Hazel Walker - How can we overcome the Grade 6 Barrier in Maths?

Jones, K (2020) Examples of Dual Coding in the classroom https://lovetoteach87.com/2019/05/02/examples-of-dual-coding-in-the-classroom/ also at @87history Sadosk, Paivio and Goetz (1991) A critique of schema theory and in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly: Wiley-Blackwell. Clark, J. M. and Paivio, A (1991) Dual Coding Theory and Education. Educational Psychology Review, VoL 3, No. 3. Teacher Toolkit (2020) - https://www.teachertoolkit.co.uk/2019/04/08/dual-coding/

Developing literacy

Sarah Rouse - How can we face the challenge of mathematical homonyms?

Mastery of language is critical to mastery of mathematics. In the new Mathematics GCSE, many of the questions are set as worded problem-solving questions. Often students are capable to complete the maths content but struggle to understand command words and mathematical vocabulary in order to pick the question apart to enable them to know what they are required to do. Alongside that is the comprehension of vocabulary, especially homonyms where they have met the word previously outside of maths but it has two meanings, one specifically mathematical. The specialised language content may pose a barrier to student comprehension.

At Cowes Enterprise College the students are set by ability for maths. Initially I was aiming this at a mid-set year 9. However the opportunity came, (due to trips etc) to do the research with topsets 7, 8 and 10, with the outcome being implemented back in the year 9 set.

Having read various articles, it is apparent that both in America and UK the comprehension of vocabulary is a growing concern within the community of mathematics teachers. Dunston and Tyminski point to the specialised language content in Maths creating a social-economic gap in success. This is a paragraph from thinkmath.edc.org “In casual conversation we can tolerate a fair amount of ambiguity, but in mathematics, ambiguity causes trouble. Mathematics builds new ideas on already established ideas. We can’t build a new idea on “it depends what you mean”, so we need, right at the start, to agree on what we mean. Moreover, we can’t share our discoveries for others unless they agree on the same meanings for the words we use.”

This really hit home with regards to homophones. The class 9 class were just starting a series of lessons on bearings. It would have been easy to assume that by that age they knew what a bearing within mathematics was. When asked, the majority knew there were bearings in their scooters to help the wheels turn smoothly and one girl commented “Don’t we use it to mean carrying? “The three Kings came bearing gifts?”” and then another girl piped up about how in the tv show, The Midwife, they talked about “bearing a child”. One boy said he had used bearings with maps at Scouts. Clearly it is important we are explicit with the meaning and understanding of words before we start a topic.

As a maths department we have been focussing on ensuring key words are defined and written down, but I wonder if the students remember and if the comprehension is there. Livers and Elmore observed classes over a 4 month period to see how vocabulary was being taught. One of their key findings was repetition matters. It is easy when moving onto new topics not to use and reteach the previous topics vocabulary. This was evident when the current top set year 10 did their mock paper in March. There were two questions, totalling 5 marks where they needed to describe transformations. Marks are given for correct mathematical descriptions. These are some of their responses.

Obviously, they knew what they wanted to say but could not recall the correct vocabulary required to gain marks. The article suggests to create opportunities to use, and revise key words and recommends planning a designated keyword 10 minutes every week. A sentence from the luminous learning website said “If math language isn’t explicitly taught, children learn to disregard the math words and only pay attention to the numbers” I decided to see whether students could define homophones, both for their mathematical and nonmathematical meanings. This was the sheet I created using homonyms that had been used in various classes recently.

It was given to top sets in years 7,8 and 10 to complete. Here are the results.

It was very enlightening to hear students in all classes saying as they were doing the task “I know what it is but do not know how to define it”. A good example of this was the word ‘face’. Many students just used the word instead of defining the word eg “house key” or “volume of a shape” They knew what topic and how it was used, but again, not able to define it. It was also apparent that words that had been used frequently in recent topics, they could define. For example, the word, negative, 84% of the year 7 could write a definition, whereas only 56% of year 8 could. The word ‘product’ had been used in the previous set of DICE starters for year 7. It was interesting to see that a higher percentage of year 7s could define it than year 8s and 10s. This shows that repetition is key. When asking students to explain /justify their answers, I insist on them using mathematical language and bounce the idea around the room for improvements until we are all agreed as a class we have a good, solid mathematical explanation.

Stopping each lesson when we use a keyword from that topic and ask someone to define it. (Hoping that the more times they hear the definition it will help to put it into the permanent memory!)

For year 10 putting a term in each DICE task for them to define.

Evaluation

There was only a couple of weeks to implement this before lockdown.

Students in all years were initially frustrated, but then enjoyed having to develop their answers to be more mathematical.

When asked to define a key word, that we were using, most students initially had to look back in their books to read what they had written. But as this was asked many times over several lesson, they all could remember.

For year 10, it was enlightening to them to see what they could and could not define in the DICE starters. It produced discussion around the room about what was acceptable or not as a definition. Occasionally I put the same word in a few days later. More but not all wrote a correct definition.

The explicit use of vocabulary has come up, even in lockdown, when writing the explanations to students and in emails with students.

What next?

Including vocabulary on year 8,9 and 10 starters, introducing it to year 7 in January.

Planning time for defining key vocabulary using activities and games. Some are listed here.

Reading

The Language Factor in Mathematics Tests. Abedi and Lord, 2010 Literacy’s role in boosting maths outcomes. Maria Howard 18 May 2016 https://luminouslearning.com/blogs/sped-math/teaching-math-vocabulary Attending to Precision: Vocabulary Support in Middle School Mathematics Classrooms. Stefanie Livers and Patricia Elmore. Reading and Writing Quarterly. October 2017 http://thinkmath.edc.org/resource/developing-mathematical-vocabulary

Natalie Lawrence - How can we using the Frayer Model to improve substantive vocabulary in History?

Intent

The issue Vocabulary was a barrier to students’ success in History- many were not using the desired tier 3 vocabulary that they were being introduced to so I designed an intervention, informed by current literature, that aimed to improve students’ retention and use of substantive words (those required to understand the content of the subject). I evaluated the success of the intervention by collecting selfreported data. Target students The intervention was trialled with two year 7 classes, one being used as a control group in line with ethical guidance from BERA. This year group was chosen because building a strong foundation of key substantive vocabulary in Key Stage 3 should support GCSE success and the two-hour humanities lessons were favourable for trialling a new approach. Research There were a variety of options to select from when considering how to explicitly teach students substantive vocabulary- there has been much current interest in the subject, especially since publication of Quigley’s (2018) Closing the Vocabulary Gap. Cottingham and Daborn found that ‘history placed greater demands on the reading skills of students than any other subject’ (1999) although their study was biased because it only focused on history teachers. Yet the importance of sound literacy skills in every subject cannot be underestimated and Quigley argues that ‘it is crucial that every teacher has a confident understanding of teaching vocabulary in the classroom’ (2018, p. 108). The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) published seven suggestions to improve literacy within schools. As the report claims to utilise the ‘best available evidence regarding improving literacy in secondary schools’ including the EEF’s previous own research, it is a valuable study (Quigley & Coleman, 2019, p. 37). The first recommendation proposes that ‘literacy skills are both general and subject specific’ which provides ample evidence for the inclusion of substantive vocabulary in history teaching because students cannot be literate in history if they do not understand the specific tier 3 language used in lessons. Furthermore the second recommendation advocates for ‘targeted vocabulary instruction in every subject’ and a case study from the North East Learning Trust suggests that using ‘graphic organisers’ and models can aid such instruction (p. 13).

Action

Which teaching processes and strategies did you try that were different? Informed by my research, I decided to trial explicitly teaching vocabulary using the Frayer model. It focuses on conceptual attainment- grasping meaning from something unknown, so it suitably aligned to the problem of students not having sufficient understanding of key words within my subject. The original model by Frayer, Frederick and Klausmeier (1969) places the unknown word in the centre surrounded by four boxes, which encourage a student to consider the specific characteristics of the thing the word describes. The model was used during the teaching of ‘key vocabulary’ at the beginning

of the lesson- students would have time to fill in their own versions of the model, supporting one another to do so. Why did you select this/these approach(es)? Whilst I liked the principle of having a model to use, I decided to innovate on some of the categories in order to make the model as successful as possible in my classroom context. The image below shows the version of the Frayer model that I trialled with one year 7 class (the other class being a control). I chose to remove the idea of ‘non examples’ given the abstract nature of history concepts and instead chose to include a visual representation that would be drawn by the students. The enhanced learning benefits from such ‘dual-coding’ are well-documented (Meyer, R., & Anderson, R., 1992) so I hoped this would increase students’ retention of the new vocabulary.

Evaluation

Were the teaching processes and strategies adopted effective? I collected data to judge whether the trial was a success by asking students to complete a ‘word score sheet’ (see image below) at the start and end of a six week period. The trial could be judged effective if a statistically significant difference was seen between the word score improvements of the two groups; the data below demonstrates that this was the case.

Gender SEN Status EAL Pupil Premium Indicator Initial word score /8 Final word score /8 Percentage change in score Difference between initial and final word score

F N N 15 23 53% 8 M K N Y 9 24 167% 15 M W N 17 14 -18% -3 F N N 12 24 100% 12 M N 14 29 107% 15 F N 25 26 4% 1 F N 19 28 47% 9 M N Y 17 17 0% 0 F 23 28 22% 5 M K 32 32 0% 0 M N 30 31 3% 1 F N 27 32 19% 5 M N 23 32 39% 9 F N N Y 16 23 44% 7 M N Y 18 23 28% 5 F K N Y 11 8 -27% -3 F N 32 32 0% 0 M N 21 24 14% 3 M N 24 26 8% 2 F 16 16 0% 0 M N 22 28 27% 6 F N 8 14 75% 6 M K N 25 27 8% 2 F N N 10 22 120% 12 Average 19.42 24.29 35.03% 4.88

Gender SEN Status EAL Pupil Premium Indicator Initial word score /8 Final word score /8 Percentage change in score Difference between initial and final word score

F N 18 30 67% 12 M N 15 32 113% 17 F N 31 32 3% 1 F N N 30 32 7% 2 M N Y 28 26 -7% -2 F N N 26 32 23% 6 M N 16 27 69% 11 F N 22 25 14% 3 M 25 29 16% 4 F Y 20 29 45% 9 M K N 20 18 -10% -2 F N 24 26 8% 2 F N N 25 25 0% 0 M K N Y 10 25 150% 15 F N 23 30 30% 7 F N Y 26 11 -58% -15 M N 15 24 60% 9 F N Y 17 24 41% 7 M N 30 32 7% 2 F N N 14 14 0% 0 M N 29 31 7% 2 F N 31 32 3% 1 M W N Y 24 9 -63% -15 F N 21 14 -33% -7 Average 22.50 25.38 20.52% 2.88

PP average 52.73% SEN average 36.85%

PP average 18.14% SEN average 70.00%

Standard Deviation=5.11

Standard Deviation=7.63 Consequently, the Frayer model does seem an effective way to teach key vocabulary to students because those in the control group did not learn the eight chosen words as effectively as the students in the test group and this was not due to chance. What next?

I also noticed an increase in the use of substantive keywords in year 7 history lessons and the emphasis the model placed on these words meant that I was using them more frequently and appropriately in my teaching. Over the longer term I hope to analyse how well students embed these words into their history work over the course of the next few months and years. I intend to do further research into how the Frayer model could be used alongside ‘retrieval practice’ (see learningscientists/org) to ensure that the understanding of substantive vocabulary is embedded into students’ long-term memory. Other avenues for further study would be to investigate the response to the Frayer model from other year groups and how it could be differentiated to both support and challenge students of different abilities. Reading Barton, G. (2018) Why closing the word gap matters: The Oxford Language Report. Oxford: University Press. Quigley, A. (2018) Closing the Vocabulary Gap. London: Routledge.

Jenner, T. (2019) ‘Making reading routine: helping Key Stage 3 pupils to become regular readers of historical scholarship’, Teaching History, 174, pp. 42-48. Aloisi, C., Coe, R., Higgins, S., & Major, L. E., (2014) What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research. https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/great-teaching/ (accessed 06/01/2020). Quigley, A. (2018) ‘Vocabulary Knowledge and the ‘Frayer Model’ The Confident Teacher. https://www.theconfidentteacher.com/2018/04/vocabulary-knowledge-and-the-frayer-model/ (accessed 29/12/2019). Quigley, A., & Coleman, R., (2019) Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/improving-literacy-insecondary-schools/ (accessed 24/01/2020). Davy, S. (2015) ‘The importance of history vocabulary’, Primary History, 70, p. 20-22. Cottingham, M., & Daborn, J., (1999) ‘What impact can developments in literacy teaching have on teaching and learning in history? http://curee.co.uk/ (accessed 27/01/2020). Meyer, R., & Anderson, B. (1992). ‘The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, pp. 444 - 452.

Nick Wiltshire - Literature review: Developing vocabulary teaching in an educational setting

In his article ‘Six Steps to Better Vocabulary Instruction’ published in 2009, Robert J. Marzano reviews a process he first articulated in his 2004 book ‘Building Background Knowledge for Academic Achievement’ 1 . In his 2009 article, he argues that studies on instructional strategy, such as the teaching of vocabulary, will show some will work whilst others won’t. For example, Marzano cites the work of Kluger & DeNisi (1996) 2 which synthesised around 607 academic studies in educational instructional strategy & found that on average there was a ‘16 point gain’ (in relation to US pupil attainment measures) in their implementation. However, as Marzano argues, “more than one third of the studies indicated… a negative effect on student attainment” 3 . Marzano raises this point to argue that it is actually the ‘how’ strategies are used which determines the outcome 4 . In his 2009 article, Marzano argues that whilst it might be counter intuitive, research on instructional practice is the first and best place to start, beginning he suggests, with those studies which show positive effects. Importantly, Marzano argues that it remains important to evaluate any implementation of practice and possible successes (or failures) within the context of “your particular setting” 5 . In this 2009 article, Marzano highlights some of the issues first raised in his earlier, 2004, book. In this earlier work, Marzano outlined six steps he viewed as the most successful instructional practice for teaching vocabulary. In summary, Marzano’s six steps can be simplified as:

6

In his article, Marzano argues that the first three steps should be used when introducing new vocabulary to learners. Marzano also suggests that rather than a dry, simplistic, introduction to new words that the teacher uses anecdotes as a more visually powerful approach to explain meaning 7 . Marzano goes on to argue that whilst the first three steps should be completed in sequence, steps 4, 5 & 6 should be used later as part of the review and consolidation of learning and do not necessarily need to be completed in sequence 8 . Marzano uses the opportunity in his 2009 article to reflect on over 50 studies completed since the publication of his six steps in 2004. Marzano argues that the studies have shown a number of results. For example, he argues that the studies have shown that the six step strategy works at every grade (age) level. Similarly, that the strategy is most effective if all steps are followed and that the overall impact on achievement is greatest if this occurs. Fundamentally, Marzano argues that the six steps are more effective than individual steps used in isolation 9 .

This last point does raise some interesting questions about the application of instructional strategies in an educational setting; primarily the need to avoid a piecemeal and tokenistic approach. Importantly, in his article Marzano does acknowledge that the studies conducted on his six steps have highlighted some failures. For example, Marzano highlights the fact that student attainment is less when students copy teacher generated explanations or descriptions of new terms, as opposed to generating their own. For Marzano, one of the key elements of teaching vocabulary is allowing students to place the word within their own context and to explain it with their own words (steps 2 & 3) 10 . Again this raises some interesting points for the application in the classroom. Principally, that teachers must avoid trying to oversimplify the application of the six steps through providing their own definitions, explanations and meanings which remove the word or term from the pupils’ own development of understanding. Similarly, for Marzano, the third step (creating a pictorial or symbolic representation) is equally crucial but again one which could be overlooked as not important in terms of learning ‘words’. For Marzano step 3, when done well is when “achievement soars” 11 . Finally, Marzano argues that step 6, the use of games and interactive play with words, also has a powerful effect on recall over time. Marzano’s ‘six steps’ has been widely supported in the academic and educational community and has been citing in a number of other pieces of academic work 12 . For example, in the ‘Handbook of Research on Pedagogies and Cultural Considerations for Young English Learners’ (2017), Onchwari & Keengwe have outlined Marzano’s work alongside other more strategies for teaching vocabulary 13 . In their work, Onchiwari & Keengwe compare Marzano’s six steps to the work of Michael Graves in his 2006 book ‘The Vocabulary Book: Learning & Instruction’ and also outlined in his 2006 article for The NERA Journal 14 .

1 https://www.swsc.org/cms/lib/MN01000693/Centricity/Domain/91/Marzano_6_Step_Vocabulary.pdf 2 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-02773-003 3 http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept09/vol67/num01/Six-Steps-to-Better-VocabularyInstruction.aspx 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept09/vol67/num01/Six-Steps-to-Better-VocabularyInstruction.aspx 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291150728_Six_Steps_to_Better_Vocabulary_Instruction 13 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2-Y7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=the+sixstep+process+(Marzano,+2004)&source=bl&ots=UEV2c4FIZT&sig=ACfU3U0MR1qgRns_CpzAGBwnn7g4rDZAHw&hl=en &sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjX_pG2jZPqAhUlShUIHdNeBUc4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=the%20sixstep%20process%20(Marzano%2C%202004)&f=false page 333. 14

https://cowesec.sharepoint.com/sites/TeachingLearning/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?originalPath=aH R0cHM6Ly9jb3dlc2VjLnNoYXJlcG9pbnQuY29tLzpmOi9zL1RlYWNoaW5nTGVhcm5pbmcvRWtydnFuYXMtREZPZ1FNN3dv ZV9aYWtCVVY3ZFVqN2FDZEVObUFsY1VLd0l3dz9ydGltZT1tSW5Gejg4VjJFZw&id=%2Fsites%2FTeachingLearning%2FSha red%20Documents%2FResearch%20%26%20CPD%2FLiteracy%20and%20oracy%2FVOCABULARY%2FBuilding%20a%20c

15

Onchwari & Keengwe also outline other factors important to the teaching of new words and terms, such as the importance of reading aloud, independent reading and oral discussion. In addition, the authors also cite the work of Graham & Hebert (2010) 16 , arguing that “providing opportunities for students to apply their learned vocabulary from reading to writing will increase their likelihood of thoroughly understanding the words meaning” 17 . At first glance, it might appear that Marzano and Graves’ approaches differ greatly. However, on deeper reading it could be argued that each strategy compliments the other and that the broad aims of both strategies are built around an immersive and pupil led and focused approach to learning new vocabulary. A criticism that could be levelled at both Marzano and Graves is that their work is based on the American education system and social context. However, the strategies of the UK based Driver Youth Trust (2020) in their article ‘Spelling – Using Word Study Techniques’ supports the broad principles set out by both American academics. The Trust’s article also cites the work of Puttman (2017) and argues that the tradition of the use of a ‘generalised kind of visual memory contributes very little to our ability to spell’ and quotes Puttman by stating that “methods requiring children to learn lists of words without input is not generally effective” 18 . Here then, is the echo of both Marzano and Graves in that engaging, deep and contextualised word learning is a far more effective strategy. In Puttman’s own work, she cites the 5 steps of implementing word study in the classroom, adapted from a 2009 work by Williams, Phillips-Birdsong et al. and can be summarised as follows: Step 1: Assess students regularly Step 2: Analyse the data and group students accordingly

omprehensive%20vocabulary%20programme%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2FTeachingLearning%2FShared%20Documents %2FResearch%20%26%20CPD%2FLiteracy%20and%20oracy%2FVOCABULARY 15 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2-Y7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=the+sixstep+process+(Marzano,+2004)&source=bl&ots=UEV2c4FIZT&sig=ACfU3U0MR1qgRns_CpzAGBwnn7g4rDZAHw&hl=en &sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjX_pG2jZPqAhUlShUIHdNeBUc4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=the%20sixstep%20process%20(Marzano%2C%202004)&f=false page 333. 16 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279741659_Writing_to_Read_A_MetaAnalysis_of_the_Impact_of_Writing_and_Writing_Instruction_on_Reading 17 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2-Y7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=the+sixstep+process+(Marzano,+2004)&source=bl&ots=UEV2c4FIZT&sig=ACfU3U0MR1qgRns_CpzAGBwnn7g4rDZAHw&hl=en &sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjX_pG2jZPqAhUlShUIHdNeBUc4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=the%20sixstep%20process%20(Marzano%2C%202004)&f=false page 333. 18 https://www.driveryouthtrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Spelling.pdf

Step 3: Make time to prepare for word study, particularly as a teacher Step 4: Teach word knowledge through word sorts Step 5: Provide authentic reading and writing activities to “Allow students to apply their word knowledge in daily, authentic reading and writing activities” 19

Clearly then, here in Puttman’s steps the echoes of Marzano and Graves can clearly be felt. For example, Puttman’s step 4 follows Marzano in suggesting the use of games and other activities to consolidate and build understanding, whilst step 5, It could be argued, mirrors Graves’ expectation that students should be provided with rich and varied language experiences, word learning strategies which also provide the opportunity to foster ‘word consciousness’. Where Puttman, Williams, PhillipsBirdsong et al. deviate from the models suggested by Marzano and Graves is the greater emphasis placed on the use of data and assessment both as an ongoing tool as well as the starting point for the learning process. That said, both Marzano and Graves suggest the use of low stakes testing as methods to support recall. The Driver Youth Trust article also echoes Puttman, outlining that “word study, in which children explore root words, prefixes, suffixes, inflectional endings… and irregular spellings enables children to build their knowledge of spelling both regular and irregular words” 20 . This is an important aspect of their findings, echoing Puttman, which is not explicitly touched on by Marzano and Graves. The Trust article highlights the importance of supporting students to understand common root words (appropriate for their age), develop an understanding of the meanings of common prefixes and suffixes, learning high frequency words with irregular spelling patterns, developing an awareness of phonemes coupled with advanced letter-sound knowledge. Finally, the Trust states that children should be taught to identify words in their own writing which they think may be spelt incorrectly and then to utilise the strategies above to attempt to correct those errors 21 . This focus on these specific strategies as effective means to support the teaching of vocabulary have also been suggested in other studies, for example the 2009 article by Theurer & Arbildo entitled ‘Empowering Students through specific Vocabulary Instruction’ 22 . A further article and academic study which supports the principles laid down by Marzano, Graves, Puttman et al. is the work of Beck, McKowen & Kucan (2002), which actually predates the six steps of Marzano. In this study, Beck, McKowen and Kucan outline their 5 step process and again it echoes many of the principles suggested in the later works. For example, Beck et al. suggest at step 2 the modelling of key words for students in a way that provides context of the word to them, very much mirroring Marzano’s approach in his six steps. Similarly, for step 3 Beck et al. advocate the use of pair-

19 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1147675.pdf page 6. 20 https://www.driveryouthtrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Spelling.pdf 21 Ibid. 22 https://cowesec.sharepoint.com/sites/TeachingLearning/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?originalPath=aH R0cHM6Ly9jb3dlc2VjLnNoYXJlcG9pbnQuY29tLzpmOi9zL1RlYWNoaW5nTGVhcm5pbmcvRWtydnFuYXMtREZPZ1FNN3dv ZV9aYWtCVVY3ZFVqN2FDZEVObUFsY1VLd0l3dz9ydGltZT1tSW5Gejg4VjJFZw&id=%2Fsites%2FTeachingLearning%2FSha red%20Documents%2FResearch%20%26%20CPD%2FLiteracy%20and%20oracy%2FVOCABULARY%2FEmpowering%20st udents%20through%20specific%20vocabulary%20instruction%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2FTeachingLearning%2FShared %20Documents%2FResearch%20%26%20CPD%2FLiteracy%20and%20oracy%2FVOCABULARY

share activities to engage students and to embed understanding, foreshadowing Marzano’s use of games and other activities to support recall. Beck, McKowen & Kucan bring a further important element to the discussion. Significantly, they attempt to define the different tiers of vocabulary used by students. For example, they outline tier 1 as basic words whilst tier 3 is defined as academic content words 23 . This is important because consideration of these tiers should be used by practitioners when implementing the strategies outlined by Marzano, Graves et al. For example, in the classroom context it may be more appropriate to focus of tier 2 and 3 vocabulary. In a similar vein teacher Alex Quigley has explore the concept of the ‘academic code’ in his 2018 article for Teach Secondary magazine. In a similar fashion to Puttman, Theurer & Arbildo et al., Quigley places significance in the teaching of root words, prefixes and suffixes as the key to what he calls understanding the academic code, likening it to the work of World War 2 codebreakers. Quigley argues that academic texts used in educational setting contains a series of common conventions which students need to be supported to understand as if deviates significantly from their everyday use of language. Quigley outlines some of these conventions in terms of the use of complex academic vocabulary, linked to ancient Greek and Roman root words, giving the example of the word ‘biosphere’ and arguing that the complexity of academic vocabulary is built up through the use of prefixes and suffixes. Quigley goes on to add another convention is the use of nominalisations and abstract nouns which adds complexity, giving the use of the words ‘continuity’ and ‘causation’ in the context of History, stating that. Quigley concludes that the complexity of the academic code is further compounded by the use of long, multi-clausal sentences, the use of passive voice and formal style 24 . Quigley argues that to support students break this academic code, a ‘code-switch’ need to take place; that is, to help students move between everyday talk and academic language. To do this again echoes of the principles set out earlier in this review can be seen. Quigley sets out a number of suggestions as well, arguing in using academic language frequently to ‘nudge’ students into using it themselves. His second suggestion, like Puttman et al. is to argue for the teaching of the roots of words and he also advocates, in a similar fashion, teaching prefixes and suffixes as a way to disarm some of the challenge posed by new complex words. Quigley also argues, like Marzano, that pupils should be engaged in the debate and discussion of words, encouraging their contextual understanding for students. Finally, Quigley advocates, in an echo of Beck et al. the use of the Academic Word List developed by Averil Coxhead 25 to allow teachers to focus on the teaching of tier 2 and 3 vocabulary 26 .

23 https://cowesec.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/TeachingLearning/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7BDBFFCEED6A53-401B-B6C1- CD969113FE05%7D&file=Isabel%20Beck%27s%20Three%20Tiers%20of%20Language.docx&action=default&mobileredir ect=true 24 https://cowesec.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/TeachingLearning/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7BB5FDB967- F6C5-4815-A671- 316761B04CA9%7D&file=Cracking%20the%20Academic%20Code.docx&action=default&mobileredirect=true 25 https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/lals/resources/academicwordlist 26 https://cowesec.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/TeachingLearning/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7BB5FDB967- F6C5-4815-A671- 316761B04CA9%7D&file=Cracking%20the%20Academic%20Code.docx&action=default&mobileredirect=true

In summary, what does the academic studies reviewed suggest about teaching vocabulary in an educational setting and how might this inform my practice? Firstly, it is clear that the approach has to be holistic and not piecemeal or tokenistic and this is a trap that teachers can easily fall into. Secondly, it is also clear that pupils have to be engaged in deep and meaningful vocabulary learning which allows them to develop their own understanding of word and term meanings as well as providing opportunities for recall and regular practice to allow for what Graves describes as ‘word consciousness’. Thirdly, there is a need to reflect on the mechanics of how to teach vocabulary in school and the work of Puttman et al. has suggested that the focus on roots, prefixes and suffixes as well as the use academic language to nudge students and to place the use of the words in their proper context is also important. Similarly, as is the focus on tier 2 and 3 vocabulary. Fourthly, whilst regular ‘testing’ of vocabulary may not always been possible or desirable, there is clearly a need to use low stakes testing, such as spelling tests of key words or discussion and talk, to support recall and to embed understanding, but also to allow teachers to effectively gauge the impact of vocabulary learning taking place in their classroom.

References: Robert J. Marzano, ‘The Art and Science of Teaching: Six Steps to Better Vocabulary Instruction’, Educational Leadership, Volume 67, Issue 1, 2009 Robert J. Marzano, ‘Building Background Knowledge for Academic Achievement: Research on What Works in Schools’, 2004 A.N. Kluger & A. DeNisi, ‘The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory’, Psychological Bulletin, Volume 119, Issue 2, 1996 Grace Onchiwari & Jared Keengwe, ‘Handbook of Research on Pedagogies and Cultural Considerations for Young English Learners’, IGI Global, 2017 Michael F. Graves, ‘Building a Comprehensive Vocabulary Program’, The NERA Journal, Volume 42, Issue 2, 2006 Michael F. Graves, ‘The Vocabulary Book: Learning & Instruction’, Teachers College Press, 2006 Steve Graham & Michael Hebert, ‘Writing to Read: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading’, Harvard Educational Review, Volume 81, Issue 4, 2010 Driver Youth Trust, ‘Spelling – using word study techniques’, 2020 Rebecca Puttman, ‘Using Research to make informed decisions about the Spelling Curriculum’, Texas Journal of Literacy Education, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2017 J. Thereur & S. Abildo, ‘Empowering Students through specific Vocabulary Instruction’, The California Reader, Volume 42, Issue 2, 2009 Beck et al. ‘Three Tier Model of Vocabulary’, 2002, summarised in a document in the Cowes Enterprise College CPD library Alex Quigley, ‘Cracking the Academic Code’, Teach Secondary Magazine, 24/02/2018

Rachel Kitley – How can we develop the modelling and scaffolding of complex writing expectations using FEAST?

The starting point I have the privileged position of teaching the whole of Year 7 this year. These students’ have not yet all developed the required core writing skills needed to articulate themselves clearly in writing. Student booklets showed students did not tend to meet our whole school FEAST requirements routinely: they did not always write in full sentences, use formal language or the lesson’s key words, in particular.

This example from a Year 7 E1M booklet demonstrates some literacy core skills are not yet independently acquired by this student, who does not have SEND needs and is a middle prior attainer. He does not write using formal language and instead uses the less formal words “cool” and “coz” and the phrase “no come back”. No tier 3 and little tier 2 vocabulary is present in spite of the fact that the lesson introduced the words “trolling” and “inflammatory” explicitly. The student does not write in full sentences even though I gave written and verbal reminders.

Research The starting point to my research was to note that my work around literacy to this point had not enabled a change in students’ independent skills. In spite of a significant focus on key words in this lesson, for instance, students had not used them in their writing. Clearly something else was needed to support students’ skill development in addition. There are seven suggestions regarding improving literacy in schools recently published by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). The fourth recommendation is to break down complex writing tasks. The report reminds us that writing is challenging and as a result “students will benefit from explicit instruction in how to improve” (Quigley, A., & Coleman, R., (2019) Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk (accessed 15/03/2020). Tharby writes that “Independence should be seen as the ideal result of learning from an expert, not something that miraculously occurs” (Tharby, A., (2013) Modelling writing… and the meaning of life https://cowesec.sharepoint.com (accessed 15/03/2020). This highlights that children cannot automatically write with fluent literacy and need to learn from our expertise to support this process towards literacy independence. From this research, modelling, therefore, emerged as the best

strategy to explore.

Further research enabled me to consider how best to carry out modelling. Tharby recommends modelling takes place on a little and often basis and includes the need for deconstruction of a text to enable students to understand the components needed. He also cites the benefits of what he describes as ‘dirty’ modelling, which consciously amalgamates the class’ targets into the modelling

which follows. (Tharby, A., (2013) Modelling writing… and the meaning of life https://cowesec.sharepoint.com (accessed 15/03/2020). This reading enabled me to decide to base the modelling around the FEAST targets (which already break the complex endeavour of formal writing down into 5 steps).

Sherrington’s reflections on Rosenshine added further advice about the most effective ways to model. ‘Rosenshine suggests that more effective teachers recognise the need to deal with the limitations of working memory and succeed in breaking down concepts and procedures into small steps.’ (Sherrington, T., (2019) Rosenshine's Principles in Action). Key to this seems to be Rosenshine’s observation that ‘less effective teachers typically use fewer worked examples.’ Sherrington also discusses the need for teachers to be modelling excellence and exposing our students to high quality examples. (Sherrington, T., (2019) Rosenshine's Principles in Action.)

Which teaching processes and strategies did you try that were different? Informed by my research, I made key decisions about my approach: Modelling enables a learner to benefit from seeing how someone proficient in a skill does it; it offers a window into our minds where learners can hear what we are thinking and enables them to think similarly. We tend to model practical activities far more often than we do our thinking and this holds students’ progress rates back in complex writing activities. Effective teachers will explicitly model what they do when they are thinking and writing (such as how they use formal language, tier 3 vocabulary and full sentences) and not expect them to gain these independent skills without this support. Models need to enable excellence in their level of challenge and high expectations. The process needs to deconstruct a text, phrase or sentence, breaking the complex act of writing down into small steps. This process needs to be repeated many times to be effective.

The research around the need to model for all students, in every lesson and subject, on a regular

basis is compelling. With this in mind I decided that the work I was carrying out around modelling needed to be able to be drawn on by all teachers. I therefore made the decision that the academy

needed to develop 5 core modelling videos to support students in lessons in each of the FEAST

literacy writing objectives, accompanied by a training video to support staff in how to use them. Producing videos for all staff to use aimed to reduce staff workload while ensuring all students can

receive consistency and repetition. For each of the areas of FEAST, a short, simple video now exists to play from September in a

classroom, irrespective of subject area, age or skill of student. These videos draw on the best research available, both regarding modelling as outlined above, and in respect to each literacy area. They model the writing expectations we have at the academy with high expectations and each video breaks down the skill into a smaller set of sub skills to deconstruct and therefore simplify the complex and possible ‘mysterious’ way to achieve an effective piece of writing. In line with the research, which evidences that students must see such modelling many times, the video format ensures that this is possible. Videos are purposefully generic so that they can be used in every subject area and are easy

to differentiate, meaning they can be used across all ages and abilities.

The videos can now be viewed and used for all staff on sharepoint. To further emphasise the importance of using these videos, next year one of the appraisal objectives for all teachers will be to evidence repeated and regular use of the videos across their classes, to meet all teacher’s ongoing responsibility to prioritise and support the development of literacy. Conclusion Due to COVID-19, I have been unable to use these videos in my teaching yet. I expect to see an improvement in the number of students using full sentences, formal language and tier 3 vocabulary when compared to the control group of Year 7 E1M 2019-2020, and for these improvements to transfer into other subjects as other teachers use the same videos to model the same core skills. We have high expectations at Cowes Enterprise College and expect all students, irrespective of their starting points, to learn independent core skills which will enable them to express themselves effectively. It is genuinely exciting to know that the route to achieving this is something within our grasp in the classroom. Excellence is transformational and as Berger reminds us “once a student sees that he or she is capable of excellence, that student is never quite the same. There is a new self-image, a new notion of possibility. There is an appetite for excellence” (Berger, R., (2003) An Ethic of Excellence, page 8).

Reading Berger, R., (2003) An Ethic of Excellence. London: Heinemann Quigley, A., & Coleman, R., (2019) Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools Guidance report. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk. Sherrington, T., (2019) Rosenshine's Principles in Action. London: John Catt. Tharby, A., (2013) Modelling writing… and the meaning of life https://cowesec.sharepoint.com .