Making revision more effective

A sharing best practice post by Jodie Johnson (Mathematics)

Reading time: 2 minutes

Among the many challenges inherent in the new GCSE courses is the greater volume of knowledge and understanding that pupils are required to learn, recall and master in the exam hall.  This puts even greater importance on them undertaking effective revision.

In recent years staff have worked hard to develop a broad range of revision resources, whether they be revision booklets, guides, summary sheets, past paper booklets, revision tests and so on.  On top of the that, with the potential for using computer and online resources, teachers have collated or produced youtube films, channels, links and guides, not to mention making paper based resources accessible via VLEs, Google Drive and the School website.

However, despite this plethora of resources offering pupils a multitude of ways in which to revise, there are those  who still fail to make effective use of them.  In some cases these are pupils who have collected or accessed resources, have told the teacher, ‘Yes, I have my revision resources’ and ‘Yes, I know what I need to revise’, but still fail to revise effectively.

For some the problem lies not in knowing how to revise, because teachers have modelled and rehearsed that.  Nor in knowing what to revise, because teachers have provided them with revision lists and planning tools.  The problem for some seems to lie in marrying the two together.

For some pupils, breaking revision down and being specific in telling them which activities to undertake with which resources is far more likely to be productive, even for those who think they know what they are doing.

Being prescriptive in the way pupils are expected to revise can take the mystery, or in some cases the awe that some seem to feel, out of starting and completing an effective revision session.

As a tutor of a Year 11  group I have discussed with my pupils what help they want from teachers.  The answer that came back loud and clear was, “We need their help to tell us exactly how to revise individual topics.”

When I thought about this I came to the following conclusions:

  • The more structured the revision task the better, especially for the less able and many of the boys (as well as those students who are inclined to panic) so that they know exactly how and where to start revising
  • Frequent consolidation, not just of the learning but of the ‘how to’ strategies for revision, is needed to keep pupils focused

So, as a Maths teacher with a Year 11 class this is approach I am incorporating into my revision this year by using the following process:

  • Complete one mock paper per fortnight in class

Then, in the following fortnight pupils complete two homeworks:

  • Week 1 – a written homework that can be self-assessed in class
  • Week 2 – a clearly defined revision task based on the outcome of the mock, which I talk through with the class before they complete it

JJ - HW task

Figure 1  An example of a revision homework

Put simply my advice is:

  • Show the pupils how to revise by modelling the strategies
  • Set revision tasks on a regular basis, guiding the pupils specifically as to what they need to revise and how they are to do it.

Featured image: ‘Brain’ by ElisaRiva on Pixabay.  Licensed under Creative Commons CC0

Advertisements

Differentiation for Mixed Ability Teaching

An Action Research Project by Helen Reed (Science)

“The problem with mixed ability classes is that there are students with different needs but not always differentiated teaching”

“Differentiated instruction and assessment is a framework or philosophy for effective teaching that involves providing different students with different avenues to learning”

“Differentiation means tailoring instruction to meet individual needs. Whether teachers differentiate content, process, products or the learning environment, the use of on-going assessment and flexible grouping makes this a successful approach to instruction.”

Why I chose differentiation for my Action Research Project

I decided to research differentiation in mixed ability classes as a direct result of the great diversity in some of my classes. Last year, I had a year seven class which had a boy with significant learning needs who was just managing to attain a level 2. The same class also had students with the potential to achieve level 7. I struggled to find ideas that would engage, motivate and stretch the whole class at the same time that didn’t take all night to plan!

Through my research I also came to realise the need for differentiation in all of my classes, even my elite triple Science students – despite the majority of them being able to achieve a grade A. Differentiation in this top set of extremely able students was still necessary – to cater for the particular needs of all. Although all of the students were able to access the challenging work I set, as a class they needed different teaching/learning approaches to cater for all of their learning preferences and so maximise their potential.

To summarise the reasons for my choice, I wanted to learn quick and effective ways to differentiate in my Year 7 mixed ability class. However, this quickly extended to the need to differentiate in all of my classes.

What I learnt…

In a large class, differences between students may seem too numerous to count but differentiation works on 3 key areas….

  1. readiness to learn
  2. learning needs
  3. engaging interest

A variety of techniques are needed to cover all three aspects of differentiation…

On-going formative assessment: to continually assess and identify students’ strengths and areas of need.

Recognition of the diversity of learners: The students we teach have diverse levels of expertise with reading, writing, thinking, problem solving etc… On-going assessments allow us to develop differentiated lessons to meet every student’s needs.

Group Work: Students collaborate in pairs and small groups which enables them to engage in meaningful discussions and to observe and learn from each other.

Task: Teachers can offer a choice in the tasks they complete. This is one of the core methods of differentiation, setting different tasks for students of different abilities. An obvious way to do this is to produce different sets of worksheets or exercises depending on ability. However, this makes things difficult for the teacher in terms of delivering the material – how do you distribute the different worksheets without it being painfully obvious to the whole class who gets which sheet? Aside from these social difficulties there is the sheer time it takes to organise and produce such material. So, an alternative method is to produce a single worksheet comprised of tasks which get progressively harder. The more advanced students quickly progress to the later questions whilst the less able concentrate on grasping the essentials.

Choice: Whilst it is a good idea to produce one single differentiated sheet to avoid social difficulties, the sheets still need to be made. When there are perfectly good separate resources already available on hand in the department it seems an awful waste of time to reproduce the same material. So the alternative here is to give the students a choice of resource to work from. In my experience students like to challenge themselves and rarely, if ever choose the lower ability option out of ease.

Outcome: Differentiation by outcome is a technique whereby all students undertake the same task but a variety of results is expected. Instead of all working to one ‘right’ answer the student arrives at a personal outcome depending on their level of ability.

Differentiation in practice

Based on my findings I decided to try out a few new ideas….

Group work/Student choice

My Year 9 class, with levels ranging from level 4-7, were working on a topic about renewable energy resources. After they had learnt about the different resources (through internet research and class discussion) I put them into groups of 3. Each group were given a basic map of an Island with key features such as mountains, coastal regions, exposed open land etc….. As a team they had to decide which type of renewable energy resource would be best to supply the island with electricity. They had to do 3 things…

Draw a map detailing what type of energy resources they would use

Write an account of how the renewable energy resource would produce electricity

Verbally justify their decision

It was up to the group to decide who did which job.

The students were very engaged throughout this whole activity – it led to a whole class debate when the students tried to justify their decisions!

Differentiation by task (i)

By far the quickest and easiest method I frequently adopt is differentiation by task – but with the students choosing their task. The Science department has levelled assessment tasks at levels 4-6 or 6-8. I make both available to students and let them choose. I would say that 95% of the class make the choice that I would have chosen for them. Where a student has opted for the lower ability task as they aren’t very confident I will ask them to try both if they don’t suggest this themselves – which they usually do.

Differentiation by task (ii)

Another favourite approach of mine is to have levelled work set out ready for the students. After learning about a particular topic they will level themselves and then go and choose a level appropriate task. This means they are starting work at a level that is challenging for them – they can then move on and progress to the next level as and when they are ready.

Variety of Teaching/Learning Activities

Whilst teaching about the heart to a year 11 class where the students were working within a narrower range (grade C-A), I chose to experiment with differentiation by teaching/learning activity. Previously, I would have stood at the board and drawn a diagram explaining as I went. This time I did the same thing but then proceeded to go into the lab and show them the parts I had been discussing before challenging the students to dissect and investigate themselves. On returning to the classroom I asked the students to verbally describe what they had seen before labelling a diagram and finally answering exam questions on the heart using a text book. So the students experienced a range of auditory, verbal and kinaesthetic learning.

Conclusions

As an experienced teacher, nothing I read was completely new to me. However, It opened my eyes to the absolute necessity of versatility in the classroom for ALL classes. Differentiation isn’t about making lots of worksheets for all of my classes it’s about alternative teaching and learning styles that include every student. It’s about using the students and the strengths that they have to help each other. It’s about really knowing your students and providing challenging work whether it be by questioning, task, outcome etc.. It really doesn’t matter how you do it because there are so many options but it needs to be done for every child to achieve – although it doesn’t need to keep you up until midnight!

Featured image: Original image ’15 Rule of Great Teaching’ by Sylvia Duckworth, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

15 Rules of Great Teaching

 

Mastery in Mathematics (6): Research and lesson adaption to fit the new GCSE curriculum

An Action Research project by Rory McMahon (Mathematics)

Aims of the Project

The aim of this project was to research ‘Mastery in Mathematics’ and the implications its’ introduction would have on our Faculty in terms of:

  • The new AQA Curriculum
  • Adjustments to the Scheme of Work
  • Alterations to lessons to promote ‘Mastery’

Background and context

This project started in response to the recent changes to the Maths curriculum which take effect from the 2017 GCSE’s. As a Faculty we looked to change our practice in light of the recent changes. The curriculum changes are as follows:

  • There is more content to teach with harder topics being introduced.
  • There is a greater emphasis on problem-solving and mathematical reasoning, with more marks in the GCSE exams being allocated to these higher-order skills.
  • The total examination time is increasing with all exams taken at the end of the course.
  • Students will also have to memorise formulae.
  • There is a new grade structure from 9 to 1, with fewer marks at the lower grades and more marks at the higher grades.

Actions taken

Peer observations to gauge the level of Mastery evident in lessons in September/October

As a Faculty all teachers took part in peer observations during Term 1 in an attempt to see good practice in action as well as gauge the level of ‘Mastery’ evident in existing lessons. Positive and constructive feedback was given and a discussion on how ‘Mastery’ could become more visible in lessons was held during Faculty meetings.

Scheme of Work changed from Kangaroo to AQA

The decision was made in January to make the switch from the Kangaroo scheme of work to the new AQA scheme to attempt to get pupils used to the new format in time for the start of the 2016-2017 academic year. Although it was thought to be a better move in the long run, there were some challenges to this approach. Firstly, a comparison of the schemes had to be made and topics which were covered already had to be crossed off.  However with the level of many topics increased, we needed to pick out sections of topics which students had not been previously been exposed to and teach those separately. Secondly, the increased difficulty of concepts and the change in focus to ‘Mastery’ proved to be difficult for students to adjust to. We were hoping they would adapt quickly to the problem solving nature of lessons as this was a style which they had not been previously used to.

Adaption of End of unit tests to support Mastery

End of Unit Tests now include Mastery style questions to build up resilience and retests are available and encouraged, so that students now have the key skills needed to succeed at this form of questioning. This is a work in progress which has been embraced by the pupils as they can see progression from the first sitting of the test to the second. It also gives them more opportunity to sample the type of examination questions they will be expected to answer in the coming years.

Further peer observations planned to see how Mastery is developing and lesson adjustments

Again in Term 3/4 the Maths Faculty undertook peer observations to observe the increase in focus towards ‘Mastery’ in lessons as standard practice. The Faculty was unanimous in the conclusion that Mastery questions were most easily integrated into the bell-work phase of the lesson or alternatively and possibly most effectively, during the Plenary phase. Personally, I found giving the students a ‘Mastery’ question as their plenary always challenged the pupils to think about the skills they had learnt in that lesson in a different way. Once the students spotted this they began to widen their horizons in terms of spotting links between different concepts learned. Some examples of Lesson alterations can be seen below.

Example 1

Our pupils in this case would have spent the majority of the lesson learning about the sum of the interior angles of polygons. In this question, they have to apply that knowledge but also represent their answers as fractions in their simplest form.

interior angles

Example 2

Factorising 1

A standard lesson on Factorising Expressions would concentrate on embedding the relevant skills needed as above. However, the Plenary to this lesson looks like the following slide below.

Factorising

The students are encouraged to use a skill learned in the lesson to solve a different style of problem, thus establishing links between different concepts.

 Adoption of Eastern Asian styles of teaching (learning information)

 It is widely recognised that the countries of Eastern Asia out-perform their UK counterparts in relation to attainment of Mathematics in primary and secondary schools. International tests show that in these countries the percentage of 15-year-olds who are functionally innumerate – unable to perform basic calculations – was more than 10 percentage points lower than in England. As recently as 12/07/2016, news broke of a £41m support for 8,000 primary schools in England to adopt the approach which is used by the leading performers in Shanghai, Singapore and Hong Kong.

The Eastern Asian method has the following features:

  • Emphasis on problem solving and comprehension, allowing students to relate what they learn and to connect knowledge
  • Careful scaffolding of core competencies of :
    • visualisation, as a platform for comprehension
    • mental strategies, to develop decision making abilities
    • pattern recognition, to support the ability to make connections and generalise
  • Emphasis on the foundations for learning and not on the content itself so students learn to think mathematically as opposed to merely reciting formulas or procedures.

As a Faculty we have tried to integrate the techniques of embedding skills in the minds of our students and then getting them to apply these skills to problems. Previous lessons would consist of teaching skills and then getting pupils to practice these skills for the remainder of the lesson. Now, our attention has changed to using and applying these skills to problem solving for real-life situations. 

On-going adaption of the Scheme of Work to include NRICH activities to further develop Mastery 

Before the focus on ‘Mastery’, the Maths Faculty always felt that problem solving was a crucial attribute for students to develop. This was enhanced by our used of ‘The Nrich Project’ from the University of Cambridge.

“NRICH is a team of qualified teachers who are also practitioners in RICH mathematical thinking. This unique blend means that NRICH is ideally placed to offer advice and support to both learners and teachers of mathematics.”

NRICH aims to:

  • Enrich the experience of the mathematics curriculum for all learners
  • Offer challenging and engaging activities
  • Develop mathematical thinking and problem-solving skills
  • Show rich mathematics in meaningful contexts
  • Work in partnership with teachers, schools and other educational settings

For teachers of mathematics, NRICH:

  • Offer free enrichment material (Problems, Articles and Games) for all ages that really can help to inspire and engage learners and embed RICH tasks into everyday practice.
  • Help to promote RICH thinking in classrooms by offering on-line and face-to-face support at Primary and Secondary level.
  • Deliver professional development courses and workshops in rich mathematics.
  • Help teachers to think strategically about ‘next steps’ and progression in problem solving.

In 2014-2015 ‘NRICH lessons’ were held once per term to help enhance the problem solving skills of students. In 2015-2016 it was felt that the Faculty should conduct NRICH lessons once per fortnight as the shift in focus was becoming apparent at that stage. Moving forward, the Maths Faculty has created a bank of NRICH lessons to be used in conjunction with the new Scheme of Work for the academic year 2016-2017. Some snapshots of how these were integrated can be seen below.

sow-1.png

sow-2.png

Impact

As a Faculty, we have discussed the possible impact of our endeavours to adjust our teaching and learning to the new and challenging ‘Mastery’ curriculum. As this style of teaching and type of examination questions have been rolled out, students have become more familiar with the concept. Therefore, we can say there has been definite progress in the students’ familiarity with the style of future exam questions.

Secondly, we can state that the confidence of our pupils has increased with regard to structuring an answer for these questions. At the beginning of the year, receiving answers from students for bellwork and plenary ‘Mastery’ questions was a difficult ordeal! Gradually through practice and knowing they should be able to use some of the content they had covered in lessons, many were then able to attempt a reasonable answer. This developed over time so now we not only have our highest attaining students putting answers together but our bottom sets are also successful.

Finally, the AQA practice papers were an invaluable resource. As with the previous strategies, students found the change in structure and expectations very difficult to deal with. Therefore, we gave students the practice paper to attempt and gave them a grade. Once the papers were handed back, students could then go through the mark scheme with green pens to see where they could have picked up more marks. Also, answers that had four, five or even six steps were often broken down by the teachers for the class. Students then had the opportunity to re-sit the examination as a confidence building exercise. Slowly but surely the results for the first sitting of the tests began to improve but as a Faculty we realise this is a work in progress.

 Conclusions

  • The new AQA Curriculum has been rolled out and used for six months this academic year (2015-16) allowing teachers the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the format and tests.
  • The new Scheme of Work has been adjusted to accommodate ‘NRICH’ lessons which we see as crucial to embedding a culture of problem solving across the department.
  • New lessons have been created and existing lessons have been amended to include ‘Mastery’ questions in the bellwork or plenary phases.
  • There is a confidence in the Faculty that we are ready to begin the 2016/2017 secure in our knowledge of the new requirements to ensure the continued progress of pupils in the Mathematics Faculty.

References

Department for Education (DfE). (2013a). National Curriculum in England: Framework Document. London: Department for Education.

Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, J. & Findell, B.(eds.)(2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Mathematics Learning Study Committee: National Research Council.

NCETM (2014a). Developing Mastery in Mathematics. [Online] Available from: https://www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/45776 [Accessed: 28th September 2015]

NCETM (2014b). Video material to support the implementation of the National Curriculum. Available from: https://www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/40529 [Accessed 28th September 2015]

NCETM (2015). National Curriculum Assessment Materials. [Online] Available from: https://www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/46689 [Accessed 28th September 2015]

Ofsted  (2015) Better Mathematics Conference Keynote Spring 2015. Paper presented at the Better Mathematics Conference, Norwich, Norfolk.

Featured image: original image ‘Map of Mathematics Poster’ by Dominic Wallman, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/95869671@N08/32264483720

 

 

Mastery in Mathematics (5)

An Action Research Project by Elizabeth Drewitt (Mathematics)

Focus

In this report I aim to share how our departmental research into Mastery in Mathematics has impacted on the students I teach.

Context

There is no argument to the value of mastery as a life skill:

Director Dr Helen Drury says, “In mathematics, you know you’ve mastered something when you can apply it to a totally new problem in an unfamiliar situation”¹.

What better way to prepare our students for life after school than to give them the confidence to approach new situations and problems with confidence.

Mastery enables students to:

  • Develop mathematical language
  • Articulate their reasoning
  • Share ideas on approaches to problem solving
  • Grow in confidence when discussing ideas

I decided to focus on the techniques we can use as teachers to get our students ready for the road to mastery.

All teachers have experienced that:

‘Students learn better when they are curious, thoughtful, determined and collaborative.’ (Nrich)

We spend vast amounts of energy nurturing these traits within our classes. But for some students, the experience of failure or fear of failure shuts down any chance of curiosity. Expecting failure often means students cannot even consider an alternative outcome and therefore determination, thought and collaboration are pointless and avoided. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I feel this is particularly the case in mathematics, often voiced by parents at Parents’ Evening, ‘I can’t do maths’. Here I propose that maths is not something that ‘can be done’ or ‘cannot be done’. I would like to challenge the parents as to whether they know their times tables or not. It is highly likely the case that it is not maths these parents struggled with but their times tables. They did not have the basic tools to face the rest of the subject with and so encountered difficulty at every turn. I believe that for many, it was not the PROCESS of expanding brackets that caused a problem but actually the MULTIPLYING.

DEVELOPING BASIC MATHEMATICAL SKILLS

The importance of times tables within the mathematics curriculum cannot be underestimated, yet the importance of learning times tables is still under debate amongst professionals:

Jo Boaler argued that the UK Government position, that every child must memorise their times tables up to 12 x 12 by age nine, is ‘absolutely disastrous’. In contrast, Charlie Stripp stated knowing the times tables supports mathematical learning and understanding.

“Here at Mathematics Mastery, we believe children who have a strong grasp of their times tables are more confident when learning new mathematical concepts and, importantly, enjoy the subject more.” But note here I’ve said ‘strong grasp’ and not simply ‘memorised’.

Here I put forward the view that the road to mastery must start with each student being equipped with a tool box and in that tool box must be curiosity, resilience and……times tables!

Some students cannot/have not/will not memorise the times tables. Some think that if they do not know the answer then that’s the end of that. Full stop! If we do not give these students tools and tricks to work out the answer then we are closing the door on Mastery, opportunity and the growth of a learning identity.

SOLUTION

Never accept I don’t know my times tables. WORK it out. ‘Not knowing’ does not equate to ‘can’t find out’.

TRICKS

Explicitly TEACH how to work them out.

  • count up in two’s on your fingers,
  • count sticks/dots,
  • write out the times tables each time,
  • use your fingers for the 9 times table.
  • Do 10 x {?) then add 2x [?] for the 12 times tables.

ACTIONS

  • Time must be dedicated to times tables each week if we are to provide each student with a fully operational toolbox.
  • Bell work: fill in 5 x 5 times tables grids with random numbers. Students self-differentiate by choosing different coloured grids that represent basic times tables, reverse times tables, lots of mystery headings, larger numbers, decimal numbers.
  • For KS3 or lower ability classes, 10 minute multiplication and division challenges, results recorded and tracked.

RESULTS

  • Practice makes perfect, whether they are memorised or worked out.
  • Students get familiar with the method they choose to work it out.
  • Students see an increase in speed, ease at completing grids and see their own scores improve over time.
  • Take control of their own Bell Work, empowering, safe and challenging.
  • Pupil ‘A’ counting up in twos on his fingers. yr11!!!
  • Pupil ‘B’ in Year 8 showing a peer the 9x table trick using your fingers

Ultimately, we have removed a massive stumbling block that lurks on the road to mastery!

DEVELOPING STUDENT CONFIDENCE

So many students do not know their times tables and believe that is the end of it…but now we have challenged this idea. Just as some people say they can’t do maths…now we can move on and challenge the idea that ‘I can’t do maths’. Mastery teaches students to move away from these barriers and

  • Develop mathematical language
  • Articulate their reasoning
  • Share ideas on approaches to problem solving
  • Grow in confidence when discussing ideas……..

BUT to articulate their reasoning they must first have an opinion. To discuss their ideas they must first have an idea. To solve a problem they must first want to find a solution. They must first form an identity as a learner. Self-worth and confidence play an enormous part. Teaching lower ability classes can often (but not always) mean the students are largely disaffected. Through perceived/experienced failure their confidence has been eroded. We must challenge the perception of mathematics being all about right and wrong answers to build up a self-esteem that is positive enough to support the mastery platform.

When I asked a new group of Year 10s to GUESS the size of ten angles they were shown, half the group did not commit to paper, stating that they did KNOW the answers. Therefore these learners denied themselves the chance to feel good – others who guessed were thrilled when their guess was close but interestingly were not crushed when their guess was way off. Their learning identity was positive and it grew in a very simple exercise. I too joined in to prove that I do not KNOW all the answers, but have the tools to either guess or work it out.

Year 8 Extension task: (LOWER ability) Having studied the rule for adding and subtracting directed numbers, I asked students to write down what THEY THINK the rule could be for multiplying and dividing directed numbers. Some students wrote, ‘I don’t know, we haven’t done this yet’. Again, they didn’t have an opinion and again these students reinforced the negative image they have of themselves as learners. They needed choices pointing out to them and then they were able to take ownership of their choices and make it their idea by giving an example. Imagine their delight when some had predicted the correct rule. Again, those who had predicted in error were not crushed – it was just an idea. The students who had developed their own idea were keen to tell everyone what their prediction was, irrespective of being right or wrong, purely because it was their own idea.

TRICKS

  • Give students opportunities to GET IT WRONG and show it doesn’t matter.
  • Insist (‘encourage’) students commit an idea to paper- to have an OPINIION. Having an opinion gave them a vested interest in outcome which in turn made them more likely to come up with an outcome AND remember it.
  • Admit that as a teacher/ human/ adult we don’t know everything. I am not expecting my students to KNOW everything, the joy is in the working it out.

RESULTS

  • Students are prepared to guess, think, form an opinion, take risks.
  • Students are more likely to see a method through to the end to see if they were right (a win-win situation)
  • Students are more likely to have confidence in the next unfamiliar learning episode.
  • One Year 10 pupil could not even say true or false to a probing question. She has no confidence in maths and so does not think about maths, has no ideas about maths, cannot possibly articulate maths………I sat down with her and asked her to guess (we’ve been working on this idea). She chose False. I encouraged her to use an amount of money to see if she was right or not. We worked through the calculation and proved it to be False. She was thrilled, smiled (!!!!!) and wrote in her book ‘so I was right!!’. Anna believes she has been very successful and her confidence and enjoyment of maths has changed enormously in just a few weeks.

REFERENCES

¹ Drury, H. (2014) Mastering Mathematics. Oxford University Press, pp8.

Department for Education (DfE). (2013a). National Curriculum in England: Framework Document. London: Department for Education.

Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, J. & Findell, B.(eds.)(2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Mathematics Learning Study Committee: National Research Council.

NCETM (2014a). Developing Mastery in Mathematics. [Online] Available from: https://www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/45776 [Accessed: 28th September 2015]

NCETM (2014b). Video material to support the implementation of the National Curriculum. Available from: https://www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/40529 [Accessed 28th September 2015]

NCETM (2015). National Curriculum Assessment Materials. [Online] Available from: https://www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/46689 [Accessed 28th September 2015]

Ofsted  (2015) Better Mathematics Conference Keynote Spring 2015. Paper presented at the Better Mathematics Conference, Norwich, Norfolk

Featured image: ‘Central City Times Tables’ by Derek Bridges (www.flickr.com) CC. BY 2.0

Establishing a Framework to Support Independent Revision

An Action Research Project by Darragh McMullan (Humanities)

Focus

The focus for this will be year 10 students going into year 11. From previous experience and with the increasing demands on students to undertake exam revision, I feel students need to be clear what areas of a course they are weaker in and what areas they need to focus on more specifically for revision. This is not taking away from the fact that students still need to revisit the whole course but it can enable them to attend specific revision sessions and target certain areas in the run up to exams.

Actions

I set out to use PIXL to track students’ knowledge of topics in year 10. This was achieved by creating simple 10 question knowledge tests on the key points for that unit. Based on what students achieved they would receive a Green, Amber, Red rating. This was recorded in their books for their reference and also on an Excel spread sheet. This would enable targeting of students at revision time.

dm1

Students can then prioritise attendance at revision sessions for areas of weakness. In these sessions I do not want them to be a similar lesson to the one taught the previous year. I feel the best way for students to revise independently is using learning mats (see below). This includes all the key questions students need to know for particular units. Students can find and discuss these questions in revision sessions with the teacher becoming a facilitator, helping students, answering questions and stretching students.

dm2

Next Steps

Taking this further I have begun to look at exam questions and how this can be tracked to enable students to see what questions they need to concentrate on. I have also started to develop revision packs that include these questions as HW.

dm3

This will enable HW to be set as a revision task with students looking at the different types of exam questions to enable them to practise these throughout the year. These questions will include mark schemes and suggested sentence starters so students are clearer about what is required for that particular question. This can again be recorded and students can be guided to practise certain questions that they are weaker on.

dm4

The aim will be to ensure that at the end of the course students are clear what knowledge they need to revise, what questions they need to practice and will have the revision materials (learning mat, revision guides) to complete independent revision.

dm5

Featured image:   Adams Monumental Illustrated Panorama of History (1878) By Creator:Sebastian C. Adams [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Silent Conversations

A ‘Sharing best practice’ post by Jodie Johnson (Mathematics)

“Shhh! We’re going to have a silent conversation…”

An unusual instruction to a class but one that can help to focus thinking and forge collaboration amongst pupils.  How?  Well listen in…

Working in pairs, the class are given a series of questions of varying levels of difficulty.  Their challenge is to answer the questions in silence.  Partners can ‘ask’ each other as many questions as they like, as long as they do so in writing.  At the end of the activity pairs can then demonstrate to their peers or to the class, how they would solve the problem…in silence just like they will have to do in an exam!

By taking it in turns to solve each step of the problem everybody is engaged and by being allowed to ‘ask’ questions they can help each other get ‘unstuck’ when necessary.  The focus on the written demonstration of the solution helps cement the process needed to reach the solution.

Here’s an example of some worked solutions shared (in silence) by pupils with the rest of the class:

silent-conversations

Featured image:  ‘Silence’ (original image) by Alberto Ortiz on http://www.Flickr.com (license CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Models of Deployment for the Most Effective use of Teaching Assistant Time

An Action Research Project by Caroline Hill (SENCO)

This study looks at how TAs have been recruited and deployed over the last 30 years especially in regards to supporting SEN students. It looks at policy and legislation and how events have evolved over time, drawing on current literature for models of best practice and the implications of training.  In addition it suggests a model of deployment that research says would be the most effective use of TA time.

Introduction

Historically, teaching assistants (TAs) have been perceived as ‘The Mum’s army’ of education. According to the Teaching Development Agency (TDA 2003). They have been the helpers, who listen to children read, put up displays, wash paint pots and do some photocopying for the class teacher. However, as time has evolved, so has their role. TAs today are now expected to take some pedagogical role within the classroom, focusing on learning outcomes, modified language techniques and analysing data (Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) 2015).

This study will draw on existing theories and current research to discuss best practice for the deployment of teaching assistants, within the guidance of the new Code of Practice (CoP 2015) within mainstream schools. It will scrutinize provision both for students with Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEN/D) and for the positive impact TAs can have on teaching and learning not only in the classroom but outside of it as well.  In addition, it will look at some of the difficulties that may arise within a school setting when having to make changes to a structure of deployment that is over 30 years old.

Summary

Following critical analysis of the information gathered, it is advocated that TAs can have a significant impact on student attainment, especially when they have been trained effectively and when there has been collaboration and training for all staff. A clear school policy with defined outcomes, promoted and jointly designed by the head teacher and other senior leaders (including the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) if not already a member of the Senior Leadership team), ensures a workforce that supports SEN/D students in all aspects of their education journey.

Time line of events

In 1978, Mary Warnock was approached to write a report on education provision for students who had some form of additional need, including physical difficulties they may have, and the barriers they faced every day. The outcome of these findings were then to be used in considering the most cost effective way of resourcing support for these students so that they could enter the world of employment alongside their peers (Warnock 1978).

The recommendations made in her report were the basis of the 1981 Education Act (Department for Education (DFE 2003)). This was the very first piece of legislation that considered and required Local Authorities and mainstream schools to provide targeted support for SEN/D children. In this Act, parents were given new rights. They could request that their children were taught in mainstream lessons within a mainstream school.  There was also the introduction of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) framework and the introduction of statutory statements (Education Endowment Foundation (EEF 2015)). Warnock anticipated just 2% of students would require statements but in reality the national average in 1997 was more than 3% (DFE 2003). This in turn, put a vast amount of additional pressure on teacher’s workload and ‘parent helpers’ began to get paid for the time they gave (Webster 2012).

As standards in schools improved and more SEN students were accessing mainstream education, workload for teachers became high on the agenda for teaching unions and head teachers (Blatchford 2012). This was due to the difficulties of retaining teachers in the profession due to work load and stress (EEF 2015).  The SEN CoP (2001) was released and gave directives on procedures that needed to be followed to ensure the inclusion of SEN/D students within any setting.  “The focus is on preventative work to ensure that children’s special educational needs are identified as quickly as possible and that early action is taken to meet those needs” (p2 CoP 2001). The National Agreement (2003) was introduced to alleviate the growing pressures teachers were facing; due to the new guidelines on evidencing outcomes and to being held to account for the attainment of students in their care (Office For Standards in Education (OFSTED 2010)). At that time schools used TAs as a way of supporting the teacher with their work loads, often by doing administrative jobs such as photocopying, providing displays for the classroom, as well as listening to students read (EEF 2015).

The Lamb report (2009) was another significant review of SEN/D. The recommendations made underpinned Warnock’s report (1978) and emphasised the need to communicate, inform and include parents in their children’s educational journey. In addition he stated that;

“I intend that the extension of the core offer to all schools and children’s services will create a cultural shift in the way schools and services interact with parents. Many of my subsequent recommendations are framed in the context of this new contract with parents. They do not work without it.” (p10)

As expectations grew, so did the need for a larger workforce and TAs were employed to promote educational standards (Webster 2016).

The first real study about the impact of TAs came in 2009 with the Deployment and Impact of Support Staff Project (DISS). The report revealed that TAs had a positive effect on teacher’s job satisfaction, helped reduce stress, helped to prevent disruption in the classroom and provided personal qualities and skills. Conversely it found that TAs did not improve attainment in the classroom because they were often supporting low-attaining students. This meant that quality time with the specialist (classroom teacher) was significantly less than that given to students without support (Sutton Trust 2011). This led head teachers to seriously consider reforming the way TAs were deployed and monitoring the impact they were having (Webster 2016).

In 2011 another report was written, The Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants (EDTA) following the findings of the DISS project (Webster 2013). The purpose of it was to show that how TAs were deployed, significantly impacted the outcomes for SEN students and low achieving students and it brought about a call for an essential change as to how TAs are deployed in our schools (Russell, Webster and Blatchford (2016). One of their key findings was that before this project, schools had “unhelpful mindsets” on TA deployment, especially with regards to SEN students (Webster (2013). After the project the feedback was very positive, professionally, teachers felt more informed about their responsibilities towards TAs and had a structure to use within their day to day practice (Blatchford, Russell and Webster 2012).  In addition, teachers became more aware of their responsibilities towards SEN students in their classrooms.  The outcome of this was that both teachers and TAs felt more valued, relationships with the adults in the classroom developed, empowering TAs to be more confident in their role within the classroom setting and feeling appreciated for their contributions (Bosanquet, Radford and Webster 2016).

In addition the Making a Statement Project (MAST) revealed that TAs often had “more responsibility for the planning and teaching of statemented pupils than teachers.” (p2) In the study it highlights a high intensity of work outside of the classroom for statemented students which the majority of TAs were expected to plan and differentiate on the spot, with little or no guidance with the teacher (Webster and Blatchford 2013). It is believed that one of the reasons for this is that teachers have limited knowledge on how to meet the growing needs of the students in their classrooms, claiming little or no additional training in their Initial Teacher Training (ITT) courses (EEF 2015).

In this next section I will look at the qualifications required for TAs and how they have developed over the last 30 years.

TA Qualifications

When the 1981 Education Act was passed, there was an increase in Special Educational Needs (SEN) children being taught in mainstream schools (Bach, Kessler and Heron 2006). Schools found that their ‘helpers’ were now taking on roles that involved struggling learners and began to formalise arrangements of support by paying a salary and giving them a title e.g. Teaching assistants or learning support assistants (LSA) (DFE 2000). The change in legislation not only changed the dynamics of inclusion but also it had an enormous impact on the school workforce (Blatchford and Russell and Webster 2012).

In the 1980s and 1990s there was no requirement for any formal qualifications to be had, when applying to work in a school as a TA (Bosandquet, Radford and Webster 2016). What was often required, was an ability to come alongside children, encourage them, motivate them, or have good interpersonal skills and an empathy towards learning (Warhurst, Nickson, Commander and Gilbert (2014). Often, mothers of younger children found that the hours offered by schools would suit them and offered help to classroom teachers; reading with children, clearing up craft areas and putting up displays (Webster and Russell 2016). With no formal qualifications expected, some head teachers encouraged those already supporting the school to apply for paid positions.  This way they could gauge the quality of personnel applying for vacancies offered (Bach et al 2006).

By early 2003 the workload agreement in England and Wales wanted to improve and raise standards in schools (DFE 2003). Teachers were struggling with their work loads and retention of teachers was a government concern (DFE 2013). TAs began to take on more pedagogical roles which led Local Authorities (LA) to introduce Maths and English qualification requirements for the role, especially those TAs applying for Literacy or Numeracy support posts (Lee 2002).

Today, schools still set their own entry requirements and the experience for which they are looking (DFE 2014). For example previous experience or further qualifications, level 2 in supporting teaching and learning,  Higher Level Teaching Assistant (HLTA) status, experience in youth work or early years, volunteering as an additional helper in schools can be valuable when looking to be a TA in primary or secondary schools (National Careers Service 2016).

Training

In this section I will be exploring how training for TAs has evolved and the importance of further training to improve the impact TAs can have.

As the role has evolved so has the training and in 2003 the HLTA status was introduced (Best Practice 2016). This enabled some TAs to take on more responsibility within the area of pedagogy, not only increasing their knowledge of how children think and learn, but also in the delivery of interventions and booster groups (Burgess and Mayes 2009). The aim of the HLTA post was to undertake an enhanced role within the classroom (TDA 2003). Carefully constructed standards were introduced and candidates had to show evidence of competency in all 30 areas. HLTAs can undertake a wide variety of roles within a school setting.  Some work across the curriculum, offering targeted support in specific areas of expertise e.g. Maths or English.  Some act as specialist assistants for sports, music or catering.  The work varies according to the needs of the students within each individual setting of the school (HLTA National Assessment Partnerships 2015). Some HLTAs wish to progress even further and Universities have welcomed candidates with this status to gain a Foundation Degree which could then lead in to a full BA Hons degree (Bristol UWE 2016). Conversely there were those who did not want to progress further and therefore the diversity in skills and qualifications for TAs became even greater (Warhurst, Nikson,Commander and Gilbert 2014).

Once a TA has been employed schools can offer developmental training and specific targeted training as part of their whole school development plan. This can put additional pressure on already tight budgets, however schools need to consider what long term outcomes the training will have on their students and whether they feel this is cost effective (DFE 2013).

Webster, Russell and Blatchford (2016) believe that being ‘prepared’ is the key to excellent TA support. Therefore training TAs to be prepared is something a SENCO will have as a high priority.  Being part of the leadership team in this instance allows SENCOs to have a direct impact on training requirements for their team and allows them to deliver ‘in house’ training during inset days or departmental meetings (Gross 2015, Brown and Devecchi 2013).   In addition, regardless of how or where TAs have originated from, Brown and Devecchi (2013), believe that TAs need to understand pedagogy as part of their role and this would give a truer measure of their capabilities.  They state:

“Any movement in this direction would also require policy makers to recognise the need for a professional development structure that values the contributions TAs can make to an individual pupil, the school or its community.” (p385)

Pay for TAs and the impact of it

With the increasing expectation that TAs contribute to the pedagogical section of support, (Wilson and Bedford (2015), it is important to reflect on the pay and conditions that TAs face when entering this profession. Currently the average pay for a TA nationally is £11,805 a year.  94% of TAs are women and just 6% are men.   The graph below shows how, even with many years of experience, TAs pay does not increase much at all. In fact most TAs with over 20 years experience, move on to higher paid jobs, for example early years or teaching (Pay scales 2016).

ch-graph

Today there is still no clear pay and conditions formula for TAs to follow (Blatchford, Russell and Webster 2016). Generally speaking, schools make their own judgements on recruitment and use Local Authority (LA) job descriptions and pay scales as a guide (Blatchford, Russell and Webster 2012). When broken down into an hourly rate TAs earn approximately £7.94 per hour (Pay scales 2016).  Even while having such a low rate of pay with no requirement for qualifications, TAs are sometimes expected to walk into a classroom, differentiate on the spot, while having no idea what is being taught or what the teaching outcomes are and often to support the lowest ability groups or SEN children with high needs (EEF 2015, Warhurst, Nickson Commander and Gilbert 2014). Within a secondary school setting, many TAs were developing an expertise which was superior to that of the teachers but with no pay progression (Wilson and Bedford 2008). This meant that once TAs were at the top of their pay scale and had developed on the job training and experience, they often looked for a change in direction of  career which did offer pay increases within a defined structure. This is particularly true for young men (Unison 2013).

In the next section I will be investigating the impact of TAs over time and the implications this has had on teachers, TAs and schools.

Impact

Over the last 30 years, there has been a significant increase in teaching assistants (Webster 2014, Blatchford, Russell and Webster 2012, EEF 2015). With the Workforce Reforms in2003 TA numbers grew again. This increase continued to be a trend and by 2010 numbers had risen to a staggering 194.2 thousand (Webster 2014). Today there are over 255.1 thousand TAs working in the UK (DFE 2015).

When TAs were first introduced, some teachers felt that their jobs were being undervalued due to TAs being allowed to take classes (Webster Blatchford and Russell (2003)). However, Bach, Kessler and Heron (2006) believe that as workload and administrative duties increased, many teachers welcomed the additional support, relying on TAs to help with classroom behaviour and differentiating tasks for SEN students.

Negative impact

It wasn’t until the highly acclaimed Deployment and Impact of Support Staff (DISS) project was released that head teachers began to reflect on the impact their TAs were having (Farrell, Alborz, Howes and Pearson, (2010) EEF (2015)). The study showed that the more support an SEN child was given by a TA the more likely that they would not make as much academic progress as someone similar but with little or no support (Webster and Blatchford 2012). This was not the fault of the TA but an error on the part of management with how TAs were deployed and what additional training they had (Blatchford, Russell and Webster 2016).

In addition, the DISS project highlighted the lack of ‘preparedness’ emphasising the observations on TAs in the classroom and the way that they came to lessons without any information or knowledge on what was being taught, often having to differentiate, modify and record tasks given to SEN students ‘on the spot’ (Blatchford et al 2009). This emphasised the lack of knowledge which newly-qualified and pre-existing teachers have with regards to managing teaching assistants and delivering Quality First Teaching (QFT) to students with additional needs.

Furthermore, Blatchford (2012) would suggest that many TAs do not use the correct language or higher order questioning that teachers do, therefore students relying on these TAs for guidance, can sometimes be misinformed or not challenged to expand their thinking. If this is not addressed, TAs will continue to hold-back the progress of learning for those with SEN, especially if schools continue to use TAs fundamentally for low achieving students and those with SEN (Lee 2002).

Positive impact

This may all sound very worrying with regards to academic progress and yet Ward (2014) found that when TAs are ‘specifically trained and prepared’ for curriculum input, they have a positive impact on progress. Teachers also appreciate the additional adult in the classroom as most would argue that without a TA, some SEN children get far less work done and struggle to record their work in their books. Having a TA helps boost confidence in the children to participate fully in the lesson and not to be afraid of asking questions (Helm 2015).

In a recent article, TAs were praised for their ability to be ‘sensitive,’ understanding the difficulties that some children have in just coming to school (Education for everybody 2015).  It goes on to say that TAs inspire confidence in children, encouraging them to take part and helping them feel ‘safe’ to participate.  Having an additional adult in the classroom also allows teachers to be risk takers, improvising creative ways and practical tasks rather than seated work (Alborz et al 2009).

Some teachers argue that without support in their classroom, their stress levels grew, behaviour in the classroom deteriorated and SEN student’s needs were not being fully met (Helm 2015).

Blatchford and Webster (2012) state TAs running targeted intervention programmes for Literacy or numeracy has had a significant impact on attainment. They go on to suggest that; small groups of children removed from their class for a specific amount of time, focusing on a specific area can improve progress by almost 50% National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (2011) comments that TAs who have been trained specifically to deliver specific interventions are very successful and Giangreco, Suter, & Graf, (2011) tell us, “the earlier you can identify the needs, the bigger the impact of closing of the gaps that have emerged”. Brook’s (2013) has done an intensive study on literacy interventions that work and many schools now adopt some of these interventions for TAs to deliver during the school day.

It is essential to remember however, that over-reliance on TAs to support the most disadvantaged whether socially, emotionally or academically, is likely to have a detrimental effect on outcomes due to assigning the least qualified staff to the most complex learners (Giangreco 2013).

So what is the most effective deployment model that has the biggest impact on student attainment?

Deployment

Deploying TAs effectively has been high on schools agendas since the damning reports on attainment first surfaced back in 2011 (Sutton Trust 2011). Since then, some schools have introduced targeted intervention programmes and other small group work to meet the growing needs of the children in their care (EEF 2015).

Many schools deploy TAs to the classroom, supporting the most vulnerable and often the least able (Blatchford et al 2009).  This has a significant impact on the students in their care but not necessarily on attainment (Giangreco, Suter and Graf 2011). The Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants (EDTA 2010) highlight 3 main components “deployment, practice and preparedness” This Webster, Russell and Blatford (2012) believe will bring change that both teachers and TAs are in agreement with and will bring greater results.

Some schools use HLTAs to run nurture groups within the mainstream setting, under the guidance of the head of department. This provides better opportunity to repeat information, differentiate further, modify texts and language to smaller groups with lower ratios of adult to student , concentrating on behaviour for learning and social interaction (Nurture groups 2015). However some Unions would argue that HLTAs are being exploited and should not take whole classes.  They  argue that: “pupils should have the benefit of the availability of a qualified teacher” (Unison 2009).

The Training and Development Agency (TDA) (2010) have produced guidelines for schools to consider how they deploy TAs to gain maximum effectiveness. They challenge senior leadership to look carefully at how both teachers and TAs work together and how training and Continued Professional Development (CPD) can improve outcomes.  Focusing on these areas and being prepared to remodel are crucial to moving forward in teaching and learning, ensuring that all students learning is personalised and tailored to the individual (Bedford et al 2008).

The government does not have a list of standards for TAs. In 2010 the TDA, in collaboration with school leaders, began to develop a number of occupational standards that could be used when recruiting or training TAs to support teaching and learning in the classroom.  The idea was to have guidelines of what skills are required to be a TA and a development programme that helped individuals understand more fully the roles that they were taking on (TDA 2010). With the change in government, Nick Gibb confirmed that the government were not going to publish these standards and they were withdrawn (DFE 2014). The reason for this they said was:

“The government believes that schools are best placed to decide how they use and deploy teaching assistants, and to set standards for the teaching assistants they employ. The secretary of state has therefore decided not to publish the draft standards”. (p1)

With the importance of deployment placed fully back with head teachers, Webster, Russell and Blatchford (2012) believe that conducting an audit of current practice in settings and observing TAs in their current roles is paramount in making effective change. With this in mind, the following paragraph will look at the different roles TAs could have and how schools have moved from a non-pedagogical role, to a pedagogical one.

Roles and Responsibilities of a TA

Research suggests that there are many roles for which TAs have responsibilities and it is difficult to ascertain if roles are specific to titles. For example, HLTAs have their own classes or are used as cover supervisors, TAs run interventions and LSAs support in class. It could be more important that skills have been identified over time and head teachers now feel confident in allowing any support staff to take on these roles (Giangreco 2013).  First and foremost TAs are there to enhance the teaching of the classrooms they support (Warhurst et al 2014). Some TAs support the specific needs of high band students within classrooms to ensure inclusive practice and scaffold the learning for low attainers and some TAs provide targeted intervention for small groups or one to one work (Blatchford, Russell and Webster 2012, Giangreco 2013).

As research has already stated, TA roles differ from school to school (EEF 2015). It will also depend on whether TAs are employed in a primary or secondary setting.  For the purpose of this study, I will just be looking at the roles of TAs in a mainstream secondary setting. This is not to devalue what TAs in a primary setting, nursery or Further Education are doing, rather to go into greater depth in one specific area.

During the DISS project and the research covered by Lee (2002) and the NFER (2005), TAs roles could cover the following:

In class support, which involves shared lesson plans by the teacher or head of faculty, team teaching, where, after discussions TA take a group within the class and then teachers would also take that group either later in the same lesson or the following lesson to ensure all students had the expertise of the teacher as well as further support from the TA.

Monitoring and recording the work that students had completed and making recommendations/contributions to either an Individual Education Plan or the equivalent.

Being responsible for the displays in the classroom (under the guidance of the teacher), photocopying worksheets, ordering in resources for students to use, collecting in money for trips, dealing with poorly or sick students, taking the register.

Working with or being responsible for specified groups or individual pupils for example aiding the movement of disabled students around the school, running interventions for behaviour or social skills. This could either be outside of the classroom or inside the classroom (depending on the nature of the support required).  Being a qualified first aider. Being on duty at break and lunch times.

The DFE (2015) put it in a different way:

  • Support for the teacher
  • Support for the pupil
  • Support for the school
  • Support for the Curriculum

Although many teachers now accept and realise that TAs can be an additional tool to support learning, their views on the roles and responsibilities of a TA are sometimes different to those mentioned above. Some teachers believe that TAs are fully responsible for any SEN student in their classroom (Webster 2014), others believe that TAs can be more of a hindrance than a help, talking over them, shouting unnecessarily, undermining directives without the knowledge or the skills to do them (Guardian 2013).

On the other hand Webster (2013) clearly believes that teachers need to make the role what they want it to be. He states:

TAs can only be as effective as teachers enable them to be. TAs need to ask what skills or knowledge the pupil they support should be developing and what learning teachers want them to achieve by the end of the lesson. (p1)

Furthermore, teachers felt that the TA was the ‘expert’ when it came to special educational needs (SEN) and statement students. Unfortunately research has proven this not to be the case. It was found that TAs often had very poor knowledge on the needs of the child and lacked the related skills and knowledge as to how to support them Webster (2014).

So who has the say in deciding what roles TAs should take? Webster, Russell and Blatchford (2016) believe that Head teachers and SENCOs should meet to discuss and agree options so that when change happens, teachers are on board quicker because it has been a whole school priority. Gross (2015) agrees and makes the point that successful change in roles and responsibilities for TAs incorporates many members of staff but must include senior leaders and head teachers.

Following on from this, the new Code of practice (2015) has brought stringent guidelines on supporting students with SEN/D. This section looks at some of the implications for schools and how TAs can play an integral role in ensuring the directives are met.

The Code of Practice 2015

In 2014 the government published the draft new statutory CoP for young people aged between 0 – 25. This was considered to be the biggest change in education in over 30 years (Webster 2014).  There was a significant shift towards ensuring that young people and their families were at the heart of this code and at each stage of support, young people were included in the discussions and decisions about their futures (Nasen 2015). Instead of assuming that support equalled more TA time, the code emphasises the importance of outcomes for each individual, relying on alternative ways of meeting the needs of students through the graduated approach and addressing the misconceptions parents may have early in the assessment process (DFE 2014).  Educational professionals, Health professionals and Social Care joining together to allow parents to tell their story just once is seen as a positive way forward. It takes away the need to repeat everything every time a new agency is introduced (Parent Carers 2016). However, organisation of these collaborative meetings can be an added strain on SENCOs already busy schedules and responsibilities (Gross 2015).

One of the most significant directives in the CoP is understanding that teachers are to be wholly responsible and accountable for SEN students in their classrooms; providing high quality teaching and differentiation for those requiring additional support in class; even with support staff in the classroom, and understanding the needs that they have. As the DFE 2014 states:

“Additional intervention and support cannot compensate for a lack of good quality teaching.” (p8)

This is an area where head teachers need to be prepared to devote quality time to Continued Professional Development (CPD). In a recent study, 75% of teachers commented that they had received no formal training on how to effectively use support in their classrooms or how to support particular SEN students (Blatchford, Russell and Webster 2012). Is it any wonder then, that research shows that TAs have very little impact on student attainment (Webster and Blatchford (2013), Sutton Trust (2011), Blatchford, Bassett, Brown, Martin, et al (2009)). As Blatchford, Russell and Webster (2012) mentions, this is not the fault of the TA, rather the schools policy and leadership in the effective deployment of support staff.

The Code also strengthens the fact that not all students making slower progress have special education needs. Sometimes there are gaps in knowledge or poor attendance. This could have a significant impact on how TAs are deployed in school, especially if teachers are regularly assessing and monitoring progress (DFE 2015).  This also empowers teachers to open intrinsic dialogue with the SENCO when discussing further support in their classrooms or initiating targeted intervention (Gross (2015), EEF (2015)).

The new code highlights four areas of difficulty that SEN students are likely to fall into;

This helps teachers understand what additional resources or differentiation they may need when teaching and TAs can use their knowledge of the individual to work collaboratively with teachers to ensure the student has the personalized support; that will aide progress, not only academically but socially and emotionally as well (Lee 2002).

In addition the Code provides guidance on “The graduated approach” which in time, could reduce the amount of corridor conversations, or emails the SENCO may receive for support in classrooms where the recommended Assess, Plan, Do Review has not been adhered too (Gross 2015). This would allow SENCOs to deploy TAs more effectively rather than responding to a problem that, with a bit of thought, could be addressed by the teacher themselves (Bedford et al 2008).

With the introduction of Education Health Care Plans (EHCP) it is even more important for teachers to understand and to be able to support SEN students in their classrooms as “most pupils with SEN or disabilities will have their needs met through school support”(DFE 2015).  In certain areas, for example, Bristol, schools would not apply for an EHCP unless they felt the student required a specialist placement as additional funding to support the student would come through a top-up application and outside agency support would be funded in this way as Bristol City Council, Trading with Schools (2014/15) states:

“As part of the Code of Practice 2014, schools/settings have a statutory requirement to use their school based funding (Element 1 AWPU, Element 2 notional SEN- total £10,000) to make sure that any child with SEN gets the support they need. If a school considers that a pupil’s needs cannot be met by provision from existing school based funding, then they may apply to the LA for Top Up funding (Element 3 High Needs Block funding – HNB) via the Special Educational Needs team (SEN).” (p4)

Therefore ensuring that teachers have specific SEN training to enable them to provide QFT is essential for inclusive practice (Webster, Russell and Blatchford 2012).

Using the information gathered from this study I now want to look at best practice concerning the effective deployment of TAs with regards to the literature available to establish the best ways of supporting students to make the most progress, both academically and socially.

Moving forward

From the beginning to the end of this study, it will be seen that research has clearly stated that leading change must come from the head teacher (Blatchford et al 2009, EEF, 2015, Alborz, Howes, Farrell, Pearson 2009, Russell and Blatchford 2016). This is not a rare finding, there is a wealth of research about head teachers being the driving force for change (Hallinger 2003), however in this context, reform can often be left to SENCOs or other members of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) if the SENCO is not part of it (Weber, Russell and Blatchford 2016). By taking the lead, head teachers can propose the new model, entwine it with the school vision and explain the desire to include, which ensures that TAs contributions are effective and bring results (Gross 2015).

Once this is in place SENCOs and head teachers need to strongly consider which model of support works best for the school. As previously discussed, there is no statutory procedure for TAs to follow, but there is evidence to show that early identification and targeted intervention can have a significant impact on SEN students’ attainment (Bach, Kessler and Heron 2006). This would suggest a more pedagogical role, which in turn, would trigger the need for training and CPD (Webster, Blatchford and Russell (2012), Bosanquet, Radford and Webster 2016).

Recognition of support staff and their role within a school setting was seen as ‘critical’ in Bedford et al (2008) research. It also mentions the relationship between teacher and TA. They go on to say that effective practice comes from an amalgamation of skills, systems, personal relationships and organisational culture. This would require additional training for Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) and existing teachers to make sure that their planning includes how they propose to use TAs to secure quality outcomes for all and that TAs are not becoming ‘substitute’ teachers for the lowest ability students (Warhurst, Nickson, Commander and Gilbert 2014).

One of the key findings of the DISS project was the importance of preparedness. Schools must consider appropriate time for planning with teachers and TAs to ensure collaborative working and effective management of TAs in the classroom (Blatchford et al 2012, Bedford et al 2008, Bach et al 2006). There are likely to be barriers surrounding the cost implications of finding additional time. However the long term impact on attainment will be more beneficial and a mutual respect of roles established (Wilson and Bedford 2008). To enable this to happen, schools need to give teachers and TAs planning time together and feedback time to discuss individuals or what the next steps are for everyone. If this is not given, it is unlikely that progress will be made and the job of the TA becomes ineffective (Bedford, Jackson and Wilson 2008).

Once a model of deployment has been agreed, SENCOs and senior leaders will then have to look seriously at support within the classroom (Bach, Kessler and Heron 2006). TAs need to understand the importance of higher order questioning and of allowing independence to grow over time. Bosanquet, Radford and Webster (2016) highlight the issues that TAs tend to give solutions or closed questions to SEN students in the classroom setting, rather than open questioning which encourages personal thinking. This could encourage dependency on additional adults. Webster, Blatchford and Russell (2013) raise concerns that TAs feel the need to ‘talk’ or complete tasks for students with SEN when they were not able to keep up with the rest of the class.  Without additional training, TAs will understandably revert to what they already know, even if it is detrimental to the students learning and encourages ‘learnt helplessness’ (Giangreco, Suter and Graf 2011).

Learning how to assess and monitor students to maximise their future learning, is a skill TAs will need to be taught (Bosanquet et al 2016). TAs are not qualified teachers, and so they will need to be shown the importance of ‘access, plan, do review’ which is considered best practice within the code of practice (DFE 2015).  Black and William (1998) agree and suggest that it is essential to collect information on all areas of students’ performance to gauge where they are in their current learning. In addition, teachers will need to use the monitoring done in their classrooms to inform their future planning, making it vital for continual dialogue between teachers and TAs.

Measurable, targeted interventions that are personalised to the needs of students need to be clearly identified and appropriate training given to those who will be delivering them (Bosanquet et al 2016). In addition, interventions need to be trustworthy and have research behind them with regards to impact, recording and analysis. Alongside this, Brooks (2013) explains:

“The outcome of Wave 2 intervention is for learners to be back on track to meet or exceed national expectations at the end of the key stage.” (p13)

With no formal qualification required to be a TA (DFE 2015) deploying TAs to their strengths  i.e. Literacy, Numeracy, Social Skills, Speech and Language, is going to have a far greater impact on outcomes than expecting TAs with a fixed mind-set that they do not have the relevant skills in e.g. Maths to lead interventions in this field (Blatchford, Russell and Webster (2012), Wilson and Bedford (2008)).

With classroom support and targeted intervention, adopting the Wider Pedagogical Role (WPR) requires a well thought out balance of time with regards to learning (Blatchford, Russell and Webster 2012). SEN students must not fall into the trap of ‘separation’ from the highly skilled teachers they meet, lesson to lesson, but at the same time, they must have their needs met by targeted intervention if appropriate (Wilson and Bedford (2008), Radford, Bosanquet, Webster and Blatchford (2014)).

With the introduction of the Code of Practice (2015) schools will need to reflect on the relationships they have with parents. SENCOs will need to think creatively about how to share information with parents and incorporate additional meetings into their yearly plans (Gross 2015).  The government’s new White Paper (2016) identifies the importance of good communication between home and school and intend to open an online ‘parent portal’ which hopes to inform parents about the way their school works, what it offers and what they can do to help their children on their educational journey (The Key 2016).  With the correct training, TAs could be deployed to build trusting relationships with parents to help overcome some of the barriers parents have around the support of their children within school and the purpose behind the support offered (DFE 2011).

But what about the students’ voices? Schools have encouraged students to voice their opinion on many areas of teaching and learning (DFE 2013). School councils have been set up, where students lead meetings; discuss what is going well and what improvements they would like to see.  However, some research suggests that schools fear what might be said and have a sometimes overwhelming desire to ‘stay in control’ (Fielding 2001).

TAs are in an excellent position to encourage student voice (Briggs and Cunningham 2009, Bland and Sleightholme 2012). As research has shown, TAs spend the majority of the time with low achieving and SEN children (Blatchford et al 2009).  If they have a good relationship with the students they support then Fielding (2001) believes students will open up more fully because they like and trust the adult with them. In the past SEN students’ voice has been tokenistic, perhaps filling in a form or a tick sheet, rather than a dialogue and joint planning with those involved with them (Gross 2015). Most importantly, the student voice must be considered when statements are being reviewed or when transferring to an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) (CoP 2015). The TAs’ contribution to the whole process is crucial, especially if they have been monitoring students and discussing areas of concern with the class teachers (Gross 2015).

Conclusion

In this study, I have researched and discovered that TAs are on an evolving journey. There has been a significant increase in TAs since 2003 making up almost a quarter of today’s workforce in schools (DFE 2015).  The National Agreement was put in place to reduce work load, stress and retention for teachers and, upon reflection, this has been a positive move forward (OFSTED (2010), Webster, Russell and Webster 2016).  However, in times past, TAs have taken on a pedagogical, frontline role with little or no effect on the attainment of students, especially those children with SEN or having a statement (Blatchford et al (2009), Sutton Trust (2011)).  This is not because of the TA, for instance, Bosanquet et al (2016) have expressed how in their research TAs have been perceptive about the need for development in their practice, how they work conscientiously hard and how they are committed to supporting children in their care. Therefore the responsibility comes back to leaders who manage and deploy TAs within schools (Webster, Russell and Blatchford 2012). To ensure this TA journey is an enriching one for the students they support, change must start from the head teacher (Blatchford et al (2009), Gross (2015) Bosanquet et al (2016)).  In addition, senior leaders, teachers, TAs, parents and students, all need to be on-board and fully understand the model being put in place, confident that students will get the very best support towards being independent learners (Warhurst et al 2014).

The Wider Pedagogical Role (WPR) model is classed as best practice (Bosanquet et al 2016). Adopting this model could have a significant, positive impact on the whole school, ensuring that separations from teachers (the highly qualified specialists) are kept within reasonable limits (Webster, Russell and Blatchford 2016) Focusing on deployment, practice and preparedness for teacher and TAs embeds QFT, which is a statutory requirement of the code of practice (2015).  In addition the model emphasises the importance of quality assured interventions that are measurable and have impact (Blatchford, Russell and Webster 2012).

Training TAs to lead and deliver effective interventions and monitor and record the progress made will empower TAs and raise their profiles (Giangreco, Suter, & Graf (2011), Webster (2013), Webster Russell and Blatchford 2016). Training TAs is crucial around ‘talk’; what to say when, when not to talk, when to prompt or model, the importance of letting the student become as independent as possible, looking at their understanding rather than their completion of tasks (Bosanquet et al 2016).

Time needs to be given to teachers and TAs for meaningful dialogue and feedback, once interventions have been completed, so that new skills can be applied in the classroom and sustained over time (Blatchford et al 2009). Time needs to be given to parents to help them understand why support is being given to their children and the outcomes that schools are hoping to achieve.  Parents need to be involved at every stage and given the opportunity to express their concerns and to be involved with the support given to their children (Code of practice (2015), Gross (2015)).

Children must have a voice in how they are supported. They need to know why they are taking part in interventions or why they have support in class (Bland and Sleightholme 2012). It is so that they can become independent and leave school prepared and able to join the workforce (Wilson and Bedford 2008).

Caution must be adhered to, however, as change does not come overnight.  It is much more a journey over time with peaks and troughs along the way (Bosanquet et al (2016), Blatchford, Russell and Webster (2016), Webster, Russell and Blatchford (2012).

 

References

Alborz, A., P. Farrell, A. Howes, and D. Pearson (2009). The impact of adult support staff on

pupils and mainstream schools. London: HMSO.

Bach. S. Kessler. I. and Heron. P (2006) Changing job boundaries and workforce reform:the case of teaching assistants. Oxford. Blackwell.

Bedford.D, Jackson. R, and Wilson. E (2008) New Partnerships for Learning: developing professional relationships with teaching assistants in England. Oxen. Routledge.

Best practice 2016 HLTA role and assessment. Available at: http://www.bestpracticenet.co.uk/hlta (Accessed 17 January 2016).

Black. P and Wiliam. D (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. London. GL Assessment Ltd.

Bland. K and Sleightholme. S. (2012) Researching the pupil voice: what makes a good teaching assistant? British journal of learning support. Nasen.

Blatchford. P, Bassett. P, Brown. P, Martin. C, Russell. A and Webster. R (2009) Institute of Education, University of London. Deployment and impact of support staff project. Available at: http://maximisingtas.co.uk/assets/content/dissressum.pdf (Accessed 15 December 2015)

Blatchford. P, Russell. A & Webster. R (2012) Reassessing the impact of teaching assistants: How research challenges practice and policy. Oxen. Routledge

Blatchford. P, Webster. R and Russell. A (2012) Challenging the Role and Deployment of Teaching Assistants in Mainstream Schools: The Impact on Schools: Final Report on the Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants. London. IOE.

Bosanquet. P, Radford. J, and Webster. R (2016) The teaching assistant’s guide to effective interaction: how to maximise your practice. Oxen. Routledge.

Briggs. S and Cunningham. S (2009) Making the most of your teaching assistant: good practice in primary schools. Oxen. Routledge.

Bristol UWE (2016) BA (Hons) Education Professional Practice Available at: http://info.uwe.ac.uk/Search/Results.aspx?words=Education+professional+practice (Accessed 3 April 2016)

Brooks. G (2013) What works for children and young people with literacy difficulties? The effectiveness of intervention schemes. Sheffield. The Dyslexia SpLD trust.

Brown. J and Devecchi. C (2013) The impact of training on teaching assistants’ professional development: opportunities and future strategy, Professional Development in Education, 39:3, 369-386, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2012.762720

DFE (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities. London. Crown.

DFE (2000) Supporting the teaching assistant: a good practice guide. DFEE. Crown.

DFE (2013) Review of efficiency in the schools system. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209114/Review_of_efficiency_in_the_schools_system.pdf (Accessed 5 April 2016)

DFE (2015) Review of standards for teaching assistants. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/review-of-standards-for-teaching-assistants-launched (Accessed 25 February 2016)

DFE (2015) School Workforce in England 2014. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440577/Text_SFR21-2015.pdf (Accessed 6 April 2016)

DFE (2003) Raising standards and tackling workload: a national agreement. Available at: https://www.atl.org.uk/Images/dfes-workload-agreement.pdf  (Accessed 25 March 2016)

DFE (2011) Review of best practice in parental engagement. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182508/DFE-RR156.pdf (Accessed 9 April 2016).

DFE (2014) Schools guide to the 0 to 25 SEND code of practice: Advice for school governing bodies/proprietors, senior leadership teams, SENCOs and classroom staff. London. Crown.

DFE (2014) Developing a set of standards for teaching assistants a call for evidence https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/367648/Developing_a_set_of_standards_for_teaching_assistants_call_for_evidence.pdf online: last accessed 21/2/16

Education Endowment Foundation (2015) Teaching and learning toolkit. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/teaching-assistants/ (Accessed: 3 March 2016)

Farrell, P. Alborz, A, Howes, A and Pearson, D. (2010) The impact of teaching assistants on improving pupils’ academic achievement in mainstream schools: a review of the literature Educational Review Vol. 62, No. 4, November 2010, 435–448. Oxen. Routeledge.

Fielding. M (2001) Students as Radical Agents of Change: Journal of Educational change:   Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 123-141. Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Giangreco, M.F., Suter, & Graf, V. (2011). Roles of team members supporting students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. InM.F. Giangreco, C.J. Cloninger, & V.S. Iverson (Eds.), Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children: A guide to educational planning for students with disabilities (3rd. ed., pp.197–204). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Gross. J (2015) Beating Bureaucracy in Special Educational Needs (Third edition): Helping SENCOs maintain a work/life balance. Oxen. Routledge

Guardian (2015) Secret Teacher: I hate to say it but my TA adds nothing to my lessons. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/oct/31/secret-teacher-my-ta-teaching-assistants-nothing-to-lessons (Accessed 7 April 2016)

Hallinger. P (2003) Leading Educational Change: reflections on the practice of Instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education Vol. 33, No. 3, Bankok. Carfax.

Helm. S (2015) The reason our schools need teaching assistants Available at: hhtp://www.educationforeverybody.co.uk/the reasons-our-schools-need-teaching-assistants/  (Accessed: 24 March 2016)

HLTA National Assessment Partnership (2015) Available at: http://hlta.org.uk/resources (Accessed 5 April 2016)

Higgins. H, Gulliford. A (2014) Understanding teaching assistant self-efficacy in role and in training: its susceptibility to influence. Educational Psychology in Practice. Vol. 30, No. 2, 120–138. Routeledge.

Lamb (2009) Lamb Report. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ (Accessed: 29 March 2016).

Lee, B. (2002) Teaching Assistants in Schools: The Current State of Play. Slough: NFER.

Nasen (2015) The SEN code of practice 0 – 25: A quick guide to the SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years  (2014) and its implications for schools and settings. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Teacher/Downloads/the_send_code_of_practice_0_to_25_years_-_mini_guide%20(1).pdf (Accessed 31 March 2016)

National Careers Service (2016) Teaching Assistant. Available at: https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/jobprofiles/Pages/teachingassistant.aspx (Accessed 5 April 2016)

NFER (2005) The employment and deployment of teaching assistants. Available at: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/PRE_PDF_Files/05_33_08.pdf (Accessed 7 April 2016).

Ofsted (2010) Workforce reform in schools has it made a difference? Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1095/1/Workforce%20reform%20in%20schools%20has%20it%20made%20a%20difference.pdf (Accessed: 28 March 2016).

Parent Carers Bristol (2016) Integrated services and multiagency working. Available at: https://www.bristolparentcarers.org.uk/attachments/bpc_2_INTEGRATED_SERVICES__MULTI-AGENCY_WORKING.pdf (Accessed 1 April 2016)

Payscale (2016) Teaching assisstants. Available at: http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Teaching_Assistant_(TA)/Salary (Accessed 5 April 2016)

Radford. J, Bosanquet. P, Webster. R, and Blatchford. P (2014)Learning and Instruction. Scaffolding learning for independence: Clarifying teacher and teaching assistant roles for children with special educational needs. London. Crossmark.

Sutton Trust (2011) teaching and learning toolkit. Available at: http://www.suttontrust.com/about-us/education-endowment-foundation/teaching-learning-toolkit/ (Accessed 29 March 2016)

Trading with schools (2014/15) GUIDANCE TO SUPPORT TOP UP. Bristol City Council. Available at: https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/238993/Newsletter%20TU%20Guidance.pdf/8a2a0142-0a77-45f6-ba01-7d85f9354b30 (Accessed 7 April 2016).

TDA (2010) National Occupational Standards for Supporting Teaching Learning. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239935/NOS-SUPPORT_for_supporting_teaching_learning.pdf  (Accessed 21 February 2016)

The Key (2016) The education white paper: a summary. Available at: file:///C:/Users/Teacher/Documents/SENCO%20course/The_education_white_paper_2016.pdf (Accessed 9 April 2016).

The Nurture group network (2015) Nurture groups. Available at: https://nurturegroups.org/sites/default/files/ngn_-_nurture_groups-2015.pdf  (Accessed 8 April 2016)

Unison (2009) Branch advice on ‘rarely cover’ arrangements for teachers and implications for support staff. Available at: https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2013/06/On-line-Catalogue185583.pdf (Accessed 8 April 2016)

Unison (2013) The evident value of teaching assistants. Available at: https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2013/06/Briefings-and-CircularsEVIDENT-VALUE-OF-TEACHING-ASSISTANTS-Autosaved3.pdf (Accessed 10 April 2016)

Ward. H (2014) teaching assistants do make a difference. Available at: http://www.suttontrust. com/newsarchive/teaching-assistants-make-difference/ (Accessed 30 March 2016)

Warhurst. C, Nickson. D, Commander. J and Gilbert. K (2014) Role stretch: assessing the blurring of teaching and non-teaching in the classroom assistant role in Scotland. Vol 40, No1, pp. 170 – 186 British Educational Research Journal. Glasgow.

Webster. R (2013) Teaching Assistant Focus: A quiet revolution. How small changes to TA practice can yield big results. Available at: http://www.tafocus.co.uk/a-quiet-revolution-how-small-changes-to-ta-practice-can-yield-big-results/ (Accessed 7 April 2016)

Webster. R. Blatchford. P (2013) A study of the teaching and support experienced by pupils with a statement of special educational needs in mainstream primary schools. Available at: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/mastreport.pdf (Accessed: 29 March 2016)

Webster. R, Blatchford. P & Russell. A (2003) Challenging and changing how schools use teaching assistants: findings from the Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants project, School Leadership and Management, 33:1, 78-96, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2012.724672

Webster. R (2015) ‘What’s the evidence of the impact of teaching assistants’? (http//educationmediacentre.org/researchnews/whats-the-evidence-on-the-impact-of-teacing-assistants) online: last viewed 07/12/15

Webster.R, Russell. A & Blatchford.P (2016) Maximising the impact of Teaching Assistants: Guidance for school leaders and teachers. Oxen. Routledge

Webster. R (2014) Education Psychology in Practice: 2014 Code of Practice: how research evidence on the role and impact of teaching assistants can inform professional practice. Oxen. Routledge.

Wilson. E & Bedford. D (2008) ‘New Partnerships for Learning’: teachers and teaching assistants working together in schools – the way forward, Journal of Education for Teaching. 34:2, 137-150

Original image: Teaching Assistant Orientation (TAO 2012) flickr.com

 

Nurturing and Developing Artistic Creativity at KS3

An Action Research project by Matt Hodge (Art & Design)

Aim of the project:

The aim of this project is to develop strategies for developing individual creativity on male pupils at KS3.

Objectives

  1. Examine where the differences lie between the theoretical art education and actual art education in England.
  2. Investigate the nature of good practice from the perspective of creativity and compare to good practice under the current framework for high schools.
  3. Develop a strategy for increasing creativity in schools within the current framework.

Context

In 1999 John Swift and John Steers wrote A Manifesto for Art In Schools. The paper called for a new form of Art education in our schools that promoted difference, plurality and independence of mind. These desires and thoughts have been echoed by others interested in the study of Art education and justification for the inclusion of Art education in National Curriculum, for example Burgess and Addison (2000) and Siegusmund (1998). Many issues raised in the manifesto have already been addressed, specialist teachers appear at primary level and the previous National Curriculum for Art primarily addressed creativity, confidence and cultural awareness (The National Curriculum, 2007). Whilst Art education may have appeared to move towards a freer model, the reality painted by teaching colleagues is different.  The limiting assessment criteria, that pupils and teachers have to abide by prevents true creativity and relies upon formulaic progression of activities (Hardy, 2002) and evidenced by the current GCSE assessment criteria. In order to achieve good grades, teachers put pupils through a tried and tested formula with minimal room for individuality.

Findings

Initially the project was to focus on boys’ progression but engagement in the project through the originally planned extracurricular clubs after school was minimal. The club was attended by a handful of pupils but they soon dropped off. Opening the club to male and female pupils saw numbers briefly increase however these numbers soon tailed off. The open nature of pupils finding things they were interested in may have been too challenging. Pupils would easily find an image they wanted to turn into a piece of Art but struggled to consider technique and methods. This is where pupils needed much tighter instruction.

To adapt the project to produce viable outcomes I adapted my teaching strategies to focus on assessment rather than instruction at KS3, taking the role of ‘facilitator’ rather than front and centre teacher. Initial direction and themes for projects were given to pupils of both sexes but from this point the majority of instruction came through assessment rather than teacher led direction. This allowed pupils to complete work at a pace they were comfortable with, which in some cases, particularly among female pupils, has driven up quality. They still seek guidance and help but this has become much more of a two way conversation about ways progression is possible rather than what do I do now.

Photographs and commentary

Pictures 1,2,3

Outcomes from a project based on Harry Potter Death Eaters. Pupils developed individual ideas in response to a field trip, using generic instructions for what is expected to be seen in a design task. Pupils were required to gather their own resources and develop their own ideas drawing on a number of sources. Pupils were given basic instruction in how to construct the mask but once completed had to develop their own methods for adding details.

4

Picture 4

Pupils independently chose and studied a variety of Artists before being tasked to appropriate techniques to a portrait of a member of staff.

81113

Pictures 5,6,7

The same generic task assessment sheet was used multiple times to familiarise pupils with the expectations of the assignment. This allowed pupils to best explore their techniques and methods as they knew the framework they would be assessed against in detail. The process allowed pupils to manage their own time and expectations of progress between tasks.

710

12

Picture 8, 9, 10

Resources and initial design ideas produced by pupils to inspire their Harry Potter Death Eater masks.

14

Picture 11

Clear and explicit outcomes requirements allowed the pupil to find a personal hook to maintain their interest. The pupil was able to succeed as they could pick their own topic / theme within the intended outcome.

Next steps

  1. Develop a foundation based curriculum to build initial directed skills in early KS3 covering basic needed skills and techniques.
  2. Develop further independence, confidence and resilience in self-directed study.
  3. Offer pupils a range of starting points for projects (artist or subject based) to allow them to develop their own course of study, fitting assessment criteria into the tasks, not the task into the assessment criteria.

References

Burgess, L. and Addison, N. (2004, 2nd ed.) Contemporary Art in Schools: Why Bother? in R. Hickman, (Ed.) Art Education 11-18 – Meaning, Purpose and Direction. London: Continuum.

Hardy, T. (2002) AS Level Art: Farewell to the ‘Wow’ Factor? Journal of Art and Design Education. Vol.21 No.2

QCA (2007) The National Curriculum. London: QCA

Siegesmund, R. (1998) Why Do We Teach Art Today? Conceptions of Art Education and Their Justification. Studies in Art Education. Vol.39 No.3.

Swift, J and Steers, J (1999) A Manifesto for Art in Schools. Journal of Art and Design Education. Vol.18 No.1

 

Approaches to Teaching in a Knowledge Based Curriculum

An Action Research Project by Daniel James (Computing)

Focus of Project

In deciding on a focus for my Action Research (AR) Project I had to consider what were the biggest influence and challenges that I would face as a teaching professional over the next 12 months or more. It was with this hat on that I decided the biggest challenge would be the move from a skill-based ICT KS4 curriculum to a knowledge based Computing curriculum.

It is worth noting that as teachers I believe we would say we have always been teaching in a knowledge based curriculum, with our main goal being to provide students with the information (and skills) that will assist them in the future. However in 2013 Michael Gove brought this area of education centre stage. As a result, what we once considered to be a knowledge based curriculum did not contain enough knowledge. The new knowledge based curriculum was born.

At first the approach I took to my action research project was to look through some well known teaching pedagogies, including; de Bono’s Hats[1], Solo Taxonomy[2] and The Flipped Classroom[3]. Although these provided ideas for specific teaching approaches; such as providing students with different perspectives within which to approach tasks or different levels by which to structure understanding. I believed they muddied the water of how to approach teaching in an increasingly knowledge based curriculum because they focused on other aspects of learning and in particular would have needed embedding with students before they impacted upon learning.

It was with this research in hand that I decided that my focus would be on two generic approaches to teaching, that of the independent student-led approach and the teacher-led approach. The outcome of which would be the answer to the question: How best to teach in a knowledge based curriculum?

 Objective

The objective of this Action Research is to investigate approaches to teaching within the new knowledge based curriculum. I will be investigating the learning differences between a teacher-led approach and a student-led approach. The end objective is to determine which approach facilitates more effective learning from the students.

The Knowledge Based Curriculum

In March 2011 Alison Wolf produced The Wolf Report[4] reviewing the state of vocational education. This report led the way to the GCSE and vocational reforms seen over recent years. The Wolf Report concluded that “Good vocational programmes are, therefore, respected, valued and an important part of our, and any other country’s educational provision. But many vocational students are not following courses of this type”[5].

This then paved the way for the then Education Secretary, Michael Gove, to announce changes to the curriculum across all stages of education. He detailed that students needed to have a “stock of knowledge”[6] and that “unless you have knowledge … all you will find on Google is babble”.

The impact of this was the slimming down of the number of accredited GCSE and vocational subjects, increasing the knowledge needed for the courses that remained to be accredited and the introduction of a new attainment and progress standard for schools (Attainment and Progress 8[7]).

In September 2015 the first of these new GCSE’s was being taught in Maths and English, with the rest of the curriculum to follow in 2016. The subsequent Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, outlined the importance of this new knowledge curriculum in a speech delivered in January 2015. “At the heart of our reforms has been the determination to place knowledge back at the core of what pupils learn in school”[8]. From this point onwards it was clear that knowledge over skills was going to be the academic currency on offer.

This educational change seemed to be at odds with the Confederation of Business Industry (CBI), where they were insisting that there was a skills shortage from young people leaving education. In 2015 the CBI published a report into the educational climate; this report was titled “Inspiring Growth”[9].

The report suggested that the government reforms should provide young adults with the correct attitudes for work. Findings included that employers looked for attitudes and aptitudes before formal qualifications and that employers look for a combination of academic and vocational studies. You can draw your own conclusions from the study but I see it as a counter argument for the wholly knowledge based curriculum that all students must complete; it seems to be at odds with such a curriculum.

Educational Pedagogies

Joe Kirby, in Pragmatic Education December 2013[10], suggests that there is a distinct difference in the approaches to skills and knowledge and that “These are contrasting mind-sets; they result in different pedagogies”.

He argues that knowledge based learning “prioritises memory, instruction and practice”, with the aim for pupils being to “know, understand, remember recall…connect their knowledge”.

Kirby suggests that skill-led learning facilitated by constructivism provides variety at the expense of clarity; he says “Cognitivism and knowledge-led instruction prioritise clarity and memory to avoid confusion and forgetting”. He advocates the knowledge approach: “In a nutshell, variety [constructivism] is a distraction”. Knowledge-led learning is best because of its scientific approach in which there is a formulaic approach to learning with a tried and tested method of delivery (e.g. the three part lesson). This approach is also backed up by Scott[11] on his blog, where he discusses skill based versus knowledge based learning.

Headguruteacher[12], in 12 principles of effective teaching January 2016, highlights, in his blog, that one of the 12 principles of effective teaching as being “Tool them up”, which commented on providing the students with the resources to enable them to learn with or without a specialist teacher in the room, however he noted “not all students can use these materials readily and need to be shown how.”

Headguruteacher also commented that teaching for memory was an important principle, “They [students] need strategies to do this; primarily lots of practice”. Interestingly the 12th and final principle of effective teaching centred on the two approaches I investigated during this Action Research project. He titled it as “Get some balance”, in which he recommended that teaching should be 80% “Mode A” teacher which is straight, rigorous cycles of explanation, model content, practice and feedback. The further 20% was “Mode B” teacher which uses awe and wonder and open-ended exploration to achieve deeper learning.

These studies stood out among the reading completed for this research as they had direct relevance for my classroom focused project. I used a combination of these in my own approach. This is detailed in the next section.

My Approaches and Actions

Having chosen to look at both student-led and teacher-led approaches I decided to split my two approaches over two periods of time so as to get direct comparisons. The first approach was a student-led approach. The idea behind this was to provide students with a guide as to what information they needed to know and what knowledge they needed to acquire (success criteria).

The emphasis in this approach was on the students being independent in finding out the knowledge, researching and clarifying ideas and theories in their own way.

dj1

figure 1

An example of this approach is the Frog VLE page (figure 1) in which success criteria are provided and the task set was for students to develop their own understanding in the three main areas as outlined in the blue file link boxes.

This approach was continued over a number of lessons until an end of topic test was complete. This provided evidence about the students learning under this method.

The next approach was to use a teacher led approach in which the students made notes from the teacher presentations while verbal explanation was also provided. This was then cemented by questions about the content they have just heard.

This approach negated the need for independent work and concentrated on the students’ ability to process the information they have just received.

An example of this approach is the series of slides taken from the KS4 computing module on data representation (figure 2 and 3). In this topic the knowledge element was very high and beyond what students had done before in computing. The combination of teacher led knowledge and questions to cement knowledge were used over a number of lessons.

figure 2                                                        figure 3

At the end of the trial of both approaches undertaken, the students were, as a class, interviewed and their results used alongside work scrutiny and classroom observation to formulate the findings which are detailed below.

Impact

The student-led approach had a variety of impacts on student learning. The first being that those students who had been resilient when finding this approach challenging found that they were better able to understand a topic. They believed that “they were better able to put it into their own thinking”. Some of the students who struggled with this method said that they liked the openness of tasks but that they needed more boundaries as it was “easy to go off task”. They felt that if a worksheet had been provided to place the information in they may have had more chance of progressing well.

The work scrutiny backed this up but I found that even when a worksheet was given, some did not complete it due to the openness of the task and the challenging nature of having to find the knowledge for themselves. (See image evidence below).

A student’s work without worksheet guidance: success criteria and then independent research and production of evidence of completing task. It is worth noting this is a B grade target student who at this point was working around the C grade (figure 4).

dj4

figure 4

A student’s work with worksheet guidance: This allowed students to concentrate on their own knowledge acquisition. As you can see there are gaps which had to be filled with teacher explanation as the student lacked the resilience to continue with their own research (figure 5).

dj5

figure 5

The second notable impact of the student-led approach was the effect on students extended knowledge. Students were able to explain in detail the areas they had successfully investigated but this was usually at the expense of other areas of the topic. Students felt that there was too much information available and that they often got caught in learning about an area in too great a depth. This depth was not needed for the current course; which itself creates another dilemma. How do you stop students going into too much depth? Or even, should we stop them in their pursuit of knowledge?

Evidence of the issue of depth versus breadth of knowledge was shown through their end of module tests where the results were below that of their target and showed a greater depth of knowledge in some areas which was lacking in others (figure 5 and 6).

figure 5                                                    figure 6

Both of these tests were examples of core knowledge gained in one particular area but not in others. The student on the left scored well in input, output and storage devices whereas the one of the right scored well in The CPU element.

In researching the teacher led approach I decided that I would provide the information, meaning students having to make notes and then answer questions around it. This was also supplemented with structured note sheets (figure 7 and 8).

                                        figure 7                                                     figure 8

The findings from this were very interesting. From a pupil voice perspective they found the teacher led lessons “a bit boring” but they said they understood more of the topic and in greater detail because they had been explained by an expert first. The students liked the note sheets; in particular the boys as this circumnavigated the need to be tidy in the books as it was already done for them.

For my view point I had the ‘safety blanket’ of knowing that the course content had been provided for the students but also the knowledge that the explanation was directly relevant for the content of the GCSE. However the preparation that went into these lessons was much greater in thinking about how best to explain the content, design the lesson materials and the subsequent assessment tasks.

The end of module assessments with the teacher-led approach had shown a marked improvement from the first approach taken. There was greater knowledge across the class with the answers in the assessments being of a consistently higher quality (figure 9).

dj10

figure 9

Executive Summary and Next Steps

As a result of the action research there are a number of things I will focus on doing differently. Firstly, lessons will primarily be planned around the teacher-led approach in which content is delivered by me and then further questioning and tasks are designed to aid memory recall. In the creation of the teacher-led lesson the resources will be differentiated and allow for progression of knowledge at a pace that will be appropriate for the class.

Where possible I will also use the student-led approach but limit the resources that the students have to find the answers. This would then avoid the issues around the depth of knowledge at the expense of breadth whilst still encouraging student-led learning.

One of the key areas from this research that I will be taking forward is not being afraid to ‘teacher talk’ as this has been shown to be the most efficient way of students gaining knowledge in certain circumstances. This does need to be punctuated with questioning and mini-tasks so as to avoid student disengagement.

In the future I will avoid doing student-led lessons where the knowledge content is too specific. The reasoning for this is because a student-led lesson may result in students researching areas that are not specifically associated with the qualification, therefore not gaining the necessary knowledge for the exams.

In the planning and delivery of lessons my thinking has changed from primarily providing an engaging lesson to a lesson that provides the students with the academic opportunities to shine. This shift in thinking has meant I have concentrated more on the content of the teacher presentation than on the tasks that the students would do. The reason for this is because without the correct knowledge shared by me the students will not be able to complete any task fully, irrespective of delivery.

Finally, to answer the question: How best to teach in a knowledge based curriculum? There is no ‘right’ way to teach a knowledge based lesson and a variety is needed to get the most out of all students. However this research has found that a teacher-led approach produces better student results.

It is worth noting that in the initial research Headguruteacher commented that 20% of teaching should be ‘mode B’ teacher, this is what I am aiming for in the future.

In summary:

  • Teacher-led and student-led teaching approaches were used across a number of modules. Students interviewed and assessed at the end of modules.
  • Student-led lessons had increased pupil engagement and interest however it was found that acquisition of knowledge was incomplete and as a result module test scores were lower.
  • Teacher-led lessons had increased pupil results and understanding of the topic but led to a decrease in pupil engagement (more compliance than engagement).

Next Steps

  • Continue action research model on a bigger class with different ability levels.
  • Investigate the impact and work on resilience to challenge learners as a tool for improving student knowledge acquisition.

Sources and references

[1] De Bono’s Hats (http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php)

[2] SOLO Taxonomy (http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/solo.htm)

[3] Flipped Classroom. (https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7081.pdf)

[4] Wolf Report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/180504/DFE-00031-2011.pdf)

[5] Wolf Report- Executing Summary. Paragraph 2/3.

[6] Gove Sets out ‘Core Knowledge’ curriculum plans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21346812)

[7] Progress 8 Measures (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/497937/Progress-8-school-performance-measure.pdf)

[8] Nicky Morgan: why knowledge matters (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nicky-morgan-why-knowledge-matters)

[9] Inspiring Growth (http://news.cbi.org.uk/reports/education-and-skills-survey-2015/)

[10] Pragmatic Education: How best to teach: Knowledge-led or skills-led lessons? (https://pragmaticreform.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/how-best-to-teach/)

[11] Sscott (http://targetmaps.co.uk/knowledge-based-curriculum-vs-skills-based-curriculum/)

[12] Headguruteacher: Principles of Effective Teaching (https://headguruteacher.com/2016/01/10/principles-of-effective-teaching/)

Featured image: ‘Study time concept’ courtesy of http://www.freeimages.co.uk

 

Building Resilience in Students

An Action Research project by Ursilla Brown (Science)

[Featured image: ‘Resilience by Ron Mader’- ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) ]

Focus

This action research focused on the concept of resilience and how it impacts on learning among our students.

Background

Throughout my teaching career, the link between work ethic and success in students has been obvious. What is less transparent are the factors that lead some students to relish diving into a problem and being prepared to take the risk of charting unknown territory while others desperately cling to the edge, afraid to take the plunge. This fear can manifest itself in a multitude of ways. While some students are absorbed in the challenge of cracking a code or finding connections, reasons for or ‘what if’s’, those on the periphery of learning can be sitting passively, getting distressed, engaging in off task behaviour or defiantly declaring that the content is boring or pointless. With a critical mass of students in the latter category the teacher invariably works much harder than these students as she guides, cajoles, pleads and, yes, even sometimes threatens detentions for lack of effort. So, while the issue has been of long term interest to me, the catalyst to embark on a journey of discovery was the coincidence of the launch of this Learning Focus cycle of research in school with my first experiences of my Year 10 GCSE Chemistry class. Since the beginning I feel I have had a good relationship with the students. They are a friendly bunch and came to me as a class seemingly happy to be in the room but mainly passive and pretty hard to strike up a dialogue with about anything to do with Chemistry. My lesson starters engaged around half the class while the others sat in a frozen position, not doing anything wrong, but not learning or seeming to engage with the activity. My mission was to shake them out of their lethargy and take charge of themselves as learners.

Objectives

My aim was to cultivate resilience amongst the students. The success criteria for this were to get the students:

  • To be able to concentrate for long/longer periods of time. (not give up)
  • To be able to control their thoughts and emotions
  • To enjoy challenge and problem solving
  • To see failures/mistakes as part of the learning process and be prepared to have a go
  • To show initiative when ‘stuck’
  • To recognise that learning is a process and takes time

Context

The class was a middle mixed ability class. I teach them the Chemistry component of the Science GCSE.

These were my thoughts about the class at the beginning of the year:

  • Lovely class – friendly, polite but quite passive
  • Majority of ‘resilient’ students quiet and self-contained so maybe not obviously modelling to others
  • Happy to listen to instructions but want to be ‘spoon fed’
  • Not really making the connection between effort and achievement
  • I was working harder than them – re-directing, re-assuring, checking, cajoling in some cases
  • Many students would give up if they did not already know the answer

Actions

  • De-mistifying ‘being clever’. At every opportunity reinforcing to the students how the brain works and how we learn. I have explained to them and continuously remind the students how we commit information to long term memory and used two examples to unpick ‘being clever’ :
  1. How amazing we all are at speaking our own language compared to how
  2. challenging we find it to learn a new language in school. The students can see the clear link between mastery and frequent repetition, often getting things wrong initially.
  3. Me as a teacher – I reminded them why I appear to be so effortlessly good at what I teach and discuss the fact that I am immersed in it, teaching it many, many times. The reason I am an ‘expert’ is that I teach the subject matter often so my neural networks are well developed FOR MY SUBJECT MATTER
  • Resilience poster – This has become a whole school tool and it reflects the effort that is put into becoming an effective learner. I continue to refer to the iceberg at every opportunity.
  • During Directed Improvement and Response Time (DIRT – time dedicated to allowing pupils to respond to teacher feedback/making to correct, develop or improve their work) taking the opportunity to Facilitate reflection on progress and relating it to effort
  • Linking to Science of the brain – unpicking the reasons for repetition and consolidation for mastery with reference to my above examples or other skills and aptitudes. I have a visual representation of the neurone connections in the brain that I refer to when reminding the students of why practice is important and why things seem hard at first.
  • ALWAYS praising effort not achievement and linking this to life skills
  • Seating resilient students with less resilient ones and encouraging a climate of mutual support where students can move around when appropriate and support one another in their learning.
  • Liberating students from the fear of committing mistakes to paper by allowing them to write on the desks. This seems to be very effective at getting some students to take the plunge and ‘have a go’.
  • Avoid re-assuring answers to questions – reflecting back to students.
  • Scaffolding resilience training by having selected differentiated resources available to enable students to help themselves to become unstuck (Links well with SOLO)

Impact

The last column shows the actual results achieved in the GCSE. Bearing in mind the target grades are actually for Year 11, the majority of students made expected progress. It is hard to say how much is attributable to the emphasis on resilience but, anecdotally, the vast majority of the students are focused and open to giving the challenging Additional Chemistry content their best shot and, importantly, bouncing back and returning to the drawing board when they get things wrong. The pupils highlighted in red were ones I was still concerned about the level of commitment from at the time of preparing to share my findings with colleagues in our learning focus group meetings but subsequently the majority of these have sought out advice from their peers or myself to help them progress.

ub-stats

Conclusions

To summarise the findings of the ’Developing resilience’ Learning Focus group of which my research was a part:

  • We believe our strategies have made a difference but……it would be more powerful if the language of resilience was consistent across the school
  • This approach supports stretch and challenge you have higher expectations and avoid ‘helicopter’ teaching
  • This work supports pupil independence and less teacher dependence
  • Rewarding attitude and effort is crucial – sending the right messages about what we value

Next steps

I will continue to employ these strategies with the students I teach. I will continue to focus on resilience development in the next round of Action research and explore ways of embedding the language of resilience across the school.

Sources/references

‘Mindset’ by Dr Carol S Dweck

Lesson Plans for teaching resilience to Children by Lynne Namka

Promoting resilience in the classroom by Carmel Cefai

The Iceberg Illusion poster by Sylvia Duckworth