grades, better attitudes, and higher aspirations.” 2

The project This research led to questioning if the priorities we drive at School 21 are being valued and reinforced at home within the family. Oracy and wellbeing are at the Interview with National Child Care Information Center, Washington, DC (NCCIC) 2004 Reprinted for Pre-K Now, National Call, April 2006 2 An interview with Joyce Epstein about parental involvement, 2005, Michael F. Shaughnessy, Senior Columnist EducationNews.org 1

Before the project started, surveys were completed by the families, the focus children and the class teachers to assess their views on talk, how much they valued it and how effective they were as communicators. These questions related to talk amongst peers, children, teachers and within families. In general, there was a large disparity between the answers given by the parent and child involved, showing that the parents viewed their verbal interactions as generally positive and of high quality with 88% saying they agreed their communication was meaningful and positive; whereas the children’s opinions of their family interactions were less positive with just 20% agreeing communication at home was meaningful and purposeful. The same surveys would be taken again at the end of the project to help measure impact.

Oracy: Meg Drummond

core of our school’s curriculum and ethos, being a foundation of all lessons and assemblies the children take part in - but how was this being communicated to parents or cultivated in the family home? From this question, the research project was developed. Ten families across the year 3 cohort were selected to take part in the project. These families were carefully selected so that we had a range of family types (single parent, dual income, English as an additional language etc) as well as children with differing needs (behaviour concerns, concentration issues, reluctance to talk etc). Each family was written to and invited to take part. 90% of the families asked decided to participate in the project.

To start the project, a list of suggested activities was sent with the home task. This was designed to give the families a starting point to encourage talk. Some of the activities included: baking together, taking a walk, doing art and craft or watching Newsround. Twice a week a talk task was sent home for families to complete. This consisted of an overarching question or statement, followed by some suggested ways to support or encourage talk. Talking point: We don’t spend quality time together Fig 1: Example talk task question with support that was Some questions you could ask to start/support talk: sent home. - Why do we need to spend time together? - What makes it ‘quality’ time? - What could we do together to make it ‘quality’? - How do you feel when we spend time together? - How do you feel when we don’t spend time together? There was then the opportunity for the adult to feedback on their experience with the talking point. Feedback (via email/note/voicemail/verbally) - Did the support questions help or did they limit the scope of your discussion? - Has this discussion given you an insight into what matters to your child? - Has this discussion helped you to reflect on the time you spend with your child? Fig 2: Example of feedback prompts. They changed depending on the focus of the talk task.

Oracy: Meg Drummond

The talking points ranged in focus, from academic to imaginative to wellbeing. The project ran for seven weeks, with 75% of the families continuing to complete the talk tasks each week.

Fig 3: The range of talking points used in the study.

The findings The children: The focus children who took part were very reflective when answering questions focused on their interactions with others and how they talk to different audiences. During the post-project survey, 29% of the questions were given a lower rating (closer to disagree than agree) than in the pre-project survey. When questioned as to why the children gave the question that rating, most said it was because they had thought they were good at those things before the project, but had changed their minds since doing the project. This demonstrated that the focus children were more aware of how they were talking and how they expressed their feelings to others after participating in the project and having quality interactions with their families. 100% of the children strongly agreed that talking to their parents about their day and what they were learning was important. All the focus children said they enjoyed taking part in the research project and

“I liked taking part because it was fun. I got to discuss things with mum and I helped her with dinner.” “I got to colour in and play with my things while we were talking.” “It made my imagination go wild!” “It’s interesting to talk about new things.”

Oracy: Meg Drummond

this was for various reasons, including being able to spend time with their families doing joint activities and being able to have meaningful discussions on a range of different topics.

When asked if they felt the project had helped them with their talk or their work in the classroom, 78% said yes. This manifested in different ways for each child, including an increase in participation in class discussions and knowing how to talk to others. Some children felt the project has helped to change the way they talk in class by improving their language and making them slow down to consider how to ensure they are expressing their thoughts and ideas clearly.

“It changed the way I talk in class. Now I say stuff and it comes out properly.” “It has helped because now when I answer I always speak better and my language is better. Sometimes I don’t say words properly, but that’s better now.” “I didn’t used to put my hand up, but now I put my hand up more often to answer questions.” “It has helped me because I know how to talk to others now.” “I think I am a lot more confident when talking to others now.” The parents: 100% of the feedback from parents reflected the positive impact the project had on the quality and quantity of talk taking place in the family environment, and how important it was to dedicate time to talking to their child; “On reflection I felt I did not dedicate enough time to the question. Going

forward I will have the conversation before bed, when X is in a more relaxed environment. Hopefully this will allow her the time to expand on her answers”.

100% of the surveys reflected an increase in the child’s ability and willingness to talk to their parents about their day at school and what they have been learning about. 67% of the responses from parents showed they felt they had made improvements in the way they communicated with their child and that these communications were now more meaningful. 67% of responses also indicated the parents felt that the project had a positive impact on improving how the children express themselves to others and how they talk to peers and adults.

“X has gotten better when it comes to speaking to myself and other adults; there is definite improvement.”

Oracy: Meg Drummond

“This has helped X in ways with her attitude towards me and I wouldn’t change the project at all.” “Some of the questions I may not have thought of and they added to the conversations. It gave an additional insight into how my child views certain things.” “The project is a good base to start at for those not used to initiating discussion with their child. Those like myself who are used to having regular discussions may find they haven’t thought of some of the questions. Your suggestions for activities were also good for those not used to doing them.” “The project has helped to remind us how important talking is and that is something that often gets sidelined in our family with two working parents, busy social life and children with homework and hobbies.”

It aims to build a community of outward looking practitioners who share their reflections in order to rigorously investigate 21st Century learning by critically engaging with theory. It will provide a platform for debate about the components and methods of 21st Century education.

Get involved

Beautiful Works is a bi-annual journal comprised of contributions from practitioners who are interested in debating 21 Century pedagogy.

This is a peer-reviewed journal of reflections on purpose, practice and policy in education. We aim to serve a broad readership around the country and the world, and welcome submissions from teachers, leaders, students, teacher trainers, policymakers, researchers, and other informed observers of education. In addition to reflections on practice, submissions may include essays on purpose and policy, accounts of teacher research, scholarly articles, project designs, tools, photography, art, and student work. Submissions may take the form of articles or cards that describe a project, practice, or tool. All submissions should be accompanied by a short biography (no more than 200 words) and photo of the author.

Article submissions should be limited to 2500 words and adhere to the suggested style guide. Please include 2-3 high-resolution images that you feel would compliment your article. You should include in the submission which â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;categoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; you are focussing on: Oracy, Well Being, Project Based Learning or Whole School Culture. Card submissions should include a brief project/tool description, teacher reflection(s), and student reflection(s) limited to 375 words. Contributors should also include several high-resolution images that could appear on the image side of the card. For further information about submitting to Beautiful Works and a our style guide, please visit our website beautifulworksjournal.com.