JHIER-The Journal of the Haileybury Institute of Educational Research

JHIER

June 2023

Volume 1 Number 1

The Journal of the Haileybury Institute of Educational Research

June 2023

Volume 1 Number 1

Contents

Page 2

The impact of ‘visibility protocols’ on raising the quality of pupils’ exploratory talk in the secondary classroom

Alexandra Campbell, Sam Koon and Clare Tomsett

Page 11

What is the impact of developing active listening skills (using roles) on pupils’ understanding of new topics?

Emma Millo, Will Sherrington-Scales and Jess Tofts-Waters

Page 21

What is the impact of metacognitive talking aloud strategies with mixed ability pupils on their ability to apply their grammatical knowledge in translation, and/or interpretation of unknown literary texts?

Lorna Jones, José Martinez and Giovanna Iorio

Page 30

How can the engagement of pupils who are lacking efficacy in group work situations be improved in exam classes?

Graham Mitchell, Steve Trask and Kate Donkin

Page 37

What is the impact of Philosophy for Children on Year 13 politics pupils in their consolidation of knowledge at the end of a topic?

Tom Wade, Amy Sparrow and Nick Belfitt

It is with enormous pride that we welcome you to the inaugural journal of the Haileybury Institute of Educational Research. The Institute was formed in 2022 to provide a mechanism for undertaking research in the context of our school; the purpose of this is to consider how wider educational research can be best applied to further enhance the outcomes for our pupils. As a school, we want to understand how to improve in order to serve our pupils as best as possible: the Institute provides a platform for us to understand how to do this in an intentional, structured way that is informed by intellectual thinking.

You will find, in these pages, the work of a committed group of teacher-researchers who have pioneered this approach as part of the wider work of the Haileybury Institute of Educational Research. They have worked together across an academic year to consider evidence-informed interventions which have been designed to improve the learning outcomes of the pupils of Haileybury; they have focused primarily on how oracy can best be deployed to suit these ends. The papers contained within this journal have been peer-reviewed and published through the University of Cambridge and will form the basis of wider teacher education at Haileybury moving forwards.

More broadly, the founding of the Institute and the publishing of this journal signal our intent, as an academic institution, to improvement and development. The single biggest indicator of improving pupil outcomes is a teaching staff engaged in professional development and improvement: this journal is a manifestation of our commitment to this, and our commitment to thinking deeply about education and how we want our pupils to learn.

Stephen Campbell

Alexandra Campbell Deputy Head (Academic) Assistant Head (Professional Development and EDI)

classroom

Alexandra Campbell, Sam Koon and Clare Tomsett

Haileybury, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Abstract

Background and Purpose The participating teachers identified that, in the context of English and Classics lessons, pupils’ confidence and competence levels when engaging in Exploratory Talk can sometimes be poor. Accordingly, they wanted to develop an activity that could be used and adapted in different subject domains.

Aims Recognising that exploratory talk is a tool that promotes cognitive engagement, the teachers wanted to support secondary pupils in being able to develop these skills so that their understanding of the course content would become more sophisticated and nuanced. They also wanted them to become more aspirational in the way that they articulated themselves, and decided that introducing different ‘visibility protocols’ was a way of achieving these aims.

Study Design or Methodology The teachers used a research lesson study design, across three observation cycles, using three case pupils in each one. In total, there were 34 pupils participating in the lessons that were observed (24 in one class, and 10 in another). In the first and third observation cycle, the same case pupils were used. The pupils had been identified as being at different levels in terms of their academic ability and exploratory talk skills: high academic ability and high ‘talk’ competency/confidence, high academic ability and low ‘talk’ competency/confidence, low academic ability and low ‘talk’ competency/confidence. The project involved taking post-lesson feedback from pupils in the form of an evaluation form. After each lesson, the participating teachers also took part in reflective discussion, which both helped to form qualititaive data and which informed the adaptation of the methodology.

Findings By giving pupils clear success criteria for exploratory talk, some pupils were able to evaluate the quality of other peoples’ talk showing increased metacognitive awareness. Additionally, a ‘visible talk activity’ enabled some pupils to develop a better understanding of the skills required in the context of exploratory talk. The element of low-level threat that was involved also motivated some pupils to perform well. Indeed, it was noted that across the talk activities, some pupils demonstrated increased participation and confidence levels.

Implications for Practice

Methodologically, research lesson study is now starting to become embedded as a professional learning tool in the research school, due to the benefits realised through this for staff and student learning. Additionally, with regards to the research focus, the particpating teachers now have a sequence of ‘talk activities’ that could be used within lessons in their subject domains, and adapted to meet the needs of particular classes. Finally, beyond the immediate context of the school, and with some adaptation, it is felt that this sequence of ‘visible talk’ activities could work in different contexts (e.g. key stages, subjects).

Keywords

Oracy, self-regulation, metacognition, visible talk, exploratory talk

The impact of ‘visibility protocols’ on raising the quality of pupils’ exploratory talk in the secondary

Context

The school in which this study was conducted is an independent, co-educational boarding school in Hertfordshire. At the time of the lesson study, it had 900 pupils on roll, aged 11–18. The teachers within the school recognised that much of the research surrounding talk and its impact on pupil learning focuses on the primary classroom, and so they were keen to broaden the field by considering its application and impact in a secondary context.

Motivation, focus and questions

Based on their professional experience, the teachers within the Research Lesson Study group all acknowledged that Exploratory Talk was an important tool for cognitive engagement in their respective subjects – English and Classics – and that this was applicable across the Key Stages. Indeed, they felt that high quality talk could lead to deeper thinking, better retention, and, in turn, improved performance. This is the type of talk in which participants all actively participate in a discussion, sharing their ideas and opinions, and giving reasons for their viewpoints. Within it, knowledge is made more publicly accountable and reason more visible, as participants constructively evaluate each other’s ideas. These ideas may be challenged, but this challenge must be justified and alternative hypotheses offered. (Mercer and Wegerif, 2004)

However, whilst these conditions are widely accepted as valuable, educationalists have noted that ‘their fulfilment is often thought to be challenging.’ (Howe, 2021). Correspondingly, a common observation amongst the teachers was that, whilst they might signpost these ‘talk skills’, or even encourage pupils to adopt particular ‘talk roles’ within the context of group discussion, the quality of the talk can often deteriorate when the pupils are not being directly monitored by a member of staff. For example, the talk can veer off-task, and if it remains on-task, it can lack productive features (Galton, Hargreaves, Comber, Wall, & Pell, 1999; Galton, Simon, & Croll, 1980; Kutnick & Blatchford, 2014). Indeed, it may involve features of Cumulative Talk, which is when participants add uncritically to what has gone before, and initiations are typically accepted either without discussion or with only superficial amendments (Littleton, et al., 2005). Alternatively, a scenario might emerge in which certain voices dominate, whilst others remain passive.

The teachers felt that the impact of poor quality of talk is that the quality of learning can be compromised, thus they felt compelled to explore the contributing factors. They hypothesised that perhaps pupils do not always have the metacognitive awareness about what this type of talk actually looks and sounds like. They also conjectured that, for some pupils, the fact that they are essentially shielded from the gaze of the teacher and the wider class in group discussion and therefore might feel relatively ‘safe’, can lead them to feel that they needn’t perform to the best of their ability. Research focusing on talk also suggests that learning results from ‘active processes of reflection by individual students, where multiple aspects of group interaction are coordinated and appraised, often post-group, therefore after a group discussion has concluded’ (Howe, 2009; Howe et al., 1992, Howe, McWilliam, & Cross 2005). This suggests that for learning to occur, a meta-cognitive perspective needs to be taken, and one way of achieving this involves ensuring that interaction within groups is observed and then evaluated by non-group members who are given an opportunity to tell classmates what happened within their groups. (Howe, 2021). It has been found that pupils tend to find this type of activity valuable and that this can increase the perceived value of group work amongst pupils (Mercer, Dawes, & Kleine Staarman, 2009).

Taking the above into consideration, the teachers devised the following research question: What is the impact of ‘visibility protocols’ on raising the quality of pupils’ exploratory talk in the secondary classroom? Whilst they intended to focus on lessons that required pupils to discuss ideas in relation to pieces of literature, the hope was that by adapting and honing an intervention through a series of observations, they would eventually devise a tool that could be used in a range of different subject

domains. They identified that the following ‘visibility protocols’ would be introduced:

• More explicit signposting of success criteria in relation to Exploratory Talk

• Introducing a ‘Visible Talk’ activity, which requires some pupils to model a small group discussion, whilst being observed and evaluated by other pupils within the class. (They would offer feedback in a post-group work discussion).

• Using some pupils as ‘guardian angels’ to support the pupils engaged in the ‘Visible Talk’ activity (therefore attenuating any perceived ‘threat’ so that it is experienced to a manageable degree and performance is not entirely impeded)

• Encouraging pupils to reflect on their performance against the success criteria, in order to develop better metacognitive awareness

In terms of success criteria, the participating teachers identified the following:

• Pupils will be able to sustain quality exploratory talk in which they: Give reasons or evidence to support their viewpoints, encouraging others to do the same Build upon the ideas of others

Evaluate and challenge each others’ ideas.

Inquiry plan and activities

The Research Lesson Study involved three inquiry cycles. Though the teachers recognised that it would be most beneficial to observe the same class in each of these cycles, this proved logistically problematic. This is because the nature of the intervention required the pupils to have a secure foundational knowledge of the taught texts and so could only take place towards the end of a unit of work. As a result of this, the teachers alternated between two classes, with the end of each cycle providing the teachers with an opportunity to reflect on pupil progress, and to modify the interventions accordingly before the next observation. While one researcher (the lead teacher) delivered the lesson, the second and third teachers observed the lesson, focusing their attention on three pupils that had been pre-selected by the lead teacher. The teachers used an observation and a post-lesson discussion template provided within Pete Dudley’s Lesson Study Handbook. They also used a self-made electronic evaluation form at the end of each lesson to survey the pupils. The same form was used after each cycle with no adaptations made to it. The purpose of it was to glean what the pupils had learnt in terms of the curriculum content and also their oracy skills. They were also given an opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of the lesson and to provide suggestions for improvement; the participating teachers then used this feedback, along with their own observation, to adapt the lesson activities, before the next observation cycle began.

Cycle One: Year 10 pupils (ages 14–15) studying GCSE English Literature (24 pupils in total)

Within this class, there were several pupils with English as an Additional Language, and some pupils with a dyslexic profile. The pupils in the class had been studying ‘Of Mice and Men’ over a number of weeks. At the start of the lesson, pupils were sat on tables that were located around a central table, in groups of six. The lesson was split into four phases:

1. The pupils were asked to reflect on their experiences of group work in the past – when it had been successful and when it had proved challenging. The pupils then generated ‘success criteria’ for Exploratory Talk and fed back their ideas to the teacher, who recorded these ideas on the board.

2. The teacher introduced a Talking Point about the text (‘Curley’s Wife does not deserve pity and is responsible for the events at the end of the novel’. To what extent do you agree with this view?), and instructed the pupils to discuss this in their groups, striving to meet the success

criteria for Exploratory talk. The group nominated a Scribe (whose role was to summarise the ideas that were generated on a support document), and a Quality Assurer (who was responsible for monitoring the quality of talk and providing feedback).

3. The groups were asked to nominate a spokesperson who joined the central table. These four individuals engaged in a public discussion centering on the Talking Point; they used the support document as a prompt. The observing pupils on the surrounding tables functioned on Guardian Angels. When the felt it was needed, the pupils on the central table were able to turn around and seek guidance from these peers about further content that they could use in their discussion.

4. To conclude, the teacher encouraged the Guardian Angels to summarise the arguments that the core pupils had explored, and to provide feedback on the efficacy of the Exploratory Talk in line with the success criteria. All pupils were then asked to evaluate their use of Talk skills, and the efficacy of the lesson using the aforementioned evaluation form.

Cycle Two: Year 12 (ages 16–17) pupils studying IB English Language and Literature (10 in total)

The pupils within this class were ethnically diverse (Italian, German, Nigerian, Columbian, and Russian) but fluent speakers of English. The pupils had recently completed their study of Moshin Hamid’s ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’. They sat in groups of 3/4 in a horseshoe, located around a central table. As with cycle one, the lesson was split into 4 phases:

1. In an amendment to cycle one, the pupils were given the success criteria for Exploratory Talk and were asked to rank themselves against the skills. The teacher used visual stimuli to encourage the pupils to elicit the difference between Exploratory Talk and Cumulative Talk, explaining that the latter should be avoided. The visual stimuli were images taken from the internet to serve as metaphors for the different talk skills for example, a picture of a spade to represent the idea of probing; two individuals pulling on a rope to signify the idea of challenge, and different images of lego pieces to represent building upon each others’ ideas and also the idea of cumulative talk,

2. The teacher introduced a Talking Point: ‘Hamid presents Changez as the antagonist* in the novel, for whom we shouldn’t feel sympathy’. To what extent do you agree with this view? Within their groups, the pupils used Exploratory Talk to interrogate this in relation to the text; one pupil compiled their ideas on a support document.

3. The groups were asked to nominate a spokesperson to move to the central table. These three individuals engaged in a discussion on the Talking Point. In an amendment to cycle one, the observing pupils on the outer horseshoe either worked as ‘Quality Assurers’ or ‘Content Guardian Angels’. The former monitored the quality of the talk, using the Exploratory Talk success criteria sheet to log the talk skills that they observed; the latter monitored the content of the talk considering what further evidence could be discussed, or how ideas could be challenged. In an amendment to cycle one, every three to four minutes, the discussion was paused so that the core pupils could liaise with their Content Guardian Angels and so that the Quality Assurers could provide a strength and an area for improvement regarding the nature of the talk. This made the learning environment more calm and controlled.

4. The teacher encouraged the observing pupils to summarise the arguments that had been explored. As with cycle one, pupils were asked to use the evaluation form to summarise what they had learnt about Exploratory Talk, and to offer feedback on the efficacy of the lesson.

5. As an amendment to cycle one, this lesson was then followed by a homework task in which pupils recorded themselves speaking about the Talking Point individually for three minutes, using the ideas generated in the lesson.

Cycle Three: Year 10 (ages 14–15), pupils studying GCSE English Literature (24 in total)

This class contained the same pupils as in cycle one. For this observation, the pupils had been studying ‘A View from the Bridge’ over a number of weeks. As in cycle one, at the start of the lesson, pupils were sat on tables that were located around a central table, in groups of six. The lesson was split into four phases:

1. As above (see Phase One in Cycle Two)

2. As with previous cycles, the teacher introduced a Talking Point: ‘The audience should not sympathise with Eddie – he deserves a tragic ending!’ Discuss. Within their groups, the pupils used Exploratory Talk to interrogate this in relation to the text; one student compiled their ideas on a support document.

3. As above (see Phase Three in Cycle Two)

4. As above (see Phase Four in Cycle Two)

Ethical considerations and relationships

The partcipating teachers liaised with the Deputy Head Academic, along with the Heads of English and Classics to quality assure the research question and ensure that all observations were conducted in line with school policies.

In this school, pupils and parents are aware that Oracy is a whole school developmental focus, and that there is an ‘open door’ policy, with observation as an established norm. Regardless of this, in order for any pupil anxiety to be minimised, the teachers forewarned their respective classes that their next lesson was going to be observed; the pupils therefore had an opportunity to ask questions, to voice any concerns and to have these addressed, and to potentially opt out (though this did not occur). In each lesson, the structure of the observed lesson was explained fully and pupils were made aware of all expectations.

Additionally, the case study pupils did not know that they had been selected for close observation because the teachers felt that having this knowledge might influence the pupils’ behaviour during the lesson, and therefore potentially impact their results.

Finally, it was felt that there were no safeguarding concerns as the teachers were not filming the participants (and therefore did not need parental consent for image use, as outlined in the school’s safeguarding policy). All data remained confidential during the project, with names anonymised within this research paper.

Findings

After each cycle, pupil feedback from the evaluation form provided the teachers with insight into the impact of the visibility protocols on the pupils’ understanding of what effective talk looks and sounds like. Interestingly, when asked what they had learnt about Oracy Skills, one pupil in observation cycle one stated that: ‘I learned what they were. [Before] I had heard teachers talk about them but I wasn’t sure what exactly they were. Now I can have a group discussion that is successful’. This suggests that by making the final talk activity ‘visible’, the teacher was able to make abstract talk skills more tangible to the pupils, helping them to better understand what they should be trying to emulate. Elsewhere, in observation cycle two, one pupil stated: ‘I was able to hear different opinions concerning the book coming from multiple people, which changed my perspective on the main character and other aspects of the novel’, whilst another articulated: ‘I learnt that it is very important to build up on others’ arguments and to not try to get through all of your own points. One should try to be more responsive and less focused on voicing new ideas trying to tick all the boxes on a list. This is what I will try and do in the future’. These comments corroborate the last point made and also suggest that the sequence of talk activities in the lessons might have helped some pupils to become more flexible and sophisticated in their thinking, as they became able to consider different perspectives.

In cycle two, the increased complexity in pupil thinking was demonstrated in the quality of work that was produced for the subsequent homework task (a three minute talk in which pupils recorded themselves speaking about the Talking Point individually for three minutes).

During the project, the teachers found that these visibility protocols might improve the engagement of relatively low ability pupils who are sometimes disengaged and who tend to distract their peers (potentially as a mechanism to conceal their own low confidence). In observation cycle one and three, Pupil C did begin the activities displaying off-task behaviour, seeming to want to entertain his peers rather than to take the activity seriously. However, in time during the first small group discussion, he started to offer more sensible suggestions, and eventually put himself for the visible talk activity. It is important to note that although the quality of Pupil C’s ideas in the context of this activity was variable, and though he used a relatively low academic register, the lead teacher felt that his level of engagement had improved.

Additionally, they also found that these visibility protocols may well increase the confidence of high ability pupils, who do not normally tend to thrive in the context of exploratory talk activities, remaining relatively quiet. Indeed, in the small group discussion in observation cycle one, Pupil A seemed to struggle to assert herself: her utterances often remained unfinished, and other pupils spoke over her. However, she then put herself forward to be in the visible talk activity. In this context, she was by far the strongest of the central speakers, offering perceptive observations about the text, building on the ideas of and using questions to probe the thinking of others. The positive impact of Pupil A’s was recognised by one of her peers who joined her in the visible talk activity. In the evaluative feedback they said that ‘I feel as though this lesson was very productive and it brought out the best of me as a student. I also believe that I have been challenged greatly by [Pupil A] as she asked me very challenging and thought provoking questions that made me dive and delve deeper into the novella’. One might infer from this that the activity gave Pupil A the opportunity to show that she was strong to her peers. Interestingly, in observation cycle three, during the small group activity in which pupils generated ideas for the talk activity, the other pupils looked to Pupil A for affirmation and she took the lead in generating ideas. Similarly when she was a ‘Content Guardian Angel’, she was proactive in sharing her ideas in order to support the pupil in the centre of the room.

Resources

The participating teachers developed a document that not only establishes the success criteria for effective exploratory discussion, but can be used when observing and evaluating the talk of others. It is an effective tool to promote metacognitive awareness.

Campbell, S. Koon and C. Tomsett

Reflective evaluation on the process

The participating teachers all enjoyed the collaborative and supportive nature of this project, and how it gave them an opportunity to identify and troubleshoot a challenge that they all shared in their respective classrooms. Classroom observation can sometimes tend to focus heavily on the actions of the teacher and it was refreshing for the observers to focus their attention entirely on the learning of pupils so that any subsequent change to teaching was more closely aligned with their needs. As an aside, this has influenced how a couple of the teachers have conducted observations in their role as line managers. Additionally, all participating teachers recognized the value of having multiple observers as each participating teacher brought a new perspective to the post-observation discussion.

That being said, there were some minor external challenges. For example, firstly, it proved difficult to find suitable lessons that all participants were able to attend. To help solve this issue, the teachers chose to use two different classes (Year 10 and Year 12 respectively), rather than observing the same class over three observation cycles. In the end, this actually proved beneficial as the teachers were able to see the intervention work within two different key stages. Additionally, the teachers found that post-observation reflections were also demanding in terms of time. Moving forward, to make projects such as this sustainable, school leaders would need to protect more time for professional development and also for department meetings to be more developmental in their focus, as opposed to administrative. It is recognised that this may be particularly challenging in the context of a boarding school, where it is difficult for all staff to meet at the same time outside of specific in-service training. This is because there are always pupils who need supervising. This may be easier to achieve in the context of a day school (either state or independent), because in these contexts, staff are able to attend regular twilight sessions.

Changes to Practice and Next Steps

Moving forward, the participating teachers have agreed that they would all continue to use the visibility protocols in future lessons. The participating teachers are also intending to cascade these ideas back to their respective departments and to other areas of the school. When this is shared, they intend to underscore that the intervention and resources should be adapted to suit the age, stage ability and ‘talk competence’ of individual classes. For example,

• The ‘exploratory talk success criteria sheet’ could be used in different ways to suit the needs of different groups of pupils. For lower ability classes, the sheet could be simplified, with some of the information being removed, or with a focus on fewer talk skills. If a teacher wants to increase the pupils’ metacognitive awareness in terms of their talk skills, then they might ask the pupils to evaluate their competence and/or confidence with each individual criterion. In terms of using the sheet to evaluate their peers, the teacher could ask pupils to tick different talk skills when they observe them, or alternatively, they could make more detailed notes about what they see and hear.

• When pupils are engaging in exploratory talk in small groups, the teacher should use this as an opportunity to observe and critique the quality of talk. For example, if a pupil is ‘opting out’, then the teacher might comment on this and encourage other group members to involve them. Equally, if the teacher observes that the pupils are engaging in cumulative talk, then they should pose questions to the group that will encourage them to evaluate the quality of ideas being shared.

• Within the central talk activity, we advise teachers to engineer the group, based on the aims of the individual lesson. Picking weaker students to sit in the middle, in a supportive environment, will increase their confidence and help them engage in academic discussion. While picking stronger pupils will expose the rest of the class to a higher level of discussion (perhaps

particularly appropriate at a revision stage in a unit?). Additionally, the teachers could also rotate who speaks on the central table. This would open up an opportunity to compare the quality of talk across groups.

References

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D., & Pell, A. (1999). Inside the primary classroom: 20 years on. London: Routledge.

Galton, M., Simon, B., & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the primary classroom (the ORACLE project). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Kutnick, P., & Blatchford, P. (2014). Effective group work in primary school classrooms: The SPRinG approach. Dordrecht: Springer.

Howe, C. (2009). Collaborative group work in middle childhood: Joint construction, unresolved contradiction, and the growth of knowledge. Human Development, 52, 215–239. https://doi. org/10.1159/000215072.

Howe, C (2021). Strategies for supporting the transition from small-group activity to student learning: A possible role for beyond-group sharing. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 28 (2021) 100471.

Howe, C. J., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children: Group interaction and the understanding of motion down an incline. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835x.1992.tb00566.x.

Howe, C., McWilliam, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 67–93. https://doi. org/10.1348/000712604x15527.

Kutnick, P., & Blatchford, P. (2014). Effective group work in primary school classrooms: The SPRinG approach. Dordrecht: Springer.

Littleton, Karen; Mercer, Neil; Dawes, Lyn; Wegerif, Rupert; Rowe, Denise and Sams, Claire (2005). Talking and thinking together at Key Stage 1. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 25(2) 167 -182.

Mercer, N. and Wegerif, R (2004) Is ‘exploratory talk’ productive talk? In Daniels, H., & Edwards, A. (Eds.). (2004). The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in psychology of education. London. RoutledgeFalmer. pp 67–86.

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23, 353–369. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09500780902954273.

new topics?

Emma Millo, Will Sherrington-Scales and Jess Tofts-Waters

Haileybury, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Abstract

Background and purpose Active listening has been proposed to give the best outcomes for learning.

Aims The aim of this study was to see if encouraging active listening through the use of different roles aids pupil understanding of new topic areas. This study was carried out across a range of different age groups (from Year 8 to Lower Sixth; ages 12–17) and different subjects (Geography, Psychology and Learning Support) to see the effectiveness of allocation of roles to active listening and retention of new information

Methodology A cycle of observation was scheduled where each teacher would be observed by two others, starting with an observation of a geography lesson being taught to 13–14 year old pupils. Each teacher planned their own lesson and identified key pupils for the observers to focus on during the lesson. After each lesson the triad met to discuss strengths and weaknesses of the lesson in order to adapt the teaching focus for the next lesson in the sequence.

Findings Adapting to given roles allows pupils to focus on certain pieces of information. When they are instructed to focus on certain parts of the information being presented it allows pupils to understand their specific area more quickly. However, the tasks do have to be well thought through and allow for collaboration later on so that pupils can put their part of the information back into the ‘whole’. It is also important to take into account other aspects such as the subject information being presented, the dynamic of the class, their age and experience of oracy tasks. This study suggested that active listening may be more effective for older pupils (sixth form age 16–18) as they are more established with their basic learning techniques and also potentially approach lessons in a more focused manner as they have chosen the subject and have their sights set on their targets for Higher Education. It would be wise to trial different active listening tasks with a range of classes to establish the most effective form of active listening for different age groups.

Implications for practice This study suggested that active listening can be encouraged through the allocation of different roles and that this, in turn, can produce effective learning of new topic areas. It was also found that the technique may be more effective for older pupils and needs adapting for those in younger year groups.

Keywords

Active listening, roles, new topics, oracy

What is the impact of developing active listening skills (using roles) on pupils’ understanding of

Context

Historically it has been found that children are expected to listen in school for around 50% of the time that they are in lessons; both to their teacher and to their peers (Wolvin & Coakley, 1982). More recently John Hattie combined studies on the topic of teacher voice in the classroom and found that teachers talk for 70%–80% of class time on average. After carrying out his own research Hattie found the average was actually higher, at around 89% (Hattie, 2009). We cannot merely expect children to be ‘good listeners’; we should be aiming to teach them to become active listeners. This process of active listening involves both receiving the information and being an active processor of it. This could include processing both the verbal and nonverbal signals that the speaker is using (Hennings, 1992). A good listener will be able to filter out much of what they hear in order to focus on the message that they are receiving (Jalongo, 1995). They will also listen in an active way; so they will get involved with what they are hearing, pay complete attention, actively process the information, make comments and ask questions. Anecdotal evidence from teachers suggests that listening as a skill has been neglected and there is limited training or focus on listening as an independent skill (Jalongo, 1995). The following quotation summarises well the importance of listening for understanding:

“We hear with our ears, but we listen with our minds’ (Garman & Garman, 2014, p. 5)

It has been suggested that by not signalling the importance of listening and only emphasising speaking, we lose focus on the role of listening in collaborative learning. In order to learn as part of a group it is so important for each member to take on board the ideas of others through a process of active listening and engagement, it has been suggested that working in this manner leads to better learning than for those who work in a competitive and individualistic classroom environment (Bruffee, 1994; Remedios et al., 2012)

This intervention focused on the use of active listening interventions in a co-educational independent school in Hertfordshire. The school has circa 900 pupils from Year 7–Year 13 from a range of backgrounds including a large international community. The pupils used in this study were in Year 7, Year 9 and Year 12 (ages 11–12, 13–14 and 16–17).

Motivation, focus and questions

“Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just sitting in classes listening to teachers, memorising prepackaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write reflectively about it, relate it to past experiences, and apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves.” (Chickering & Gamson, 2000)

The rationale for this investigation is based around the apparent need to encourage active listening in pupils in order to develop stronger understanding and in turn promote oracy skills. It was suggested when new topics are being taught the lessons tend to be more heavily teacher led and involve lots of information to be absorbed by pupils. This involves the need for good listening skills. Pupils tend to rely upon the teacher to give them all the information in a passive manner rather than actively engaging with the information and trying to process it whilst listening in order to make comments and ask questions, as mentioned above. This led to the focus on giving pupils roles to guide their active listening so that they knew what they should be listening for; what the intended outcome of their listening would be.

The inquiry focused on the impact of developing active listening skills (using roles) on pupil’s understanding of new topics. The aim was to see the impact of roles on whether pupils were able to listen more actively and in turn whether this active listening tended to improve their accumulation of new knowledge. Roles were allocated by the teacher and were mostly done based on the

teacher’s knowledge of the pupils. Some of the roles were slightly more difficult and so allocation was differentiated for each of the groups. As the roles were new pupils didn’t have a say in their role but this would be considered in the future once the understanding of them is embedded. Pupils kept the same role throughout the lesson for continuity and understanding. According to research if pupils listen more actively then they will be able to develop greater understanding (Garman et al., 2014). Therefore it was expected that by being given focused roles, pupils would be able to direct their attention to the pertinent information to their role. Therefore, they would be able to tune out non essential information, the full information could then be re-built through group work. It was expected that pupils would be able to initially gain more in depth understanding of a smaller part of a new topic which could then be built upon through further oracy techniques.

The importance of listening as the focus of this inquiry was based on the idea that listening is the first linguistic skill that humans require and as such is an extremely important device for developing our knowledge and understanding of the world around us. There are various definitions of what listening actually is; whether it is simply hearing the message that has been sent or making sense of it. However, there is a consensus that listening is not a passive process and requires effort to receive and interpret the message in order to fully achieve accurate communication (DeVito, 2013; Omololu, 1984). According to Hunsaker (1990), 80% of what people know is obtained by listening and for students this number rises ever so slightly to 83% (Hunsaker, 1983 and Petress, n.d.).

Inquiry plan and activities

This lesson study was carried out over one cycle (three lessons) and each time a different year group was taught and lessons were adapted based on feedback from the previous sessions. Three teachers were involved, all of whom would teach one of the lessons whilst the other two acted as observers. One teacher specialised in geography, one in psychology and one was the SENDCo and teaching learning support lessons. Lesson observations were conducted using the same proforma each time (Appendix A) and the same questions for the focus pupils (Appendix C). The group also discussed each observation using the same set of questions (Appendix B). These templates were all created independently so that they were suitable for the range of subjects and ages involved in the lesson study. The Year 9 Geography class (ages 13-14) contained 20 pupils, the Year 12 (ages 16–17) class contained 12 pupils, and the learning support group (ages 11-12) contained six pupils. Within each class three cases students were selected by the teacher of that class based on ability; one from the top, middle and bottom of the class in terms of achievement. Each teacher determined the roles used within their own lesson, based on the task that was being completed. However, the roles were based on those pictured below and the descriptions were used to help the students understand their roles:

Active Listening Roles

• Restate: Put into your own words what the speaker said to make sure you understand it and show that you are paying attention.

• Summarise: Include key words, main ideas and details in a couple of sentences.

• Reflect: Think about what the speaker has said and share a comment and/or feeling on what you thought about it.

• Ask Questions: Use your questions to get more information and to encourage the speaker to elaborate on their ideas, thoughts and feelings.

• Make Connections: Relate what is being said to your own life experiences and/or to the real world.

As the lesson study was carried out on three different classes (different subjects and age groups) it was difficult to have set success criteria. However, teacher knowledge of pupils and their usual capabilities was useful to see if the intervention produced ‘better’ learning. There was also the opportunity to send pupils Google Form quizzes to assess their learning and compare to classes who weren’t taught using the active listening strategies. Pupils were also asked for their feedback on the strategies to see if they felt that they had learnt more than they might have when taught in a more traditional manner.

A difference was expected in terms of engagement across different year groups and the need for potential different strategies with these age groups. Overall, we expected the outcome to be that, as pupils became more used to active listening as a process, through the use of roles to break down what can be quite a difficult skill, they would be able to engage with material more quickly and achieve a greater level of understanding. By allowing pupils this space to be able to contribute with associated roles through the active listening tasks, we wished to see if these pupils became more comfortable with their surroundings and peers in being less concerned about their answers, but more willing to contribute to the shared task. By allowing them this shared space pupils would be engaging in Psychological Safety, a ‘shared belief held by members of a team’ (Edmonson, 1999, p. 350); where a shared expectation that students can freely contribute without being held back by their peers or be embarrassed or punished when soliciting feedback.

Success was measured through comparison with control groups, who weren’t taught using active listening techniques. Learning was also measured by engagement of key pupils during lessons and knowledge carried over in future classes. It was anticipated that change would occur because giving a pupil a specific role allows them to really focus on certain information and therefore pay more attention to it when listening. The ‘noise’ of other less relevant information is lost, thus allowing for faster and more effective information processing. The rest of the information could then be re-built from joining together with other pupils who have been allocated different roles.

Ethical considerations and relationships

It is important to consider the dynamics and relationships within each classroom setting for active listening to be effective and for this progress to be measured effectively. We trialled the active listening strategies in three age groups with differing numbers of SEND pupils in each observed group. The teachers facilitating these sessions were aware of all SEND pupils’ needs by labelling these on their seating plans accordingly. Liaising with the SEND department and their staff, teachers were able to provide reasonable adjustments to these classes to enable each pupil to actively engage and actively listen to the tasks being administered. Pupils used their school devices to access the documents being asked of them by teachers which ensured the schools E-safety policy was followed.

As each teacher has a range of classes from the age groups studied it would be difficult to identify individual groups within this study and no pupil names were used as part of the processes. Case pupils were referred to by initials between researchers, which have been redacted from this report. All pupils in the lesson were taking part in the active listening task but only certain pupils’ behaviour and learning were being observed carefully. The responses of all pupils were noted but it was up to each of the pupils whether they wished to fill in the feedback forms at the end of the lessons.

As the hypothesis was that active listening would enhance pupil learning of new topics it was important to give all groups the chance to have their learning enhanced. Therefore, any classes which weren’t initially taught using these methods had a chance to take part in a lesson that used similar strategies to those used in the research lesson study.

Findings

In Stage 1, a Google Forms quiz was used to assess pupils’ recollection of the material covered at the end of the lesson. Active listening was implemented with one class, and not with another. Both groups were mixed ability. Following the lesson, a Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to establish whether there was a significant difference between the scores in the quiz from each class. This test was considered the most appropriate because it was looking for a difference between two independent groups.

Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the results of those who learned the material utilising active listening, and those who learned the material without.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference in the amount of information recalled on an assessment after the lesson for the pupils who were taught using the active listening methods when compared to classes who were not taught using active listening roles.

The result of the Mann-Whitney U test led to the researchers failing to reject the null hypothesis. However, it is important to consider that this was the teacher’s first attempt at using active listening roles, and perhaps further practice would enable the activity to be implemented more effectively.

What was noticeable with all pupils through Stage 1, 2 and 3 was that they enjoyed the delegation of roles in them being able to know what was expected of them in the lesson. By them being given a clearly defined role in the active listening tasks it enabled them to actively listen with an instruction associated with this role. The roles also seemed to benefit the SEND pupils in each class as they were then more comfortable and confident in using their roles to express opinion and feedback their findings as their path was clear and they understood their part in the lesson. This did not enable these usually passive pupils who are less confident in lessons to be an observer and missed. An example of this was when working in groups all pupils supported each other by contributing their knowledge gained from their own role and listening to the knowledge of others. By showing empathy for others, pupils were again able to foster Psychological Safety (Edmonson, 1999); the idea that less confident pupils (e.g. SEND pupils) will not feel punished or humiliated with their answers or mistakes when the teacher is soliciting feedback.

The Sixth Form pupils seem to adapt better to the listening roles than the young year groups did. It seemed that listening skills developed directly with chronological age as each increasing age group seemed to gradually improve in this area. This may have been because they were more used to doing activities like this in their lessons (as they tend to be taught in smaller groups), or it may have been due to their comparative level of maturity and ability to manipulate material. It was also clear that some material lends itself to being taught in this way more. It is difficult to manipulate the roles to fit the information being taught; it is much more effective if the material automatically fits into different categories e.g. knowledge, evaluation, key terms etc as this makes the division of tasks much easier and there is less overlap. This would suggest that active listening using roles should only be used in very specific situations and these should be fully explored by the teacher beforehand in order to generate greater success.

It also became clear that there can be a problem with misinformation. If pupils are replying on the listening skills of others to build up a full picture of a topic then they need to know that they can rely on the information from others in their group. This means that there needs to be some form of fact checking by others in the group or by the teacher to ensure that mistakes are not being ‘inherited’ by others.

Resources

Role card that was used to influence roles allocated in lessons.

Changes to practice

The issue of misinformation has been discussed above; after this had been identified a reflection was carried out after the first lesson during which it was discussed how some pupils may have made some mistakes in their understanding of the information and that these mistakes were then carried over into the group work because there was only one pupil per role in each group. This then changed the focus of the next lesson to address the potential issue. Pupils initially listened individually with their role in mind and then after reflecting on their role they were grouped together with others who also had the same role. This allowed for pooling of information and the potential to iron out any misunderstandings which may have arisen. This strategy was also carried across to the final lessons with the younger pupils. Instead of having groups of three or four (as with the older pupils) it was decided that having pairs would allow for pooling of information whilst limiting distraction. This was also important because of the SEND nature of the final group.

As the transmission of ‘misinformation’ had been identified as an issue from observation one the focus of future observations was to see whether this still occurred or whether the changes put in place did successfully remove this issue.

The biggest impact of the intervention was the focused listening due to the allocation of a role. This meant that students had something to focus on whilst listening to new information; which can at times be very overwhelming. This allowed for listening to become a more collaborative process in which pupils relied on others to help build their knowledge.

Reflective evaluation on the process

The use of different age groups across the inquiry allowed for the development of an understanding of how active listening differs across the year groups and how the activity needs to be tailored considering the age group and the SEND profile of the pupils. The use of different subjects also allowed a discussion about how the techniques may work differently depending on the topic/ subject area and that this would need careful consideration when planning a lesson.

The use of roles from the role card pictured above meant there was more consistency across the lessons and pupils could be observed performing these roles to varying levels of ability. This also allowed for further discussion about the suitability of different roles for different age groups and learning abilities. So the role cards could be used as more of a suggestion with individuals tweaking their practice as necessary rather than a definitive set of guidelines. The main disappointment was the challenge of measuring impact on pupils’ learning. This arose due to the time frame of the study and other pressures on the pupils during the time this was carried out. For example, after the second round the pupils in that class sat internal assessments and weren’t taught again for over 1.5 weeks. This meant it was very difficult to gauge the depth of their learning from the effectiveness of the intervention. It was also not possible to always have a control group to compare the intervention group to. This made the results of the observations far more subjective and created a difficulty in effectively assessing success criteria.

Disappointment was also experienced by the teacher of Stage 1. Despite careful planning of how roles might be used to support active listening, the execution of them appeared to lack effectiveness. Therefore a simple recommendation to future users of roles would be to first observe a colleague to gauge how they might most effectively be implemented.

In order to carry out the project it was essential for each member of the group to be supportive of the others when trialling different methods. Even though subject knowledge was different throughout the group the level of experience of using roles and active listening was relatively similar.

Therefore, all observations were carried out in a non-judgemental way that allowed for an open discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each lesson.

Finding the time for the group to meet in order to discuss, evaluate and plan the next stage was difficult and was often more rushed than it could have been. This meant that the planning process wasn’t always as collaborative as it could have been. However, overall the process allowed for interesting reflection as practitioners, looking at the needs of different year groups and mixes of pupils and how oracy techniques such as active listening need to be tailored for the specific group. This wasn’t a new idea as all classes need to be taught depending on their needs but it made the group reflect on the use of ‘one size fits all’ roles and guidelines for active listening and whether these also need to be adapted along with the way they are used within the lesson.

If this study were to be carried out again, it would be useful to do it across one class and see how their learning progresses over the weeks as they become more ‘expert’ at active listening. This would allow for easier measurement of outcomes, which was one of the major weaknesses of this study. This could then be scaled to a larger study group across different disciplines and age groups to see if the same need for different active listening techniques and different roles occurs on the macro scale as it did on the micro scale in this study.

Next steps

Clearly, the use of roles in active listening needs to be differentiated by year group and/or ability. As such, roles and their responsibilities should not be uniform across the Key Stages and perhaps differentiated role cards should be developed.

The use of roles and active listening tasks will not be suitable for all tasks and need careful and thoughtful consideration by the teacher before implementation. It might be that the teacher has to trial the task before they can gauge whether it will be successful or not. These types of risk will be beneficial in the long run and in establishing schemes of work with built in oracy skills.

For an accurate and measured outcome we would need to trial these strategies several times. This set of observed lessons were only measured by one outcome. For this to be a truly reflective piece, this investigation would need to be sustained for a further amount of time in one subject.

Millo, W. Sherrington-Scales and J. Tofts-Waters

References

Bruffee, K. A. (1994). Making the Most of Knowledgeable peers. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 26(3), 39–39.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1994.9940647

Chickering, A., & Gamson, S. (2000). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. CORE.

https://doi.org/10.25071/1497-3170.2711

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Garman, C., Garman, F., & Brown, W. (2014). Teaching Young Children Effective Listening Skills: A Guide for Parents & Teachers. William Gladden Foundation Press.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Corwin.

Hennings, D. G. (1992). Beyond the Read Aloud: Learning to read through listening to and reflecting on literature. Phi Delta Kappa International Incorporated.

Hunsaker, R. (1983). Understanding & developing the skills of oral communication: Speaking & listening.

Jalongo, M. R. (1995). Promoting active listening in the classroom. Childhood Education, 72(1), 13–18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1995.10522637

Petress, K. C. (n.d.). Listening: A vital skill - Document - Gale academic onefile. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(4), 261–261.

Remedios, L., Clarke, D., & Hawthorne, L. (2012). Learning to listen and listening to learn: One student’s experience of small group collaborative learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(3), 333–348.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0064-x

Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1982). Listening.

Appendix A

Research lesson 1 - observation

Time:

Aspect of learning:

Teacher/observer:

Accountable learning intentions and success criteria

Describe what you want the class to be able to do by the end of the lesson and what that will look like:

For each case pupil state what you hope this pupil will be able to do by the end of this lesson:

Lesson focus: Observed outcomes:

Appendix B

After the lesson:

What progress did each pupil make?

Was this enough?

• Each

What about others in the group of learners they typify?

Do we need to revise our assessment of any pupils?

What aspect(s) of our teaching could be adjusted next time to improve the progress of our case pupils and all pupils

So what should we try next time?

Appendix C

Questions for pupils:

What did you enjoy most about that lesson?

What did you learn? (What can you do now that you could not do? What can you do better? How is it better?)

What aspect of the teaching worked best for you?

If the same lesson is being taught to another group what would you change.

Why would you change that aspect?

Lorna Jones, José Martinez and Giovanna Iorio Haileybury, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Abstract

Background and purpose Developing translation skills is a very important process of language teaching and learning which pupils can find difficult at times. The purpose of this project is to use the ‘thinking aloud’ methodology to develop students’ inner monologue when tackling translation tasks and literature analysis, making it more explicit whilst completing tasks and honing in more easily on misconceptions.

Aims The aim is to explore the impact of ‘thinking aloud’ on the grammar understanding and literature text analysis of the pupils. It is also important to develop a methodology to tackle translation skills and literary analysis that could be used extensively with all year groups and that students could apply in future.

Study design or methodology

The teachers based their study design across three observation cycles focusing on Sixth form lesson. The teachers focused on using ’thinking aloud’ to develop pupils’ translation skills and literature analysis. The group was keen to use this methodology with pupils with different academic ability. Prior to the lesson cycles, the teacher identified that the pupils would approach translation tasks according to their linguistic proficiency and also their level of confidence. Therefore, the teachers were keen to see different pupil approaches to the ‘thinking aloud’ methodology. The process involved post-lesson meeting amongst teachers to discuss findings and reflections. Students were also questioned about their reflections on the process.

Findings Pupils approach translation tasks and text analysis according to their language proficiency and their level of confidence. More proficient pupils seemed initially reticent to use this methodology as they saw it as an unnecessary step. However, when reflecting about the lessons, all pupils, of all abilities, seemed to see the benefit of developing these skills both as a way of developing their translation and analytical skills as well as their oracy.

Implications for practice

All teachers agreed that they would use this approach with different year groups as a diagnostic exercise for ascertaining prior grammatical knowledge, to develop grammatical accuracy and to enhance pupils’ oracy. This methodology has been very well received in the department when it was presented during INSET days, which will help develop a collaborative approach amongst all teachers in the department to perfect this methodology.

Keywords

Active listening, roles, new topics, oracy

What is the impact of metacognitive talking aloud strategies with mixed ability pupils on their ability to apply their grammatical knowledge in translation, and/or interpretation of unknown literary texts?

Context

This study was conducted in an Independent School in Hertford, England, United Kingdom. The study was conducted with 16–17 year-old pupils studying A level and International Baccalaureate. The focus was to observe the metacognitive strategies working with ‘Thinking Out Aloud’ applied to translation and literature analysis.

Motivation, focus and questions

The teachers wanted to explore the use of metacognitive strategies such as ‘Thinking Aloud’, in line with the school-wide oracy strategy, to develop pupils’ self-reflection and improve how they approach translation tasks as teachers found that often pupils have misconceptions of their ability to tackle translation tasks effectively as pupils can sometimes struggle with certain grammatical concepts. Our inspiration for ‘thinking aloud’ came from research by Cambridge University who explored ‘metacognitive talk’. They define this as a ‘person saying out loud what they are thinking while they are carrying out a task.’ They go on to say, ‘Learners talking out loud is sometimes viewed by teachers to be an annoyance or a distraction in the classroom. However, talking out loud can help learners to focus and monitor their cognitive processing as well as helping them to develop a deeper understanding of their own thinking processes.’ 1

The teachers wanted to make students more analytical with their language when they translate and look at grammar in a more formal and methodical way. The teachers also applied ‘Thinking Aloud’ to the analysis of literature as a collaborative tool for teaching and learning literature. The teachers were interested in making students take time to approach translation tasks and literature analysis in order to avoid them rushing into translation exercises based on false assumptions of their knowledge.

The aim of this project was to develop aspects of Metacognition taken from ‘Getting Started with Metacognition’ from the Cambridge International Teaching and Learning team in order to improve pupils’ analytical skills applied to translation and literature analysis. The teachers used the Cambridge University Community literature to perfect their background knowledge on metacognition. The teachers were interested in this aspect of metacognition that they define as, ‘the learner’s knowledge of different strategies that are available to them and when they are appropriate to the task (e.g. ‘If I scan the text first it will help me to understand the overall meaning’) 2. The teachers wanted the pupils to be exposed to a range of strategies that their peers may use, so as to uncover the most suitable strategy for each pupil. With the correct strategy, pupils are able to achieve much more. This idea was researched by Vygotsky theorised the Zone of Proximal Development. This is defined as “the zone that lies between what a learner can achieve alone and what a learner can achieve without expert guidance.” 3

Teachers hope that by providing pupils with this ‘thinking aloud’ technique, pupils are then able to achieve more, with regard to their grammar understanding or literary analysis, than they would have otherwise been able to without this specific learning technique.

1 https://cambridge-community.org.uk/professional-development/gswmeta/index.html (Accessed December 20 2023)

2 Cambridge International Education Teaching and Learning Team (no date) Getting started with metacognition, Welcome. Available at: https://cambridge-community.org.uk/professional-development/ gswmeta/index.html (Accessed: December 20, 2023).

3 Cambridge International Education Teaching and Learning Team (no date) Getting started with metacognition, Welcome.Available at: https://cambridge-community.org.uk/professional-development/ gswmeta/index.html (Accessed: December 20, 2023).

Inquiry plan and activities

The Research Lesson Study involved three lesson observations focused on translation skills and literary analysis. The teachers structured the enquiry plan with lesson observation followed by discussion meetings in which the teacher observed received feedback from the other two teachers and then the group discussed the next steps involved in lesson planning for the following lesson. Teachers had to consider different cohorts of students and different approaches related to teaching of translation techniques and analysis of literature extracts for the International Baccalaureate.

Observations of case pupils (including comparison with predictions). The study involved one class of five pupils, and a second class of five pupils, and a third class of ten pupils. All pupils in each in each group were selected for the study, regardless of ability as the teachers wanted to find out what the impact of ‘thinking aloud’ was in pupils of different abilities, to develop this technique as a tool for language learning for all abilities and to develop oracy skills for pupils at all levels. We gathered feedback from pupils, some orally and some via a survey (see resource). We did have a post-lesson discussion after every lesson in order to discuss the methodology’s effectiveness and next steps forward. The teachers’ predictions were that there would be a certain reticence from high ability students to take steps before tackling translations while teachers predicted that perhaps lower ability students would be more open to taking a more methodical approach.

Although both the above predictions were confirmed, post-study feedback from pupils showed that the process was overall well received and that all students saw benefit from taking this approach as a working method.

Lesson 1

What happened?

1) The teacher explained the concept to the pupils and elicited discussion about inner monologues

2) The teacher modelled my own thinking aloud

3) Pupils were put into pairs. One partner completed a translation into German (testing vocabulary and grammar that we had covered in class). The other partner had to scribe their thoughts verbatim.

4) The group then went through the answers of the translations.

5) Pupils were asked to reflect on the success of the process.

6) They were set a prep to complete more translations and speak aloud their thoughts. This was modelled by me first.

7) The teacher marked their ‘thoughts allowed’ and noted down any misconceptions.

8) The teacher then went through this with them in the next lesson.

Lesson 2

What happened?

1. The teacher started by setting out the lesson objectives and how we are going to use Thinking Aloud and apply it to translation tasks and grammatical analysis

2. Pupils then completed a ‘spot the error’ activity in order to making them think about translation and discuss common misconceptions with each other

3. Pupils then watched a video in which I modelled the translation process while thinking aloud

4. For the next activity I divided the students into two groups, each group had to translate a different text into English analysing the grammar and looking at potential challenges

5. Each group then presented their impressions to the other group

6. Pupils stayed within the same groups to translate two different texts into Spanish analysing all aspects of the translation process and taking notes of the difficulties encountered

7. Reflection of the whole process.

The planning of the second lesson involved a translation into English as an intermediary step as a way of scaffolding for this particular group. This served as a good way of highlighting common misconceptions about translation. It was also a good way to get them to discuss grammatical items in the sentences as a stepping stone to the metacognitive task of verbalising their thinking when doing the translation into Spanish.

Using metacognition to help pupils find interesting connections in unseen literary texts

Using metacognition to help pupils make interesting connections in unseen literary texts was a great way to engage them in the reading process and promote deeper thinking about the text. This is how the lesson was structured:

The lesson started with a clear objective to make sure that pupils understood the goal of the lesson which was to use metacognition to identify interesting connections in an unseen literary text. The text was introduced and pupils received some background information, such as the author, genre, and time period. Active reading was encouraged and pupils were able to actively engage with the text by asking questions, making connections to their own experiences, and predicting what might happen next.

Another important aspect of this lesson was monitoring comprehension: pupils were encouraged to monitor their own comprehension by checking for understanding as they read. This involved pausing periodically to summarise what they read or to clarify any confusing parts. The lesson promoted metacognition by asking pupils to reflect on their own reading experience by asking questions such as, “What connections can I make between this text and other texts I have read?” or “What personal experiences can I connect to this text?”

It was also an example of collaborative learning as pupils worked together to discuss the text and shared their thoughts and insights. This helped pupils see the text from different perspectives and generate new ideas. At the end of the lesson, pupils were able to summarise the connections that they have made and they were invited to reflect on the metacognitive strategies they used to identify these connections.

Ethical considerations and relationships

The teachers had to explain the fact that we were trying out a new teaching method and we kindly appreciated their feedback. Other ethical considerations included anonymising the pupils, so that pupils could not be identified. Teachers selected translation extracts that were based on the relevant syllabi and that took into account the moral, spiritual and cultural needs of the pupils.

Findings

Here are some findings from the three lessons:

1. Firstly, when pupils are forced to speak aloud their thoughts, they are forced to think through their thought processes behind the grammar/literary analysis they are applying. Due to making thinking transparent, teachers know exactly what the misconceptions are, and can support them.

2. The more able pupils in the language seemed to be reticent to think aloud and wanted to go straight to translation without reflecting at all on the grammatical steps to get the correct end result. However, these pupils were actually making errors. Showing them they were making mistakes, made them more willing to engage with the task.

3. Less able pupils seemed to not have confidence in their own grammatical knowledge to be able to tackle the task at first. There needs to be a good balance between challenge and attainability in the tasks.

4. After completing the translation and literary analysis tasks pupils reflected on how useful this process had been and how they could apply metacognition to their practice when tackling translations and literary texts. Pupils’ general consensus was that this methodology was a useful process that they could take forward in future.

5. Pupils showed a lack of enthusiasm at first, but soon they engaged in the activity, encouraged by the possibility to make mistakes as the focus of the activity was to highlight the metacognitive process. It was also visible an increasing interest in the activity and in some cases, a stronger motivation.

6. Overall, using metacognition to help pupils find interesting connections in unseen literary texts can be a highly engaging and effective way to promote deep thinking and reading comprehension. By using a combination of active reading, monitoring comprehension and collaborative learning, pupils develop strong metacognitive skills that will help them in their future reading and learning experiences.

7. Pupils practised the skills of verbalising their thinking, therefore worked on their skills of oracy.

8. It seems that pupils gain from being able to see the steps and thought processes going on in someone else’s mind. It makes them feel less alone in their learning journey.

Figure below: Data collected from pupils showing their response to a survey about the Thinking Aloud process. Pupils had to fill in a survey after they had completed their Think Aloud videos. Positive feedback included that it increased their understanding of the German cases, and that they had to slow down on their translations, ‘as I normally write what I feel is right’. Some pupils were negative about the process, stating that they just ‘knew’ the correct answer, and so didn’t need to spell out each thought. This certainly was not the case. My findings were that pupils do in fact need practice at doing this. The task needs to be challenging but attainable, otherwise there is cognitive overload. There were tangible benefits: when pupils are forced to speak aloud their thoughts, they are forced to think through their thought processes behind the grammar they are applying. Due to making thinking transparent, teachers know exactly what the misconceptions are. Overall we believe that the positive responses outweigh the negative responses.

Pupil responses to ‘Did this help?’

Yes, but not really as half the time I just “knew” instead of actually thinking of the rules Yes, I understood the cases much more!

I don’t mind doing these exercises but I think going through grammar instead of rushing to translate a sentence is better in revising things such as cases

Pupil 1

14/11/2022

It definitely did [help] as I had to stop and think of what im writing, however i normally just write what i feel is right Defiantly as the cases make more sense now in thst particular sentnmce as well as how to apply them in other scenarios

It’s quite hard to write and speak at the same time I would say

Pupil 2

It helped, but not a lot because for me it comes natural

Yes

No

Pupil 3

a bit, but generally I would prefer fluency to thorough undertsanding of grammar yes, as I did the translations I was revising different grammatical structures

I would prefer traditional revision methods to this task in the future as I believe that it is of limited effectiveness

Pupil 4

17:51:55

14/11/2022

18:20:41

15/11/2022

22:46:47

Resources

• The teachers created PowerPoint slides to introduce the concept to our respective classes. Examples of some of these have been given.

Lesson 1

Lesson 2

• The teachers used the Explain Everything (https://explaineverything.com/) app to model a ‘Thinking Aloud’ video. Pupils did their own and uploaded these onto Google Classroom.

• The teachers provided unseen literary text and briefly explained the task.

Changes to practice

The teachers have tried this approach with Year 9 and Year 11 and the aim is to apply this methodology to different year groups. The aim is also to improve the grammar understanding and oracy in the department. Other colleagues in the department have also started showing an interest in applying these activities in their teaching practice and have tried this with success.

With exam years, particularly in A Level, this methodology will be developed as a sequence of lessons to fine tune exam technique as well as a language learning tool with other year groups. These lessons can be used to develop the pupils’ analytical skills and at the same time they seemed to help pupils further develop their oracy skills as they have to discuss how they approach translation in front of their peers. It was also interesting to challenge pupils’ grammatical knowledge.

‘Thinking aloud’ will prove very useful to prepare pupils as a first step into the commentary of unseen literary texts, as it provided a possibility to share ideas and interpretations with others.

Reflective evaluation on the process

Researching this process proved to be an useful diagnostic tool for pupils’ prior grammatical knowledge which can be implemented with classes when trying to uncover misconceptions of tricky abstract grammar concepts. Pupils seemed to enjoy the process of reading what their peers are thinking, and it was engaging for the pupils to have to write down their partner’s thought process.

Pupils were able to look at grammar in a more methodical way and taking an analytical approach to their translation helped them fine tune their skills and develop new methods of approaching translation tasks. It was interesting to see how the more able students seemed somewhat reticent to verbalise their knowledge of basic structures as this was perceived as a superfluous, unnecessary step. However, as they encountered more difficult grammatical items and when approaching the translation of a text as a whole they saw how useful this skill is. Pupils worked collaboratively in a very productive way.

More time for lesson observations and meetings to discuss our impressions and findings would have been useful in perfecting new methods to approach ‘thinking aloud’.

Trying out ‘thinking aloud’ for literature analysis also worked well with Sixth Form students. The maturity and confidence of students played a part in their ability to present their analysis and reflections of different extracts. At the same time, presenting in front of their peers helped develop their oracy and presentational skills and students were supportive of each other.

Next steps

Developing this methodology as a teaching technique with different year groups is a target for the future. ‘Thinking aloud’ not only seemed to help develop pupils’ analytical skills but it can be used as a very useful method to develop pupils’ oracy. ‘Thinking aloud’ can also be used as a formative assessment tool for the teacher as it helped identify where pupils may have lacunae in their grammatical and vocabulary knowledge. We will also continue to use ‘thinking aloud’ with Sixth Form pupils, who are used to the methodology, to develop the translation of more difficult passages and develop students’ knowledge of certain intricacies of language such as specific idiomatic expressions that cannot be translated literally.

References

Cambridge International Education Teaching and Learning Team (no date) Getting started with metacognition, Welcome. Available at: https://cambridge-community.org.uk/professionaldevelopment/gswmeta/index.html (Accessed: December 20, 2023).

Graham Mitchell, Steve Trask and Kate Donkin

Haileybury, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Abstract

Background and purpose The purpose of this research is to investigate how the engagement of exam-class pupils, who are lacking efficacy in group work situations, can be improved. The pupils were perceived by the teacher as conducting themselves in an unproductive manner when previously given tasks involving group work.

Aims To observe a number of different approaches to how pupils integrate in group work within a DT classroom, and to draw conclusions about the impact of choosing particular group work situations on the oracy skills of discussion, interaction and listening and responding to their peers.

Study design or methodology The teachers used a research lesson study design, and observed classes in three different observation cycles. The observation methodology was to observe dynamic interaction between pupils when they self-selected who they worked with in a group situation, compared with when the teacher selected the groups. The particular class involved was 20 in size, comprising 14 boys and six girls, and the same class was observed on each occasion.

Findings Pupils who self-selected their own groups often worked well together, despite not placing themselves in a group that their teacher perceived as the most effective. Some pupils, when allocated a group by the teacher, felt unable to orally participate effectively in that particular group setting, and they did not have the opportunity to demonstrate effective oracy skills in either their small-group interactions, nor in feeding back verbally to the wider class when summarising or evaluating their work.

Implications for practice Teacher judgement of the effectiveness of groups remains a vital component of effective group work, but it can be tempered with the notion that self-selecting friendship groups may still produce effective outcomes from an oracy and workflow perspective. Other factors, including clear allocation of roles within the group, motivation of the individuals concerned, familiarity with team mates and individual personality traits likely play a part, but were beyond the scope of these observations within the time limit set.

Keywords

Oracy, group work, workflow, motivation, participation

How can the engagement of pupils who are lacking efficacy in group work situations be improved in exam classes?

Context

The school is an independent, co-educational establishment in Hertford, with 909 pupils on roll as of the time of the observations. The particular class observed was a Year 10 Design and Technology GCSE class, in the age ranges of 14 to 15 years old. The pupils were predominantly boys – from a class of 20, there were six girls, and 14 boys.

Motivation, focus and questions

The school is in the second academic year of embracing oracy initiatives, based upon the work of Emeritus Professor Neil Mercer and Alan Howe (2021) – in this particular class, several factors were worthy of consideration. One – effective group work within small teams is a vital part of the design and creative process in this subject. Another – some of the pupils within this class struggled with their motivation, their attention and their oracy skills. Another factor was to investigate if changing the dynamic of small groups would positively or negatively impact their mid-lesson work, the oracy skills they deploy, and ultimately the outcomes of what they have been instructed to produce.

Existing research drawn upon was that of Mannix & Neale (2005), who examined the contrasting views that diversity within groups would enable fresh perspectives and knowledge-sharing approaches to assist in solving problems during group work activities, compared to the perspective that diversity creates social divisions, which then negatively impact the performance of the particular group. Mannix & Neale (2005) examined three theoretical perspectives: the similarityattraction paradigm, self and social categorization, and information processing.

In the similarity-attraction paradigm, similarity on human traits such as beliefs, values, attitudes tend to contribute towards interpersonal attraction and liking of others. The paradigm was conceived in order to understand one-to-one relationships, but it would not be unreasonable to apply the paradigm to small group settings of three or four people. Mannix & Neale (2005) drew similarities between this and the self and social categorization paradigm, whereby individuals categorise themselves along the lines of ethnicity, gender, particular belief systems, and subconsciously utilise this when socially categorisation members of their group. In essence, members within a group tended to judge individuals who were outside of their group more stereotypically. The contrast with these two paradigms is the information processing approach, which asserts that diversity within groups draws upon the benefits of different belief systems, approaches and values, and that this benefits the group. Mannix & Neale (2005) observed that “...surface-level socialcategory differences, such as those of race/ethnicity, gender, or age, tend to be more likely to have negative effects on the ability of groups to function effectively.” However, “underlying differences, such as differences in functional background, education, or personality, are more often positively related to performance—for example by facilitating creativity or group problem solving…” The key finding from this research is that the group process needs to be carefully controlled. We therefore postulated – what level of control is required? What occurs within diverse small group settings if the teacher allocates individuals in a seemingly random manner, but does not control any other aspect of the group settings?

Another piece of research informed our approach – that of Chang Y & Brickman P (2018), who noted that group work can in fact yield tangible gains in student reasoning, motivation and outcomes - but that in order to reap such gains, all students within the group setting must contribute. Chang Y & Brickman P (2018) observed that particular strategies - such as assigning particular group roles, group ‘contracts’, and the careful use of peers in terms of rating and evaluating fellow group members – could all positively contribute towards improved outcomes with a group setting, because they encouraged pupil participation. Intriguingly, Chang Y & Brickman P (2018) also noted that high-performing pupils tended to recognize the benefits of group work, irrespective of whether the group they were in itself scored highly on a particular task. They also noted that

pupils in low-performing groups had a tendency to harshly rate their group peers, whereas pupils in higher-performing groups more generously rated their peers, even if the members themselves were low-scoring. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this research is that, irrespective of group composition or even performance level, pupils tended to report positive experiences with their fellow group members, and that “...when group members function interdependently, collective efficacy beliefs have been shown to provide a greater impact on performance: groups with higher self-efficacy beliefs were more likely to encourage group members to use resources more effectively and to engage in higher-quality discussions.” This suggests that teachers who successfully create a collective group efficacy within the groups they assign – or that they allow pupils to assign – have a much stronger chance of improving educational outcomes using group work.

Inquiry plan and activities

Three observational cycles were devised, with the aim to observe the same Y10 DT class and note the differences in pupil dynamics and group outcomes at the end of each observed class. In practice this proved difficult to achieve due to time constraints and timetabling factors.

The methodology used was to observe pupils as they interacted with their groups, and to capture the observations on a template devised by one of the observational team.

The initial focus was on particular pupils, although during the second observation two of the pupils were engaged in a different activity with another teacher, so we instead looked at the group dynamics of the entire class. We then reverted to focusing on particular pupils in the third observation. The choice of pupils for the main focus was suggested by their existing DT teacher, who observed that those particular individuals tend to lack efficacy when given group work, and was interested to see how their focus and productivity might shift when allocated specific groups by their teacher. The DT teacher was therefore the person overseeing the class that the other two teachers observed over the course of three observation cycles, and the other two teachers remained as observers during the cycles.

We did speak with the pupils during the sessions, but not afterwards, and this was not captured on a formal interview template. The teaching team engaged in post-lesson discussions in order to inform the next cycle, although the second cycle involved a shift in focus due to the fact that two of the previously observed pupils were not present in the classroom during the second observation.

Ethical considerations and relationships

We explained to the pupils that we were simply observing how they were working in small group settings, in order to see if we could learn anything from their participation in a DT class that could be applied to a CS class. The particular three pupils that we focused on – the ones identified by their teacher as lacking efficacy in group work settings – were not aware that we were observing them any more closely than their peers; we did not want to influence their behaviour by having them know that we were looking at their group work dynamics, and thereby give us a false picture that they were all much better at group work than their DT teacher had indicated. It is entirely possible that had Pupil A been made aware of the fact that we were observing him, he would not have modified his behaviour much, but Pupil B and Pupil C would likely have adapted their approaches.

The pupils were all willing to be observed and conducted their group work with a minimum of interference from the observers. Both safety (in a DT classroom) and safeguarding matters were in line with the published school policies.

Anonymity is preserved by removing the names of the observed pupils, and replacing them with the pseudonyms Pupil A, Pupil B and Pupil C.

Classwork tasks

Task One

The groups were set the following task outlined in Appendix A - within each group, pupils were allocated specific tasks such as instigator, builder and summariser. There was one instigator, all three pupils were builders and there was one summariser. The summariser in each group was selected by the teaching staff because of their reluctance to engage with the task in hand when asked previously to take part in similar activities. The specific aim being to prompt the reluctant participant to take a more active role in their learning.

Oracy content

The task involved the instigator setting out to his/her group how they would produce the action plan and the format for presenting it. The role of the summariser was to present the group’s action plan to the rest of the class set, which was made clear when the task was introduced.

Task Two

Task two was set out in an identical manner but involved the use of measuring instruments that can be found in many workshops such as a vernier gauge, micrometre, steel tape & steel rule. The resource used can be located in Appendix B.

Findings

Cycle 1 observation

Pupils were placed into small groups of three or four by the teacher, and the groups selected were chosen so that not all pupils were in their favoured friendship groups. One pupil (Pupil A) appeared especially disgruntled with this – he has been identified by his DT teacher as somebody who occasionally struggles to motivate himself to work to his maximum, and who has the potential to frivolously engage in non-educational dialogue with fellow pupils within his immediate friendship group. This particular pupil was disengaged throughout the cycle one activity. He was observed to physically move away from the other two members of his group, avoid participating in problemsolving activities or discussions, and attempt to leave the group and join his friends. The DT teacher ensured that he was unable to do this, resulting in low achievement from the pupil involved on this particular occasion. He claimed that he did not know what his task was, when in fact we had observed the teacher giving him very clear instructions, and he disengaged almost entirely. In contrast, the other two members of the group worked very well together and we observed that they seemed to benefit from his lack of intervention.

The two other pupils (Pupil B and Pupil C) both appeared to benefit from teacher-controlled groupings, and they worked well within their groups - using oracy well and engaging in educational activities with their teammates. Pupil B was more distributed - he moved around a number of other groups although he did continually return to his allocated group and he did work well within his team. The group belonging to Pupil C was involved with staining a noughts and crosses set, which was a different activity to those of Pupil A and Pupil B, but the team worked successfully and in a collaborative manner.

During the summary presentation, Pupil A was distracted and disengaged, gravitating away from his allocated teammates and towards his friends.

Pupil B was invited by the teacher to summarise the work of the group, but he declined and another member of his team took the lead. She presented well and handled questions adroitly.

Cycle 2 observation

The group size was reduced in the next observation lesson, with pairs instead of threes. This seemed to suit Pupil A better and he did converse more with other students and was also observed to be on task for more of the time. However, Pupil A still seemed unmotivated to complete the work given and attempted to occupy his time with other tasks. Pupil C was working on a different task and Pupil B was away so Pupils D and E were observed. Pupil D was observed to be in discussion with their partner at the beginning of the task and then work independently for most of the time. They were occasionally observed in brief conversation with each other; these seemed to be in the nature of check-in periods to confirm they were both still ok with the work. They both seemed focused on the task and the set-up of the groups. Pupil D was observed to be much more animated in terms of their oracy, spending more time in discussion with their partner. It was not observed if this was all in relation to the task being completed, however the pupils spend some of this time looking and seeming to discuss and complete the work shown on one iPad. Pupil D seemed to engage well in the activity and be motivated to complete the work.

Cycle 3 observation

In the lesson for the third observation the pupils were allowed to self-select their group composition and size. Pupil A was in a larger group than in the first observation and we were told that he had chosen to be with his friends and other pupils he felt comfortable working with. Pupil A was observed to be much more relaxed in this group, conversing with the other students often. It was unclear if these discussions were related to work or just general talk. However, at the end of the activities, Pupil A was selected by the teacher for a verbal presentation of the group’s work to the class. His presentation was relatively confident, with good use of oracy techniques, and seemed to be an accurate summary of the task the group had been completing. This would indicate that he had been more engaged than in the previous group configurations. Pupil B was not engaged in the same group work but again seemed to be engaging well verbally in the task they were working on. Pupil C was in the same group as Pupil A and seemed to be actively engaging in the task using their iPad to complete the notes on the shared document (allowing all the group to edit at the same time). He was active in his verbal engagement with the other students and seemed to be using verbal check-ins in relation to the work as well as more in depth discussions.

Meetings between lesson observations

Due to the limitations of availability along with the constraints of curriculum and timetable we were not able to meet in person after the observations and brief email exchanges were conducted instead. This is where the changes to group construction were decided, however these were not always able to be put into practice due to changes in the whole class composition and lesson content which is normally adapted depending on the progress and evaluation of the previous lesson.

Changes to practise

The observations confirmed some of the findings of Mannix & Neale (2005) and of Chang Y & Brickman P (2018) in the following manner:

• Some pupils appeared to benefit from the teacher selecting group members – the diversity did not seem to negatively affect certain groups

• Some groups were adversely affected – one in particular where the pupil self-ostracised and disengaged from the group activity, claiming a lack of understanding of the task and that he did not feel part of the group that the teacher had chosen

• Larger groups (above 3) seemed to benefit pupils who were sometimes less engaged with group work although this could also be related to group composition.

Reflective evaluation on the process

It was not obvious from our observations that tighter teacher control would have significantly benefited the efficacy of the group work, or of the oracy whereby the pupils articulate their work post-task. There is therefore an avenue for potential further research in the area of allocating particular roles to pupils and evaluating the impact of this upon group outcomes, which could then be compared and contrasted with groups that students selected, and groups that were selected by the teacher.

One of the teachers observing the group followed the third observational cycle with an informal conversation with Pupil A. Pupil A expressed that he preferred to self-select his own groups, and that he felt that he was more productive as a result. Conversely, he acknowledged that he was less productive when asked to join a group that his teacher had selected for him. He also noted with pride that he had completed his particular piece of coursework within the context of those lessons. It may be that teachers need to examine how to determine the effectiveness for learning this type of group work as the assessment of this is often difficult given the joint outcomes of the tasks. It may be that groups who seem to be having more animated conversations not all of which are related to the work may be more effective for learning than it appears in contrast to groups who seem to be more quietly completing the task in what seems a more organised manner.

Since the conclusion of the observation cycle, the DT teacher involved has continued to experiment with groupings, and has observed that the pupils selected for the original observations can be positively influenced by those around them. He noted that there is an period of disruption in terms of class and group dynamics, but that the pupils are now being positively influenced by their peers when placed into teacher-chosen groups.

Next steps

The school concerned could allocate staff to observe group dynamics in which the teacher allocates specific roles to pupils, or that students allocate specific roles to each other. The emphasis would be on observing if greater teacher control of the groups would positively impact the outcome of the group work.

References

Mannix, E., & Neale, M.A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31-55.

Chang Y, Brickman P. When Group Work Doesn’t Work: Insights from Students. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2018 Sep;17(3):ar42. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-09-0199. PMID: 30183565; PMCID: PMC6234829.

Appendix A

GROUP WORK Task 1 – Production plan

You are asked to manufacture sample pieces for a practical experiment that involves bonding together a variety of materials with four different adhesives. The sample pieces are to be manufactured from plywood, MDF, aluminium and acrylic. These samples can be manufactured using traditional machinery and hand tools or our CAD-CAM equipment. In your year groups work out a production plan for each manufacturing method listing tools, equipment, software etc., and some general H&S recommendations.

Present your action plans as bullet points in a table – see example. Here are some prompts to get you started:

Traditional method

Marking

Cutting

Finishing

Drilling

CAD-CAM

Drawing

Data handling

Setting

Cutting

The final task is to list the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Appendix B

GROUP WORK Task 2 – Selecting measuring instruments

Write an introduction that explains why accurate measurements are an important part of practical work.

Identify what makes each measuring instrument suitable for its intended use.

Present key findings that could be used to help a group of younger pupils quickly establish a sound understanding of measuring and measuring instruments.

What is

the impact of Philosophy for

Children on Year 13 politics pupils in their consolidation of knowledge at the end of a topic?

Tom Wade, Amy Sparrow and Nick Belfitt

Haileybury, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Abstract

Background and purpose This study sought to support 10 learners in a Year 13 A-Level politics class, with a particular focus on three pupils who were identified as being at the top, middle, and lower ability of the class. P4C was used with the class to explore its usefulness in developing pupils debate and discussion.

Aims We wanted to use ‘P4C’ as a tool to build and develop pupils abilities to engage in meaningful discussion and debate on different political topics. If successful, this should also result in an improved ability to write purposefully about the topic in an essay.

Study design or methodology We used research lesson study, to work collaboratively with colleagues, and to take pupil interaction and feedback (post-lesson interviews) as the basis for reflection and onward planning. We particularly focused our lesson study observations on three pupils identified as top, middle, and lower ability. All pupils were aged 17 to 18 years.

Findings Pupils showed an increased confidence in engaging in debate throughout the three lesson series. The P4C model allowed pupils to demonstrate and develop their knowledge and understanding of topics covered in politics lessons. Using P4C as a tool to bring together a topic before an essay is written gives pupils the confidence to see the material come alive in discussion and consider different points of view.

Implications for practice A P4C model has been developed for the school and delivered to staff at INSET. Research lessons is now embedded as a learning tools at Haileybury due to its benefits for staff and pupil learning.

Keywords

P4C, oracy, politics, philosophy for children, discussion, debate, end of topic

Context

This study was conducted in a large, independent boarding and day school in the southeast of England. The school has an intake of 900 pupils, aged 11-18 (years 7 to 13). The focal point of this study was an A-level Year 13 class, with pupils aged 17-18 years. 3 pupils of high, middle, and lower ability were selected by the class teacher to be the particular focus of the study.

Aims

Throughout the academic year 2021-22, Haileybury had been focusing on developing pupils’ ability to engage with oracy inside and outside of the classroom; this has been conducted as a whole school approach via oracy leads from each department. In 2022-23 it was felt that strong foundations had been built within the school and that the next steps should include growing an oracy toolkit with pupils. One of the areas identified as being successful was P4C (Philosophy for Children).

Through a focus on P4C, we aimed to develop Year 13 pupils’ (aged 17-18 years) speaking and listening skills, through debate and discussion, and as a result in this, development in their ability to work with others. With a particular focus on P4C being used as a tool for the consolidation of knowledge at the end of a topic, the aim was to see pupils improve their ability to recall and demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a particular topic. As P4C is usually conducted in Religious Studies lessons, we wanted to see if the concept could be successfully transferred to other subjects.

Philosophy for Children (P4C) is an educational approach that emphasises the use of critical and creative thinking, dialogue, and inquiry to engage pupils in philosophical discussions in the classroom. The aim of P4C is to help children develop their reasoning and communication skills, develop their ability to ask and answer questions, and foster their sense of curiosity and wonder about the world around them. Predominantly used within Religious Studies lessons, this study sought to explore if the concept could be used in other subjects to a similar effect.

One of the benefits of P4C is in developing pupils’ critical thinking skills. Carter states, “Philosophy for Children provides an opportunity for pupils to become critical thinkers. It encourages them to question, analyse, and evaluate ideas, arguments and assumptions” (Cater, 2014). P4C also helps pupils to develop their communication skills, as they learn to express their ideas clearly and to listen attentively to others, “through P4C, pupils develop the skills of respectful listening and communication. They learn to articulate their own thoughts and to respect the thoughts of others” (Schmude, 2012).

Inquiry plan and activities

The lesson study process took place over the course of one half term with lessons taking place once a fortnight. Lessons were 40 minutes long and observed for their entirety and involved ten pupils The staff members who took part in the study included a teacher of politics, a teacher of History, and a teacher of theology and philosophy. Each teacher is experienced in their subject area and specialises in teaching pupils aged 11 to 18. In our research lessons, we trialled a number of approaches to introduce and implement P4C to improve pupils’ debate and discussion skills. Each lesson was intended to offer a slight variation on the P4C format so that we could reflect on the effectiveness of the different approaches taken. These were:

Lesson 1

1. Pupils were given the topic of ‘liberalism’ before the lesson, knowing that they were going to cover it in the lesson. Pupils had recently completed this topic and their confidence in the content was deemed to be high.

2. Pupils were walked through the process of P4C with each step explained.

3. A stimulus was provided to the pupils which then directed them to write down thoughts and ideas linked to liberalism, before turning these ideas into a discussion question.

4. Pupils were then put into pairs where they discussed their questions and selected one question between them to propose to the class.

5. Each question was presented to the class with a class vote on which question to discuss.

6. A P4C discussion took place on the chosen question of ‘Should people who are economically disadvantaged be left to their own devices?’

7. Pupils were given 4 opportunities to contribute to the discussion and were told that each contribution had to build on or challenge the previous point.

8. A chosen pupil was selected to summarise the key points of the discussion at the end of the lesson.

9. A prep task was set for pupils to write an essay on the chosen discussion question.

Lesson 2

1. Steps one to six from lesson one were repeated. The focus of this lesson was on ‘conservatism’, with the view that pupils were coming to the end of the topic in lessons and this would provide good revision and consolidation.

2. Pupils were only given two opportunities to contribute to the debate, with the intention of spreading out the debate more widely.

3. Steps 8 to 9 were repeated.

Lesson 3

On reflection, it was felt that lesson two had been too restrictive on the pupil’s discussion, therefore some significant changes were made to lesson three.

1. A new venue for the lesson was agreed upon with a boardroom seating arrangement.

2. A flipped learning stimulus was given to the class with pupils instructed to come to the lessonzwith their chosen questions ready to share.

3. Conservatism was selected as the topic once again.

4. No limit was placed on how many times a pupil could contribute to the discussion, but you could not return to the previous speaker, in an attempt to stop 1-2-1 debates taking place.

5. NAB as the Politics teacher interjected with provocative statements to help generate further debate.

6. Steps 8 and 9 were repeated as usual.

Feedback and reflection

After each lesson the research team met to reflect and discuss the lessons. These meetings lasted for around 45 minutes and enabled the team to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each lesson and the approach taken. The adjustments made in each lesson (as seen in Lesson 2 Point 2 and Lesson 3 Points 1, 2, 4 and 5) were a result of these discussions. Feedback was also sought from the participating pupils via a Google Form and this data was used to prepare the following lesson. The questions asked in the form were:

• What did you enjoy most about that lesson?

• What did you learn? (What can you do now that you could not do previously? What can you do better? How is it better?)

• What aspect of the teaching worked best for you?

• If the same lesson is being taught to another group what would you change? Why would you change that aspect?

One example of an adjustment that was made as a result of student feedback was the flipped learning stimulus provided to the pupils before lesson 3 of the study. This was in response to a student comment after lesson 2, who responded to the question ‘If the same lesson is being taught to another group what would you change? Why would you change that aspect?’ with ‘Give the class a heads-up about the overall topic so they can research context making the debate more interesting.’ One response from lesson 2 particularly stood out as a pupil responded to the question

‘What aspect of the teaching worked best for you?’ with ‘I don’t feel as though teaching played a significant role in the lesson as it felt more pupil-led’. This was particularly encouraging, as the P4C format encourages student-led discussion, and it was clear that this was becoming apparent to the pupils

Having an opportunity to discuss as a team after each lesson meant that the process was collaborative, reflective and supportive process throughout.

Ethical Considerations and Relationships

When conducting research involving pupils, it is important to consider ethical considerations to ensure that the research is conducted in a safe and respectful manner. For this study, several ethical considerations were taken into account.

1. Firstly, informed consent was obtained from the pupils. They were informed about the purpose of the research, their rights to withdraw from the study at any time, and the potential risks and benefits involved. This was explained to the whole group, not specifically the three pupils selected for the study.

2. Secondly, the privacy and confidentiality of the pupils were maintained throughout the study, with all data being anonymised and kept securely. We were clear that at no point could any pupils be identified through the reporting of our work. All aspects of the pupils’ identity are kept confidential, including gender, race and age.

3. Thirdly, any potential harm or discomfort to the pupils was minimised by ensuring that the debate topics were appropriate and that the pupils were given adequate support during the debates. These topics were directly related to the examination course syllabi.

4. Finally, the researchers remained impartial throughout the process and did not influence the pupils’ opinions or beliefs. These ethical considerations were taken to ensure that the research was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that the well-being of the pupils involved was prioritised throughout the study.

Findings

The lessons were monitored by two teachers throughout, who made notes on their findings. The evidence used was teacher observation, work output, google form feedback and ongoing conversations with pupils.

Lesson 1

Pupil A

Pupil A wrote extensively during the stimulus task and made links between the points. They were easily able to construct questions from their mind maps and found little difficulty in selecting multiple questions. Pupil A was able to articulate their reasoning with justification. Pupil A had some difficulty in choosing only one question, as they had so many ideas. They had no issues throughout the debate and discussion, and formed lots of constructive challenges for their peers; building on some points and counteracting others. When Pupil A was not selected to comment on the debate, they became slightly despondent.

Pupil B

Pupil B found it quite difficult to formulate ideas during the stimulus task. They had a few ideas written down and, after a little while and some assistance from a peer, started to make links between the topics. Pupil B was then easily able to construct questions from their mind maps. The pupil was able to choose one question easily and was able to articulate their justified reasoning. They were not always entirely on task throughout the process.

Pupil C

Pupil C had difficulty forming ideas during the stimulus task. They struggled to list ideas and became distracted quite easily. Pupil C continued to struggle to explain why they had formulated their questions and were enthusiastic about another pupil answering on their behalf. Pupil C failed to form challenges, agreements or build on points during the course of the debate. They appeared disengaged and stopped writing notes. Pupil C did not volunteer to speak or offer ideas.

Lesson 2

Pupil

A

During Lesson 2, Pupil A was consistently listening attentively. They started to form notes on the topic and employed their previous notes and their own knowledge on a similar topic to make links. Pupil A had constructive conversations with their partner and formed a question with ease. Pupil A had a positive impact on their partner and they both critiqued each other and listened to their views, more so than during Lesson 1. Pupil A spoke without being prompted and was confident in their choice of question. They were able to articulate their thought process and link clearly to the wider context. Pupil A did not cope well with being limited to only answering twice and seemed to be visibly uncomfortable and constricted. Pupil

B

Pupil B did not consistently appear engaged throughout the stimulus task. They were looking through their previous notes and trying to formulate ideas. They did not have a question written down at the point of discussion in a pair. Pupil B asked if the question could be linked to ‘modern things’; they were clearly thinking through the concepts, but were not discussing with their partner. During the feedback from groups, Pupil B did not have a question ready for the group and was busy formulating a question. Pupil B also felt restricted by the ‘two points’ input and was not able to build on the ideas of their peers as a result.

Pupil C

Pupil C was not engaged during the stimulus task; they were instead writing in a diary and looking at Google images of the stimulus. Pupil C did not have a question written down at the point of the discussion in a pair and then allowed their partner to the discussion; totally ceding control. They were quiet throughout the debate and did not appear to listen to the points from the other groups. Pupil C appeared to capitalise on the ‘two points’ input and used this as an opportunity to disengage at the same time as the rest of the class.

Lesson 3

Pupil A

Pupil A thrived at the beginning of Lesson 3 and had questions and ideas well prepared for the lesson. They engaged in discussion very quickly and appeared to find it easier with prepared questions. Pupil A was particularly happy when their question was chosen by the class. Pupil A spent time constructively discussing ideas with their partner and seemed much more confident to get involved, in comparison to lessons 1 and 2. Pupil A was thinking, listening and waiting for an opportunity to respond. They developed responses from peers and drew on a key thinker’s argument and moved the debate on. They were keen to give final points when offered and appear to have grown significantly in confidence.

Pupil B

Pupil B had prepared ideas for the lesson and was keen to discuss their research with their peers. They moved outside of their assigned group, in order to ask another pupil what their question was. Pupil B was actively listening to the questions and provided their question to the class with confidence. The change of pairing and environment appeared to have an initial improvement in focus, although they seemed a little more reluctant to get involved in the debate.

Pupil C

Pupil C initially seemed to start slowly, but after engaging in some discussion did seem to share their ideas. They were actively listening to the questions during class feedback. Pupil C displayed a significant improvement during the debate and volunteered to share their points first. They were able to use recall and were able to directly challenge a point using formal language: “To some extent, I would like to agree with that point”. This was their most impressive debate performance and they were engaged throughout the lesson.

Resources

Resources on how to run a P4C lesson at Haileybury, using the approach that was developed and agreed on in lesson 3, has been presented to staff during a school inset. Slides that walk staff through the process have been shared and made available. The slides can be accessed in the appendices.

Changes to practise

As a result of our lesson study research, we now do the following:

• Use P4C as a consolidation tool for the end of topics in a variety of subject areas such as Philosophy, Politics, History, Drama, and Geography.

As a general conjecture, the study indicates that P4C is beneficial in subjects where alternative points of view are presented and evaluated. Humanities subjects are seemingly a natural fit for P4C with other subjects such as Drama and English being possible areas where it could be successful.

• Scaffold debate and discussions by providing concrete examples to pupils Sentence starters and directions to ‘challenge’, ‘build on’, or ‘agree’ with the previous comment in a P4C made debates move at a quicker pace and allowed the content to remain focused on the question. Modelling this to the class (in particular KS3 classes) will be really important to demonstrate good practice to pupils, it should not be assumed that they can automatically engage in debate and discussion.

• Provide flipped learning stimuli to pupils before a lesson to encourage reflection on a topic and to generate discussion questions.

Pupils who had the stimulus prior to the third lesson demonstrated a clearer understanding of the topic and potential questions that are related to it. This helped pupils with slower processing abilities and meant that the lesson could start promptly with the questions pupils generated being discussed.

• Ensure that pupils can see the value of what they are discussing and debating. Putting the P4C lessons at the end of the topic enabled pupils to feel informed about the topic they are discussing. When P4C has been used at the start of a topic pupils have reported feeling annoyed at the lack of their knowledge, which has resulted in a lack of participation in the lesson. By targeting exam content and explaining to pupils how the P4C process can enhance their understanding of a topic, generated more buy-in from pupils.

• Give all pupils more opportunities to talk and voice their opinions.

P4C is intended to be pupil-led, and during this process, we tried several ways in ensuring that pupils had ample opportunities to engage. Restricting pupils to a certain number of engagements was felt too restrictive for the age group and may be more appropriate for younger pupils who are in larger class sizes. The key rule introduced was that pupils could not get engaged in 1-2-1 discussions and that each point needed to be raised by a different pupil. The role of a teacher should be to engage with those who are reluctant to speak in the discussion, intervene if certain pupils are dominating the debate, and pass on to new pupils if needed.

• Provide pupils with written tasks encouraging them to include the key points raised in P4C. After each P4C pupils were given the task of writing an essay based on the discussion question. This enabled the politics teacher to track their progress and see if the P4C was also having an impact on their ability to write meaningfully on a topic. Further research into this area would be needed.

Reflective evaluation of the process

The lesson study project is an amazing opportunity to see an oracy tool develop over a series of lessons with the same class. Being able to observe the same pupils over a period of lessons gave a real insight into how the regular utilisation of P4C can bring about increased confidence in speaking and engaging in discussion and debate in class. P4C has many uses, but exploring it as a consolidation tool has meant that pupils who are working at a high level and engaging with sophisticated material can participate in debates that allow them to make their knowledge come alive. Overall the lesson study has given us the opportunity to discuss and develop ideas with other members of staff from different departments, giving us the confidence to try out new tools within the classroom and impart this experience to other staff via inset.

Next steps

After delivering P4C inset to select staff members we are now intending to expand this out to other interested staff who want to explore the potential use of P4C in their subject areas. P4C is used as a consolidation oracy tool in each year group in TP (theology and philosophy) and has now been integrated into the politics scheme of works for years 12 and 13. P4C will continue to be explored and trialled in different contexts and subjects.

References

Cater, C. (2014). Philosophy for Children. Impact, 2014(1), 24-27.

Schmude, M. (2012). Teaching Philosophy for Children: A model for the 21st century. Educational Studies, 48(4), 398-416.

Appendices

Staff INSET presentation: INSET P4C Lesson Study

Lesson 1 example: Politics Lesson Study 1.pdf

Lesson observations: Group 2 lesson study plan

1st Meeting: 1/11/22

Research Question:

What is the impact of Philosophy for Children on year 13 politics pupils in their consolidation of knowledge at the end of a topic to produce improved written exam responses?

1st lesson observation: Quad 2

P4 Thursday 10/11/22 - Liberalism to introduce P4C concept

2nd lesson observation: Quad 2

P2 Tuesday after exeat 22/11/22 - Conservativism

3rd lesson observation: Quad 2

P2 Tuesday 29/11/22 - Conservatism - to check improvement

Camtree

The Cambridge Teacher Research Exchange Camtree is a global platform for close-to-practice research in education. Based at Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge, Camtree draws on high-quality research from around the world to support educators to reflect on their practice and carry out inquiries to improve learning in their own classrooms and organisations. The outcomes of these inquiries, once peer reviewed, can be published within the Camtree digital library under a Creative Commons Licence (CC-BY 4.0). You can find out more about Camtree and its digital library at www.camtree.org.