Developing a coordinated approach to revision for GCSE Science

An Action Research Project by Tom Nadin (Science)

Reading time: 9 minutes

Objective: To develop and implement a coordinated faculty approach to exam preparation for GCSE Additional Science and students retaking GCSE Science.

Background:

Our school is a relative small secondary comprehensive school in the south of Bristol, with approximately 150 students per year group. Of these approximately 30 students will take separate GCSE Biology, Chemistry and Physics exams with the remainder taking GCSE Science and GCSE Additional Science.  Of these, most students will take GCSE Science in year 10, with the opportunity to retake in year 11 if necessary, and GCSE Additional Science in year 11.

In August 2016, we received the GCSE Science results for the 92 students we had entered in year 10. The results were disappointing.  Of these students fewer than 50% had achieved a grade of C or above and fewer than 40% had made expected progress. Although there is evidence nationally that students do less well in year ten, and there is an argument that students are not ready to achieve the grades of which they are capable in year 10, we had not previously found this to be the case. In fact, in previous year’s students had often achieved better grades in year 10 than they had in their GCSE Additional grades in year 11. Clearly there was an issue with the way in which this cohort of students had been prepared for these exams. As a faculty we needed to take a long hard look at ourselves and consider both the reasons for this underachievement and strategies we could implement to ensure that these students not only achieved more positive grades in their Additional Science exams, but also that those retaking achieved higher grades in GCSE Science.

Context:

At the start of term one we met as a faculty and had a frank discussion about the year 10 results and what we felt might be some of the barriers for our students. We also discussed the potential issues with some of our students.  Having done so, the consensus was that the issues for many students in year 11 fell into two broad categories, problems with retaining knowledge and difficulties with exam technique and applying their knowledge in exam conditions. It was clear that we needed a more systematic, faculty-wide approach to addressing these concerns. We strongly felt that we needed to develop a suite of resources which students and teachers could use both in class and at home, which would help to develop these skills. We also felt that it was important to ensure that these were consistently used across the faculty so that all students accessed the support in the same way.

We had many potentially useful revision resources at our disposal already and had been using these for a number of years to support student revision, but most had been used in a fairly ad hoc way. Part of the task would be to collate and format these in a way which would be accessible to students and to make them available in a consistent manner. I was also aware, through my links with other local Heads of Science, that other schools were in the process of developing similar resources. We were happy to share the resources that we were developing and were hopeful that other school would feel the same.

As part of the Action Research process in our school each member of staff was allocated Inset time, which they could use to visit other institutions.  As such, I used this time to visit another local school who I was aware, had successfully implemented a revision programme which had helped to raise the achievement of their pupils in science in the previous year. Having spoken to the member of staff responsible it was clear that they had used a programme of independent revision activities to help support their students’ revision and that this had had a really positive effect. I was keen that we adopt a similar system, but also that we had a consistent approach to in-class revision.

Actions:

As a Faculty, our actions fell in to three categories.

  • Interventions to support students retaking GCSE Science.

We decided as a faculty that it would be necessary to support students retaking GCSE Science or taking it for the first time, by using some of our curriculum time. As such I devised a schedule of intervention lessons for these students which I would run. To support this I wrote a revision booklet for each of their assessed units (Biology, Chemistry and Physics). This booklet consisted of a PLC (Personalised Learning Checklist), with links to the relevant pages in the revision guide, some brief revision notes, a mind map to support their revision and an exam question. Over the course of the year student received twelve one hour long revision sessions, and were set work from the booklets to complete for homework.

  • A consistent approach to supporting students in their revision at home.

As mentioned previously, it had become apparent that many students found it challenging to retain information and to recall and apply this when answering exam questions. We decided that we needed a consistent, faculty wide approach to addressing this. Key to this would be supporting students in their revision at home in a consistent was across the Faculty.

As such we decided that during terms 3 and 4, all students would receive weekly revision homework activities, one for Biology, one for Chemistry and one for Physics. These would be set centrally by me using Show My Homework and checked weekly by class teachers. An example of such an activity is shown below. When these were set, students were also made aware of the pages in the revision guides where they could find the relevant content.

TN - revision hw

Figure 1: Example of a science revision homework task

To help incentivise student take up, we ran a reward system where every time a student completed a revision activity, their class teacher would issue them with a raffle ticket. At the end of the process a draw took place and the winner received a free Prom ticket.

  • A consistent approach to revision in class.

As a Faculty we also felt that it was important to have a co-ordinated and consistent approach to in-class revision. We wanted to ensure that students had had the opportunity to cover all the course content, practice exam questions and to have the security of doing this in a consistent way across the Faculty.  As such, I wrote a programme of five Biology, five Chemistry, and five Physics revision lessons. These were delivered to all year 11 Additional Science students during term 5. These lessons all followed a similar format.

Firstly, students completed a PLC (Personalised Learning Checklist), to remind themselves of the subject content and to highlight the priority areas for revision. An example of this is shown below. Note that the PLC contains revision guide page references to help students access the correct information for their revision at home.

“Use the PLC below to help you to identify the content that you already understand and do not understand in this revision lesson. You will come back to this at the end.  At the end of the lesson the areas still highlighted amber or red need to be your priorities for revision at home.”

TN - PLC

Figure 2: Example of Personalised Learning Checklist used during revision lessons

Having completed the PLC, the class teacher would then use a Power-point presentation, to talk through and summarise the content covered by the PLC. An example slide is shown below.

TN - powerpoint slide

Figure 3: Example of a slide used to summarise learning in a typical revision lesson

The third activity in the lesson would then consist of students using the revision guides and the information they had just been given by their teachers to complete summary, knowledge based questions relating to the subject content. An example of these is shown below.

 Use your revision guide (F- p3-6, H- p3-7), your learning from the teacher’s presentation and your revision guide to help you to answer the questions below.

  1. Label these diagrams of cells: (plant cell/animal cell)
  2. Complete this table to give the function of the following organelles:
Organelle Function
Cell Membrane
Cell Wall
Chloroplast
Mitochondria
Vacuole

Figure 4: Example of a revision activity linked to a revision guide

Finally, students were asked to apply the subject content they had reviewed in the lesson and to answer an exam question.

Each student received a paper booklet for each lesson, which they collected in a folder. At the end of the term they took these home to assist with their final at-home revision.  All resources and activities were shared with students and parents on Show My Homework. Resources were shared between staff in our Faculty on our internal shared network.

Impact:

The table below summarises the overall outcomes in GCSE and Additional Science for the cohort of students involved in this project.

Subject %C+ Nat. % C+ %A/A* Nat. %A/A* Average  grade Target Average grade
Additional Science 57 58 4 9 C- C
Science 54 48 2 4.5 D+ C

Figure 5: table of GCSE results for cohort involved in this project

Pupils had achieved threshold outcomes (C+), which were above or extremely close to national averages. Although the overall average target grades were below the internally school set targets (based on FFTD), they are likely to represent progress which is at average or above national expectations. The percentage of students achieving A/A* was below national expectations, however we only have a small number of students targeted A or A* taking GCSE and GCSE Additional Science as most of these students were taking the Separate Sciences. It is interesting to note that Additional Science results were better than GCSE Science. These results are for almost exactly the same students, all took both GCSE and Additional Science. Although there are clearly many variables in play, not least the year in which the exams were taken for the majority of students, this does suggest that the Additional Science homework and in class revision programme did have some positive impact.

Twelve students, who were retaking GCSE Science in year eleven, out of a total of 45 (27%), achieved an improved grade in year eleven. This suggests that the revision programme for these students had some impact, although it did not lead to an improvement in grades for the majority of students.

Anecdotally, the vast majority of students questioned said that they valued the revision programme and found it useful; many were extremely enthusiastic about it. It was also interesting to note that those students who were most enthusiastic and who bought into the programme most fully, also seemed to achieve the best results. Obviously it is impossible to infer cause and effect here. However, detailed analysis of the results indicated that many of our targeted borderline students (especially on the D to C borderline), who had made their target grade had also engaged fully with the revision programme. It was also noticeable that these students were disproportionally female. Our results were significantly better for girls than boys, especially for middle ability students. It did appear that a gender difference in buy-in to our revision programme might at least partially account for this.

Conclusions:

  • Our revision programme ensured that all students had access to the same high quality revision resources and interventions.
  • This was well received and appreciated by the vast majority of students and parents.
  • There is some evidence that the programme lead to improved outcomes in Additional Science.
  • There is some, limited, evidence that the retake revision programme lead to improved outcomes for those students retaking GCSE Science.
  • Broadly, our revision programme seemed to benefit girls more than boys leading to on average better outcomes for female than male students. This seemed to be the case especially for middle ability students.

Next steps:

  • Update and revise the revision programme for the current year 11, for the new 1-9 GCSE.
  • Investigate the apparent gender difference in impact. How can we adapt the programme so that it is more impactful for male students?

 

Feature image: ‘Chemistry, Erlenmeyer Flask’ by GDJ on Pixabay.  Licensed under Creative Commons CC0

Advertisements

Researching the effects of SAM learning on class work and exam preparation in English at Key Stage 4

An Action Research project by Katie Sutherland (English)

Objective

To research the effects of SAM learning to monitor whether setting these tasks for homework can have a positive effect on class work and exam preparation at KS4.

From their promotional information comes the following statement:

“With more activities across more subjects and a wider range of exam boards than any other online service, SAM Learning is the most effective online homework and exam-preparation service for secondary schools in the UK today.”

This action research project was used to challenge prior assumptions with a specific focus on Year 10 pupils.

The prior assumptions based upon 16 years in secondary education were:

  • Year 10 pupils would engage more with e-learning homework tasks than generic reading and writing tasks
  • Boys completion of e-learning homework would be at least equivalent to girls, if not greater
  • There would be clear evidence in mock exam results that pupils had benefitted from e-learning homework

In order to broaden the breadth of study, reading was undertaken of previous research on the effectiveness of using online learning resources to improve progress. A convincing statistic was found and supported the objective of this action research project: ‘The impact of on-line revision on GCSE results’ by Karen Osborne, SAM Learning blog, Capita.co.uk 2005. The reference to boosting a ‘school’s GCSE results by over 30 per cent’ was an incentive to trial and monitor this method of setting homework and specifically the statement that, ‘improvements were more significant for boys’ as this remains a keen area of interest within my own practice as an English teacher.

online learning boosts school’s GCSE results by over 30 per cent. Improvements were more significant for boys, suggesting that online learning is an effective tool to help engage adolescent boys with their learning.’ (capita.co.uk; 2005)

Actions

The process for this action research project included:

  1. Set specific exam related tasks from Sam Learning for Year 10 pupils
  2. Monitor and analyse the data provided in response to these tasks
  3. Evaluate any impact on class work and mock exam results
  4. Pupil voice survey on the use of Sam Learning as a homework tool
  5. Conclusions
  6. Next steps

1.  Set specific exam related tasks from Sam Learning for Year 10 pupils.

28 Year 10 pupils of mixed ability were set 48 tasks over a 6 week period all related to English Paper 1.

35% of tasks were cloze activities therefore allowing the least able pupils to achieve success by placing the correct words/ phrases into responses

35% of tasks required a more developed response and would challenge all pupils to type a response of between 30 and 50 words

30% of tasks required a developed response were pupils would have to write in more depth and write about 100-150 words

2. Monitor and analyse the data provided in response to the homework tasks set.

% of tasks completed by pupils 0-14% 15-29% 30-49% 50-69% 70-89% 90-100%
Number of pupils 5 6 6 4 0 3

Figure 1. Completion rate of all homework tasks set on SAM learning

The rationale of this division of tasks was to encourage pupils of all ability to complete the maximum amount of homework tasks to consolidate learning. Sam Learning offers tasks that are multiple choice, clozed activities that can help with progress of less able pupils. However, it also has tasks that require a more developed response and then the more challenging tasks that require a detailed response that demonstrate a breadth of understanding by pupils and would consolidate learning in preparation for exam responses.

K Sutherland - fig 2

Figure 2. Breakdown of the relative completion rate of tasks by gender in relation to the overall completion rate of tasks set (see figure 1)

Evidence suggests:

  • Girls have completed significantly more homework than boys
  • A proportion of girls were willing to complete all tasks set
  • The maximum that a boy completed was 45% of tasks set

This evidence contradicted initial pre-conceptions that boys would complete more homework using technology and online learning tasks than girls. However, disappointingly, the maximum amount of homework tasks that a boy completed was 45% even though boys had equivalent target grades to their female peers. This did not fit with the expected results and made me reflect on whether or not the claims that completing online learning tasks ‘boosted grades by up to 30 percent’ were either gender specific or possibly even subject specific and perhaps English was not a subject that had benefitted from these results.

3. Evaluate any impact on class work and mock exam results

All of the learning tasks set were focused on AQA English Paper 1 and it was hoped that the completion of online learning tasks would support progress and be evidenced in mock examination results.

Pupil Time spent

(hours)

Position in class mock exam Base level
Pupil 1 43.5 1 5a
Pupil 2 19.5 2 5c
Pupil 3 30.52 3 5b
Pupil 4 (EAL) 43.35 4 4c
Pupil 5 11.05 5 5c
Pupil 6 7.00 6 5a
Pupil 7 8.35 7 5b
Pupil 8 4.3 8 4a
Pupil 9 (EAL) 10.35 9 4c
Pupil 10 23.33 10 4a
Pupil 11 5.55 11 5b
Pupil 12 1.10 12 5c
Pupil 13 16.3 13 4c
Pupil 14 8.00 14 4b
Pupil 15 35.2 15 4b
Pupil 16 14.3 16 4b
Pupil 17 3.25 17 3a
Pupil 18 (SEND) 3.5 18 3b
Pupil 19 (EAL) 35.2 19 3a
Pupil 20 (EAL) 17.45 20 4c
Pupil 21 2.45 21 4a
Pupil 22 .25 22 4a
Pupil 23 (SEND) .2 23 4c
Pupil 24 (SEND) 17.5 24 2c

Figure 3. A comparison of time spent on SAM learning task in relation to ranked position in a mock exam and student base level data.

Notable observations:

Pupil 4 has spent a significant amount of time completing homework and achieved 4th position in class.

Yet, pupil 19 has also completed a significant amount of homework and achieved 19th place.

Their base level was just one sub-level difference.

Pupil 10 has spent a significant amount of time completing homework and achieved 10th position in class.

Whereas Pupil 11 has a higher base level but has not completed nearly as much homework and is in 11th position.

4. Pupil Voice Survey

Pupil voice Survey        
Questions Girls Yes Boys Yes Girls No Boys No
Do you prefer homework tasks set on the computer? 10 11 3 0
Do you complete more homework if you can use the computer? 8 9 5 2
Are you satisfied with the amount of homework tasks that you have completed? 6 5 5 7
Would it help you to complete more tasks if you had a set amount to complete per week? 7 7 4 5
Do you think that SAM Learning has had a positive impact on your class work or mock? 8 5 3 7
Would you have completed more tasks if you could do this in an after school revision session? 4 10 7 3
Were your parents/ carers aware of your e-learning tasks? 5 2 6 9

5. Conclusions

  • Few pupils completed all e-learning homework tasks
  • The majority of girls completed more homework tasks than boys
  • One of the most able pupils from baseline data completed the most homework and achieved first position in the mock exam
  • Some of the least able pupils completed the least e-learning homework tasks
  • Boys were not as engaged when completing the extended responses
  • Most boys were honest in their response that they would probably complete more e-learning tasks if given time in school to revise.

Surprisingly, the data collected thus far has not supported the claims that ‘improvements were more significant for boys’. I can understand that if you are starting at a point of 0% completion of homework then there may be more significant improvements but my experience had been that it was difficult to gender stereotype as it really depended on the pupils who completed the work, rather than their gender. I was disappointed with the lack of extended responses from all pupils and with the boys in particular but I will consider their responses from the pupil voice survey when setting future homework.

6. Next steps

  • Set short manageable tasks on a fortnightly basis for pupils
  • Differentiate tasks for learners
  • Monitor pupils completion of tasks every fortnight
  • Offer lunch time / after school revision sessions (particularly for boys)
  • Group call parents with homework information
  • Reward all pupils who complete 75% or more of tasks

Further research would be beneficial whilst adapting my practice to include the ‘next steps’. I would hope that more manageable tasks, rewards and opportunities during the school day to complete learning will boost the quality and quantity of homework completed. Also, parental support via group call will be effective in ensuring completion of homework.

Featured image: ‘boy computer’ by OpenClipart-Vectors on Pixabay. Licensed under CC0 Public Domain

Encouraging pupil motivation in MFL through email and project exchanges with schools in Spain

An Action Research project by Iranzu Esparza (MFL)

Focus

To encourage pupils’ motivation, progress and interest in MFL through an email and project exchange with a Spanish speaking school

Background and context

It is important to bring language to life through engaging teaching and learning materials and through direct contact with native speakers. Although some of our students have the opportunity to travel to Spanish speaking countries with their families, not all do, and those who go on holidays tend to stay in English and international resorts where the need to speak in Spanish to communicate is minimal. Therefore, I decided to set up an email and project exchange with a school in a Spain to provide the students with the opportunity to communicate with native students of their age with the a view to encouraging their motivation and enhancing their progress.  Also, two of my GCSE students had approached me and asked about conversation lessons with native speakers to further develop their speaking skills. I thought ‘ePals’ could help them.

Actions

The first exchange with a school in Málaga

I registered with ePals (a safe, on-line platform for project exchanges between schools all around the world) and was contacted by a school in Málaga.

We paired the students from both countries with individuals of similar abilities and interests. It was agreed that each student would write a presentation about themselves in the language they were studying and would add a final paragraph in their mother tongue.

On a practical level a number of problems arose during the process:

1) The teacher with whom the link was made was not the teacher of the Spanish group involved, but the coordinator for extracurricular activities. Any decision or plan had to go through her to the class teacher, who did not have the same motivation or time for the project as she did.

2) The Spanish school was very small and had limited ICT facilities, which made any direct Skype exchange between students on pre-prepared questions and answers impossible. They could not take a whole class to an ICT room at a time either therefore Spanish students could not complete their presentations and email them from school. As a result, some of my pupils were getting messages and others who had less motivated Spanish ePals, were not.

3) Problems with the ePals site for a period of time meant that the students lost the spontaneity to exchange messages with their Spanish ePals directly, since all exchanges had to go via their teacher email, who had to forward them to the teacher in the other country. This generated a considerable workload for the teachers too.

Conclusions from this first exchange

For future exchanges to work effectively:

1) The partner school needs to be interested exclusively in an exchange of work between students.

2) The school needs to have sufficient ICT facilities.

3) The teacher involved in the partner school needs to be the teacher of the students to avoid delays and also to agree on the topics, dates and activities.

4) An alternative platform to ePals had to be found to enable students to exchange emails directly with their e-partners safely. This system also had to enable teachers to monitor the messages in the interests of e-safety.

Impact of the first exchange

Although the overall result of this first exchange was not as successful as hoped, my students produced some lovely compositions about themselves in Spanish for their ePals. They enjoyed getting their ePals’ messages and finding out about them. They also exchanged Christmas Cards and swapped parcels with typical Christmas foods from both countries.

Some students in the class were highly motivated writing or skyping in Spanish and gaining confidence at communicating with native speakers of their own age.

The second exchange with a school in Lleida

I discussed with our Network Manager possible alternatives to ePals and we decided new school Google accounts and passwords could be created for my students. These could be safely monitored by the school. Then I set out to find a new partner school. I established contact with a school in Lleida, Catalonia. The Spanish teacher was the Head of MFL and an expert who had been running educational projects and exchanges for many years. She was very motivated and committed and so we decided to embark in a new, challenging but exciting, Prezi exchange project.

My year 10 students and their Spanish counterparts would be working in groups of 3 or 4 with their classmates producing Prezi presentations for their partner group. The Spanish teacher would guide me through a process she was familiar with. We would produce two presentations on topics that would fit in with the requirements of the GCSE syllabus of my year 10 group. The topics were: Myself and personal interests/ My school.

The Prezi programme is free for schools enabling them to create group presentations where each member of the group can upload contents individually. By clicking on the different images and texts you navigate through the group page. Thanks to our Network Manager’s technical support, each student uploaded a text presentation about themselves in the target language and also in their native language. They added their voice recording to the texts in languages, pictures and some even video clips of themselves showing what our school is like. The Spanish teacher sent me models of previous Prezis her students had made. Our network manager also created Google accounts for each of the groups to send me their presentations to be checked. The idea was that they would also be able to use these accounts to communicate with their Spanish partner group.

The final outcome and presentations were highly impressive. This is a sample of what my students produced:

https://prezi.com/ieu9b6t8pdx4/panda-freaks/#

https://prezi.com/hroc_hpqctja/group-los-guapos/

Unfortunately the process to produce them was less enjoyable than the outcome and we met a good number of problems along the way.

The Spanish school students were familiar with the Prezi format and met outside lesson time or worked independently from home uploading their work. I took my group to an induction to Prezi programme session in our ICT room. They grouped themselves although I chose who would be the leader in each group. Our network manager led the training and by the end of the session they had all created the Prezi group main page and understood the basics of the programme.

The computer room was only available once in a fortnight in the timeslots I taught the group. That meant the students had to finish the presentations independently as homework. They were using the same texts they had emailed their previous pen pals in Málaga, therefore initially it seemed a straight forward task. There were problems in trying to record and upload sound files and the network manager had to record most of the students in lesson time.

Since the students were preparing a presentation without having met their pen-pal group and without having had any contact with them, it felt just like working on a group project. By the time the groups had swapped presentations many of my year 10 group had lost motivation: they were also facing exam pressures. The whole process became demanding and was taking away focus and energy from GCSE preparation.

Conclusions from the second exchange

1) Email and projects exchanges have to be carried out with year groups when they do not have exam pressure to avoid interference with assessments and preparation. A year 9 would have been ideal. Alternatively a year 8 group would have also been suitable.

2) Prezi is a fantastic programme for MFL enabling students to add texts, voice and video in the target language and in their own language for the partner school to listen to. However it would have been better to start with an email exchange between groups and then proceed to the Prezi exchange. Had the students been in contact with their ePals before embarking on a demanding task, their motivation would have been higher to impress and communicate with them.

3) To produce Prezis it is necessary to have access to the computer room for a number of consecutive lessons to ensure they are completed. It is also necessary to have ICT support unless you are familiar with the program. These projects require and encourage independence in the students. The students love working cooperatively in groups, each individual doing research composing a paragraph on a different aspect of the topic and then assembling them all together in a final presentation.

4) It is preferable to plan the number and type of exchanges (video/email/Prezis) beforehand and when it is suitable to carry them out making them fit within the scheme of work. For example, in future exchanges I would start in September with a simple email exchange where students introduce and write about themselves in the target language. Then the students could send written tasks composed in the ICT room at the end of the Autumn and Spring terms on a topic already covered in lessons, for example a PowerPoint or Word presentation about my home town, my hobbies etc. Then, at the end of the year, in July, there would be time to embark on a more demanding project like a Prezi exchange or making a video.

5) For these exchanges to work out, the contents of the messages and projects need to be what has been covered in lessons. This also enhances motivation to learn, since the students know their ePals will be the recipients of what they have been producing throughout the term.  This simpler approach would make them a more realistic activity for busy teachers.

5) Again, like with the first exchange, it is important to emphasize to the partner school what type of projects you are interested in to ensure a match.

Impact

In a survey of pupils, when asked how motivating they had found the exchange projects as part of learning Spanish, 7% said ‘highly motivating’, 57% ‘motivating’, 29% ‘of little motivation’ and 7% ‘not motivating at all’.

Pupils also felt that, school trips, feeling they were making good progress and interesting and fun lessons, were the three most motivating factors in learning Spanish.

Email exchange projects, better career opportunities and the possibility of using the target language on holidays, were valued factors for a good number of students although a minority of pupils did not consider these to be as motivating.

In a questionnaire about their experience of the exchange projects the feedback was as follows:

64% of students only communicated with their ePals when the teacher gave a task related to the project, 14% communicated on a regular, almost daily basis and 29% communicated with their ePals weekly. The majority had only contacted their epal via the email provided by the school, but the most used media after that was instagram with one student using Skype on a regular basis. Two students had also exchanged MSN messages and used Whatsapp.*(see note about e-safety)

Regarding the choice of language, the majority of our students wrote in Spanish and their epal replied in English, followed by a good number that wrote in English and received replies in English too. This second choice is not so conducive to learning Spanish! A minority wrote in English and received replies in Spanish or even wrote in Spanish and were answered in Spanish. However, most students used 2 of these 4 alternatives instead of only 1 consistently.

Most conversations revolved around the topics of friendship, interests, hobbies and school, with only 2 students asking their ePals for support with their Spanish homework.

The majority of the students felt it helped them improve because “I made the effort to understand them”, “I had actual conversations”, “I could talk to them about my daily life”, “It was fun”.

The three students who felt unmotivated explained that they were writing in English and their ePals replied in English, therefore there was no learning or excitement about the exchanges.

Regarding what could have been done differently these were cited; “better suited ePal partners”, “more chances to talk to them during lessons and on Skype” activities taking place in class and not as part of homework”.

The majority of the students enjoyed the exchange with Malaga more because it was more personal and they communicated more often. They also valued the exchange of typical Christmas foods. Two of the students preferred the exchange with Lleida because they enjoyed working with their friends in groups making the Prezis and they felt it was more structured.

Therefore, it is clear that an exchange where students can communicate independently via a safe platform that can be monitored is clearly preferable to more complicated group presentations using Prezi. Also, students value more one to one exchanges because they are more personal to group work exchanges.

Although both projects ran their course and finished, they have been an invaluable source of information about our students’ preferences and how to successfully carry out email or ICT based exchanges taking into account the demands of the curriculum and the demands they make on teachers’ time.

*E-Safety

Maintaining e-safety throughout the exchange was a priority, with information and consent forms shared with parents, expectations clearly laid out with students and platforms used which allowed interactions to be monitored. However pupils’ knowledge and use of social media meant that a number of students did use other media, such as Whatsapp and Instagram to communicate with their partners.

Sources/ Links/References

– What research says about using ICT in Modern Foreign languages:

http://mirandanet.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/wtrs_23_mfla.pdf

-Key Motivational Factors and How Teachers Can Encourage Motivation in their Students Aja Dailey, University of Birmingham,

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/secondlanguage/DailySLAKeyMotivationalFactorsandHowTeachers.pdf

-To find partner schools:

The British council website: https://www.britishcouncil.org/

The ePals website: https://www.ePals.com/#/connections

http://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/index.htm

To get started with the Prezi programme

https://prezi.com/login/

Developing Mastery in Mathematics (4 )

(Feature image: ‘You can and will be successful here’ by Enokson.  Attribution: PhotosForClass.com licensed by CC BY 2.0)

An Action Research Project by Richard Noibi

Introduction

‘Mastery is the process by which Maths is taught incisively depicting route(s) to finding solution(s) to a problem. This process is complete when the pupil(s) discovers other routes leading to the Solution’, Richard Noibi, September 2016.

Mastery is also the ability to apply knowledge gained from various areas of Mathematics, i.e. Algebra, Geometry, Probability and other topics in solving Mathematical problems.

With the new mastery curriculum in Mathematics and its demands on application rather than  teaching a systematic approach to solving problems, it is imperative that teachers like me adopt new strategies and approaches to teaching Mathematics to students.  

Gone are the days when teachers can predict exam questions.   Now, we have to teach ‘the why’ more than just ‘how’ to solve questions. Our students must now be able to think outside the box rather than just follow a systematic route to answers.

Aims of the Project

This project seeks to answer the following questions:

  • How can I incorporate Mastery into my teaching to facilitate the development of my students to meet the demands of the new curriculum?
  • What can I learn from other Schools and colleagues to facilitate Mastery in my lessons?
  • What method(s) can I adopt so that my students can remember formulas they need for answering new GCSE questions?
  • How can I encourage Innovation in lessons?

Focus Group

My focus group was a Year 9 class, which had 31 students with various abilities ranging from level 5a to 7b. I chose this class because:

It has students who usually struggle with resilience – a quality needed for mastering Mathematics.

Some of the high achievers were still working below their challenge grades.

Most of the students also found applying Mathematical know-how to real life situations a struggle. This skill is needed to excel with the new strategy.

The Route to Mastery

 Good foundations

For my students to have Mastery skills in Mathematics up to the level required, they must have the solid background knowledge of the Subject. This is the foundation of the plan and the stage at which misconceptions are corrected.

Thinking outside the box

Students can no longer be one way learners but need to be dynamic in their approach to solving Mathematical challenges.

Creating a Culture of Mathematics

‘Consistency and Practice makes perfect’. This was developed through thorough Maths ‘skills drills’.

Mastery in other Schools

As a tutor to students from another school (School ‘A’), I noticed that the teaching styles have changed recently. The past focused on 3 part teaching (Starter, main, plenary) is now divided four parts (revision activity based on quick recap of the most challenging part of the last lesson; then a starter activity, which is usually a modelled question targeted as yardstick for success criteria; main teaching and class work; a plenary based on checking how many of the model questions could be answered at the end of lesson).

In another school I am familiar with (School ‘B’) they use 3 part teaching but there is a modelled test at the start of a new topic. Then after three lessons the students are given a test with the same questions but by this time they have had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the test. The outcome of the test is used to gauge the understanding of the students. This method embraces consistent practice and developing a culture of Mathematics amongst their students.

Both schools use homework to consolidate learning. Sometimes homework is used for correcting errors students make in the lessons not undertaking new work.

Both strategies endorse the above listed route to Mastery. Thus I adopted aspects of both in my lessons with my Year 9 focus group.

Adopting the strategies

To create a culture of Mathematics with Year 9, I combined the method of teaching in School ‘A’ with the assessment programme of School ‘B’.   I made sure I informed parents of the outcome of the end of Topic tests I give pupils once a fortnight. This improved enthusiasm and effort from my students.

Also, I adopted a method I learned from my country (Nigeria) which helps promote independent thinking and application of Maths to real world situation. I started giving the class a Mastery question as a starter once a week.  I say to the class I am not interested in the final answer but how to start solving the question. What is the first step to take before solving this question? What if the question is changed to ………? How would you start? This helps many who struggle to know where to start a question during exams or tests. As we all know, marks are not only awarded for the final answer but the steps taken to reach it.

The results

Seventy per-cent of my Year 9 class achieved a grade higher than their challenge grades, with three making exceptional progress.