Teaching and learning magazine oct 2017 by Emma Platt

Welcome to Philips High School’s Teaching and Learning Magazine – Oct 2017 - Sharing ideas with teachers! 1

Contents 1)

Myths & Legends: Whole Class Feedback: Page 3

Learning About Learning: What Every teacher Needs To know: Page 5

Selfie Sticks & Creation Station – Page 6

The Power of Reading: Page 7

Schools Should be More Teacher Centred – Page 9

Myths and Legends: Whole Class Feedback I’ve been using whole-class feedback for 2 years now. As a school, we have moved to it as part of a new assessment trial, to be reviewed at Christmas. It goes something like this: Each term, teachers will give feedback three times. This will include one piece of written feedback in books, using WWW/EBI. It will include one piece of whole-class feedback on the centralised form and it will include one piece of self-assessment (to which the teacher responds). Any other feedback is at the discretion of the teacher. I have read a lot on Twitter in the past week or so which makes me think that whole-class feedback (WCF henceforth) is massively misunderstood. Some teachers are expressing reasonable concerns about it – but these are based on false premises. Here are some myths I’ve seen and my clarification: MYTH: Whole-class feedback is not personalised. Children lose out on the individual attention that comes from marking individual books. Every child’s work is read in detail. This can be done during the time when traditional marking would take place or when the teacher moves around the room. In either situation, notes are made by the teacher on a separate sheet of paper. MYTH: Children don’t/won’t read the feedback. We spend about half a lesson going through the feedback (DIRT time in my school – insert your own acronym here). Students read the feedback. If they are unable to read then they are supported in doing so. If a concern is that children don’t or won’t read feedback, then perhaps the issue is the approach taken in delivering it. If it’s valued by the teacher, then it’ll be read and digested. Our children also respond and improve their work. When we start the next piece of work, they refer back to their WCF first. MYTH: It’s unfair to have targets/sanctions associated with children’s names if the feedback is going to all. This seems to stem from the (false) idea that WCF must involve criticism (critique?) of individual students’ work, which is shared with everybody. There’s the misguided notion that embarrassing comments and tellings-off for individuals are glued into everybody else’s books. In the approach we take, this is simply not the case. I identify 3 to 5 common areas for improvement for the group. They’re all working on the same objective so there are never more areas for improvement. Before I used WCF, I would never have more than 3 to 5 different targets for students. When I did, it was because I’d lost the overview of 3

what I was doing and veered off piste. So, alongside each target, you can have a group of students’ names. An alternative approach, which I find to be more powerful, is to list the targets without names. The students then identify where they need to improve. MYTH: There’s too much administration! It would just be quicker to mark the books. The feedback can displayed on the projector; printed out (sticking in optional too!) or shared verbally. I tend to type it up onto our whole-school feedback sheet. One of my colleagues handwrites it. It doesn’t matter. Our sheet is A4 but we’ve only had a whole-school approach for one year. Last year I used to produce A5 sheets and put them through the guillotine in under 30 seconds. When it comes to wellbeing, this is an area where SLTs can really make a difference. It lightens the load for teachers without losing the quality of feedback. It strikes me that all too often, the ones who are keen to cling on to traditional marking are predominantly the ones who no longer teach. Many humans have very short memories – if you have a reduced timetable or no longer teach, then it’s likely that you’ve lost touch with the reality of the daily workload for full-time teachers. It’s draining. It’s driving people from our profession. MYTH: It’s no more effective than marking books. It is more effective because it’s almost immediate, certainly at secondary. We have a two-week marking turnaround policy (this is standard – I understand that primary teachers baulk at this but remember that we’ll often see 150 different students in one day). WCF allows for a 24 hour turn-around without teacher burnout. I am writing this without academic references. I do know that timeliness of feedback is important when it comes to impact and effectiveness. As a professional, I am happier with this method of feedback than I was with what I was doing previously. The quality of personalisation is the same (remember – they each get a personal comment and they love finding their names on the sheet) and the areas for development are far more relevant. Patterns emerge and these are represented on the WCF sheet. I’ll aim to upload an example this week. In the meantime, thanks for reading – everybody! https://thestableoyster.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/myths-and-legendswhole-class-feedback/

Learning about learning: What every teacher needs to know When I trained to be teacher I was told little or nothing about how children learn. Because a lot of what we intuitively suppose about the process of learning is often flatly contradicted by cognitive science this was a huge handicap. Since you can’t think about stuff you don’t know, I spent all my time pontificating on the process of teaching, but lacked the theoretical framework and knowledge base to consider how my students learned. I don’t think I’m alone in this. Over the past few years I’ve discovered an awful lot through reading various books and academic papers which has given me the ability to start thinking about how students learn, and the more I’ve learned the more sophisticated my thinking has become. Two useful starting points for anyone wanting to learn about learning are the APA’s Top 20 Principles from Psychology for Teaching and Learning and the very readable Deans for Impact paper, The Science of Learning. Now there’s another source of wisdom. Learning About Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know from the US National Council on Teacher Quality is a manifesto for improved teacher training. In it, some of the most eminent researchers in educational psychology reveal the woeful lack of focus in American teacher training programmes on instructional practices supported by cognitive science but also the curious absence of evidence based information in US teacher training text books. We could, of course, choose to focus on the differences between UK and US teacher training or perhaps on what some see as the quaintness of relying on textbooks, but instead I think we’d profit more from turning our attention to what the report’s authors refer to as the ‘Big Six’ strategies that have the most impact on how students learn. These are: 1. Pairing graphics with words. Young or old, all of us receive information through two primary pathways — auditory (for the spoken word) and visual (for the written word and graphic or pictorial representation). 5

Student learning increases when teachers convey new material through both. Linking abstract concepts with concrete representations. Teachers should present tangible examples that illuminate overarching ideas and also explain how the examples and big ideas connect. Posing probing questions. Asking students “why,” “how,” “what if,” and “how do you know” requires them to clarify and link their knowledge of key ideas. Repeatedly alternating problems with their solutions provided and problems that students must solve. Explanations accompanying solved problems help students comprehend underlying principles, taking them beyond the mechanics of problem solving. Distributing practice. Students should practice material several times after learning it, with each practice or review separated by weeks and even months. This is sometimes called the ‘spacing effect’ Assessing to boost retention. Beyond the value of formative assessment (to help a teacher decide what to teach) and summative assessment (to determine what students have learned), assessments that require students to recall material help information ‘stick’. This is usually referred to as the ‘testing effect‘.

The first two strategies are about encoding – how students best take in information. Three and four are useful for correcting misconceptions and the final two help boost retention. Some of these strategies may seem obvious but others are anything but. I don’t think it’s going too far to say that this isn’t just useful for new teachers. Every teacher, no matter their level of experience, could benefit from knowing about and applying these strategies in their teaching.http://www.learningspy.co.uk/psychology/learning-is-liminal/

Selfie Sticks & Creation Station!

The Power of Reading In Educational Research by Alex Quigley15/10/20171 Comment There are memories and moments that form who we are and what we become. I cannot recall exactly when reading for pleasure became a part of me, and what I would become – a teacher, dear reader – but it happened before I’d ever realised. Perhaps it was my father perched at my bedside reading stories to me, or watching my mother gobble up book after book with rapt attention. Maybe it was my Beano and Dandy collection, or perhaps it was reading James Herbert’s horror stories and being scared witless with fear mingled with excitement! In retrospect, being given the opportunity to read was something I took for granted. Growing up in a family that thought reading mattered, whether it was the Daily Mirror, Catherine Cookson, or something more, was something I certainly took for granted. Being read to, or reading with, my teacher at school was something I found special and powerful, and I probably took that for granted too. Then, a few weeks ago, I tripped onto the research by Margaret Kristin Merga on ‘Interactive reading opportunities beyond the early years: What educators need to consider‘. I was struck by children’s voice on their reading experience and I was reminded of what I had taken for granted. Fragments from the fascinating research that struck me most included Anna and Jason, who regretted their mum stopping reading to them: “Anna’s mother read to her frequently when she was younger, but “not so much now”. She regretted losing the “one on one time with my mum”. Similarly, Jason shared this regret, stating, “They kind of stopped when I knew how to read. I knew how to read, but I just still liked my mum reading it to me (sic)”.” As a father who has the good fortune of hearing my children read to me each night, this fragment from Marco caught my heart: “Marco read aloud to his mother at home, which involved re-reading parts that he already read. Marco nonetheless enjoyed this, as “she gets happy, like really happy when I read to her”. You hear from children who see their teachers as vital reading role models: “Rose wished to emulate her teachers’ high skill level in reading, explaining that “I think it was the teachers reading me the stories that really got me 7

interested more about them, and how they seemed so confident in reading it, and so I wanted to be able to read good (sic).” You can sometimes forget this, amidst a stack of marking and half-finished lesson plans. What stands out from Merga’s research is the enduring value of listening. Whether it is a parent or a teacher, the act of listening offered relaxation and a deep enjoyment for the children in the study (and no doubt me too, in the distant past). It is a seemingly obvious truth, but perhaps in the busy hubbub of chasing exam success, it can be forgotten?

As an English teacher, one of the big pleasures is conducting some whole class reading, hearing the proverbial pin drop as you read to the class. Of course, we can match the pleasure with an important purpose. Brett articulates why he enjoys being read to in school: “it’s much easier for you to learn newer words because they might know the words that you don’t know”. The sentiment is matched by Gina, who regretted her parents no longer reading to her: “when they did read to me when I was younger, I learnt the words; I would like to learn more words in the bigger books and know what they are so I could talk more about them”. Merga’s conclusion is that we “need a greater emphasis on quality interactive reading experiences at school and at home, which can improve student skills, and offer social and emotional advantages.” It is at once a complex and far reaching recommendation. Of course, reading for pleasure simply isn’t very pleasurable if you are a struggling reader, but for children we need to twin improving reading skill with tending to their emotional will. Related reading: 8

 



This great blog by Jo Payne matching reading with vocabulary development – ‘Whole-class reading: A new method‘. This TES article by DM Crosby gives helpful tips for whole-class reading: ‘Why whole-class reading beats a carousel – and seven ways to ensure it is successful.‘ The newly unveiled @thatboycanteach – Aidan Severs – has written an excellent blog on ‘Talking Reading – A Simple Approach‘ which is much more than a simple guide.

********

Schools should be more teacher-centred.

The idea that schools should be more teacher centred has been gathering momentum in my thinking. In fact, the whole education system should be more teacher centred. Ridiculously, to some folk, that will sound regressive – because we’re supposed to say that everything we do is for the children. Well, of course. Schools are set up to educate children. It barely needs restating. The point here is that, in order for us to deliver the best education we can, the mechanisms, structures and cultures that constitute that delivery need to be very much teacher-centred. In recent times, we’ve experienced the development of school cultures where teachers have been sandwiched between outrageously excessive top-down accountability structures and a discourse about pedagogy that has elevated student-centred learning above teacher-led learning to the detriment of the actual learning. Both of these tendencies have had a de-professionalising effect. In my view. Thankfully, I think the tide is changing. In terms of pedagogy, we’re emerging from a period where ‘chalk and talk’ has been considered a crime against children, where school leaders have felt compelled to call themselves ‘Headlearners’ and when various people have stressed the use of ‘learning and teaching’ instead of ‘teaching and learning’ loading that reversal with righteous significance. All of that guff is fading away. We’re re-connecting with the crucial value of teacher-led instruction and recognising that ’empowering students to own their own learning’ is an empty phrase unless/until students are at the right point within a wellstructured programme. (There’s a mix of course; let’s not go all black and white here – see Trivium and Mode A; Mode B references elsewhere in this blog). If learners are going to learn, teachers should teach and teach well. Our emphasis in schools should be on making sure teachers have the opportunity to develop their subject knowledge and the associated pedagogy, to engage with the latest research, to absorb information about their students’ learning needs and prior attainment, recognising the complexity of synthesising all of this into a knowledge-base that informs the delivery of effective lessons. Everything we dream up or write down as the ideals for teaching and learning and the curriculum – for groups or individuals – are pointless unless teachers have the knowledge, skills and determination to put them into practice. In terms of accountability, it’s a terrible indictment of our whole system that we’ve created school cultures where unions will fight to limit formal teacher observations to a maximum number per year. Three? That is a product of an accountability culture with teachers at the bottom of the pile, forced to hoop10

jump instead of being developed as professionals. Some SLTs (oh, the delusion of it) still grade lessons, believing themselves to have special powers. The machinery of targets, floor standards, lesson grades, OfSTED judgements (graded book scrutinies for heaven’s sake!) – all of that – has corrupted our professional culture such that teachers are nervous about being observed (judged). We’ll know we’re winning when unions complain that their members are not observed enough or do not receive enough feedback because, then, we’ll have established the principle that CPD, observation and feedback are all focused on supporting teachers in their work. (I can think back to a lesson observation I took part in a few years ago where an inspector (self-important ex-Head, ex-PE teacher, knowing nothing about chemistry) judged a one-off lesson to be less than Outstanding because the teacher (best chemistry teacher I’ve ever known) hadn’t used any differentiation. Instead of thinking that, just maybe, this teacher knew more about what to do than him and taught in a way that he could learn from, he presumed to assume authority, to judge and diminish. That scenario was a product of the system. A truly teacher-centred system would not allow for that. Some SLTs are still doing this. ) There are other dimensions to this too. Behaviour systems should be designed with teachers’ needs at the centre. Teachers should have access to systems and tools to insist on impeccable behaviour in their classrooms and also be supported in developing the skills to manage the complex array of relationships that make-up any classroom. At the sharp end, teachers’ emotional well-being needs to be supported in the face of challenging behaviour. Yes, students’ needs and emotions matter hugely; yes, we want positive, warm relationships and to repair them when they break; but let’s not be afraid to restate the simple truth of the authority/responsibility structure that exists in happy, caring schools, just as in happy, caring families. An effective behaviour system is a teacher-centred behaviour system. (An interesting recent conversation with a student led to her querying ‘so, you’re saying that, because teachers are the adults, they get to tell me what to do?’ My response was clear. I did also explain why – we are responsible for you; you are not responsible for us; your behaviour has an impact on other people; compliance with rules doesn’t stop you expressing yourself in other ways etc etc. However, for some people it seems that the idea that teacher or parental authority/control is not at odds with respect, love, care… has to be restated and re-asserted repeatedly.) Data and assessment systems should be teacher-centred, designed primarily and explicitly to generate useful information for teachers about how their 11

students are progressing to inform the actions they will take; reporting this for whole-school monitoring or for parents is secondary to the needs of teachers, especially when the workload to impact ratio is so ludicrously high. I’ve been thinking recently about how we support teachers to engage with SEND information so they can act on it effectively; that needs to improve. If we place mainstream teachers at the centre of our thinking on SEND provision, we’ll be doing more to support the students. CPD should be teacher-centred (as opposed to school-centred); it needs to be designed and tailored so that it has a chance of making an impact on individual teachers: their knowledge, beliefs, attitudes or skills need to change as a consequence in the long term. In the same spirit, appraisal or professional review systems should be geared towards supporting teachers in their career development – rather than serving accountability processes as the prime objective. Teacher-centred appraisal can still be rigorous at the same time as being developmental and positive for all concerned. And so it goes on. In this spirit, teacher-centredness is an essential precondition for establishing a high challenge/ high trust /high performance professional environment – from which every student benefits. It would certainly help if Secretaries of State and HMCIs were inclined to support teachers more explicitly in their rhetoric and policies but, actually, most of this comes down to school leaders; no excuses. So, now I’m asking myself whether my school is teacher-centred enough. It’s not; not yet. Is yours?