Guidance, ideas and examples to support schools in developing their curriculum, pedagogy, enrichment and support for more able learners, within a whole-school context of cognitively challenging learning for all. Includes ideas to support curriculum development, and practical examples, resources and ideas to try in the classroom. Popular topics include: curriculum development, enrichment, independent learning, questioning, oracy, resilience, aspirations, assessment, feedback, metacognition, and critical thinking.
Dr Robin Bevan, Headteacher, Southend High School for Boys (SHSB)
One of the underlying tests of whether a student has fully mastered a new area of learning is whether they have the capacity to “self-regulate the production of quality responses” in that domain. At its simplest level, this would be knowing whether an answer is right or not, without reference to any third party or expert source. This develops and extends into whether the student can readily assess the validity of the reasoning deployed in replying to a more complex question. And, at its highest level, the student would be able to articulate why one response to a higher-order question is of superior quality than another.
Framed in another way, we teach to ensure that our pupils know how to answer questions correctly, know what makes their responses sound and, ultimately, understand the distinguishing features of the best quality thinking relevant to the context (and, by this I mean far more than just the components of a GCSE mark scheme).
This hierarchy of desired learning outcomes not only provides an implicit structure for differentiating task outcomes, but also gives a strong steer regarding our approaches to feedback for the most able learners. Our intention for our most able learners is that they can reach the highest level of critical understanding with each topic. This is so much more than just getting the answers right and hints at why traditional tick/cross approaches to marking have often proved so ineffective (Ronayne: 1999).
These comments may be couched in different language, but there is a deep resonance between my observations and the clarion call – over two decades ago – for increased formative assessment that was published as Inside the Black Box (Black and Wiliam, 1998):
Many of the successful innovations have developed self- and peer-assessment by pupils as a way of enhancing formative assessment, and such work has achieved some success with pupils from age five upwards. This link of formative assessment to self-assessment is not an accident – it is indeed inevitable.
To explain this, it should first be noted that the main problem that those developing self-assessment encounter is not the problem of reliability and trustworthiness: it is found that pupils are generally honest and reliable in assessing both themselves and one another, and can be too hard on themselves as often as they are too kind. The main problem is different – it is that pupils can only assess themselves when they have a sufficiently clear picture of the targets that their learning is meant to attain. Surprisingly, and sadly, many pupils do not have such a picture, and appear to have become accustomed to receiving classroom teaching as an arbitrary sequence of exercises with no overarching rationale. It requires hard and sustained work to overcome this pattern of passive reception. When pupils do acquire such an overview, they then become more committed and more effective as learners: their own assessments become an object for discussion with their teachers and with one another, and this promotes even further that reflection on one's own ideas that is essential to good learning.
What this amounts to is that self-assessment by pupils, far from being a luxury, is in fact an essential component of formative assessment. Where anyone is trying to learn, feedback about their efforts has three elements – the desired goal, the evidence about their present position, and some understanding of a way to close the gap between the two (Sadler: 1989). All three must to a degree be understood before they can take action to improve their learning. (Black & Wiliam, 1998)
Understanding the needs of the more able: a tragic parody
Sometimes an idea can become clearer when we examine its opposite: when, that is, we illuminate how the more able learner can be starved of effective feedback. To illustrate this as powerfully as possible, I am going to employ a parody. It is a tragic parody, in that the disheartening description of teaching and learning that it includes is both frustratingly common and yet so easily amenable to fixing. Imagine the following cycle of teacher and pupil activity.
The teacher identifies an appropriate new topic from the scheme of work. She delivers an authoritative explanation of the key ideas and new understanding. It is an accomplished exposition and the class is attentive.
A set of response tasks are set for the class. These are graduated in difficulty. Every pupil is required to work in silence, unaided – after all, it has just been explained to them all! Each pupil starts with the first question and continues through the exercise. The work is completed for homework.
The teacher collects in the homework, marks the work for accuracy of answers with a score out of 10.
In the next lesson, the class is given oral feedback by the teacher on the most common errors. The class proceeds to the next topic. The cycle then repeats.
This is probably not far removed from the way in which many of us were taught, when we were at school. Let us examine this parody from the perspective of the more able.
It is highly likely that the more able pupil already knows something, or a great deal, about this topic. Nonetheless, complicit in this well-rehearsed didactic model, the most able pupil sits through the teacher’s presentation, patiently. A good proportion of this time is essentially wasted.
Silent working prohibits the development of understanding that comes through vocal articulation and discussion. The initially easy exercise prevents, by its very design, the most able from exploring the implications and higher consequences of the topic. The requirement to complete all the questions, even the most simple, fills the time – unproductively. Then, the whole class faces the challenge of completing the harder questions, unsupported, away from the teacher’s expert assistance. For the most able, these harder questions are probably the richest source of potential new learning. But it is no surprise that for the class as a whole the success rate on the harder questions is limited.
The most able pupil gains 8 or 9 out of 10; possibly even an ego-boosting 10. The pupil feels good and is inclined to see the task as a success. Meanwhile, all the items that are discussed by the teacher were questions that everyone else got wrong, not the learning that is needed to extend or develop the more able pupil.
A new topic is started. The teacher has worked hard. The class has been well-behaved. The able pupil has filled their time with active work. And yet, so little has been learned.
Unravelling the parody
This article is intended to focus on the most effective forms of feedback for the more able learner; but it is clear from the parody that we are unlikely to create the circumstances for such high-quality feedback without considering, alongside this, elements such as: the diagnostic assessment of prior learning, structured lesson design, optimal task selection, and effective homework strategies. Each of these, of course, warrants an article of its own.
However, we cannot escape the role of task design altogether in effective feedback. A variety of routine approaches, often suited for homework, allow students to become accustomed to the process of determining the quality of what might be expected of their assignments. For example:
a. Rather than providing marked exemplars, pupils are required to apply the mark scheme to sample finished work. Their marking is then compared (moderated), before the actual standards are established. This ideally suits extended written accounts and practical projects.
b. Instead of following a standard task, pupils are instructed to produce a mark scheme for that task. Contrasting views and key features of the responses are developed; leading to a definitive mark scheme. (It may then be appropriate to attempt the task, or the desired learning may well have already been secured.) This ideally suits essays and fieldwork.
c. These approaches may be adapted by supplying student work to be examined by their peers: “What advice would you give to the student who produced this?” “What misunderstanding is present?” “How would you explain to the author the reasons for their grade?” This ideally suits more complex conceptual work, and lines of reasoning.
d.As a group activity, parallel assignments may be issued: each group being required to prepare a mark scheme for just one allocated task, and to complete the others. Ensuring that the mark schemes have been scrutinised first, the completed tasks are submitted for assessment to the relevant group. This ideally suits examination preparation.
Although these are whole-class activities, they are particularly suited to the more able learner as they give access to higher-order reflective thinking and the tasks are oriented around the issue of “what quality looks like”.
Marking work or just marking time?
Teachers spend extended hours marking pupils’ work. It is a common frustration amongst colleagues that these protracted endeavours do not always seem to bear fruit. There are lots of reasons why we mark, including: to ensure that work has been completed; to determine the quality of what has been done; and to identify individual and common errors for immediate redress.
The list could be extended, but should be reviewed in the light of one pre-eminent question: to what extent does this marking enhance pupils’ learning? The honest answer is that there are probably a fair number of occasions when greater benefit could be extracted from this assessment process.
The observations of Ronayne (1999) illustrate this concern and have clear implications for our professional practice with all learners, but perhaps the most able in particular. In his study, Ronayne found that when teachers marked pupils’ work in the conventional way in exercise books, an hour later, pupils recalled only about one third of the written comments accurately – although they recalled proportionately more of the “constructive” feedback and more of the feedback related to the learning objectives.
Ronayne also observed that a large proportion of written comments related to aspects other than the stated learning objectives of the task. Moreover, the proportion of feedback that was constructive and related to the objectives was greater in oral feedback than written; but as more lengthy oral feedback was given, fewer of the earlier comments were retained by the class. In contrast, individual verbal feedback, as opposed to whole-class feedback, improved the recollection of advice given.
So what then should we do?
It is usually assumed that assessment tasks will be designed and set by the teacher. However, if students understand the criteria for assessment in a particular area, they are likely to benefit from the opportunity to design their own tasks. Thinking through what kinds of activity meet the criteria does, itself, contribute to learning.
Examples can be found in most disciplines: pupils designing and answering questions in mathematics is easily incorporated into a sequence of lessons; so is the process of identifying a natural phenomenon that demands a scientific explanation; or selecting a portion of foreign language text and drafting possible comprehension questions.
For multiple reasons the development of these approaches remains restricted. There is no doubt that teachers would benefit from practical training in this area, and a lack of confidence can impede. However, it is often the case that teachers are simply not convinced of the potency of promoting self-regulated quality expertise.
A study in Portugal, reported by Fontana and Fernandes in 1994, involved 25 mathematics teachers taking an INSET course to study methods for teaching their pupils to assess themselves. During the 20-week part-time course, the teachers put the ideas into practice with a total of 354 students aged 8-14. These students were given mathematics tests at the beginning and end of the course so that their gains could be measured. The same tests were taken by a control group of students whose mathematics teachers were also taking a 20-week part-time INSET course but this course was not focused on self-assessment methods. Both groups spent the same time in class on mathematics and covered similar topics. Both groups showed significant gains over the period, but the self-assessment group's average gain was about twice that of the control group. In the self-assessment group, the focus was on regular self-assessment, often on a daily basis. This involved teaching students to understand both the learning objectives and the assessment criteria, giving them an opportunity to choose learning tasks, and using tasks that gave scope for students to assess their own learning outcomes.
Other studies (James: 1998) report similar achievement gains for students who have an understanding of, and involvement in, the assessment process.
One of the distinctive features of these approaches is that the feedback to the student (whether from their own review, from a peer or from the teacher) focuses on the next steps in seeking to improve the work. It may be that a skill requires practice, it may be that a concept has been misunderstood, that explanations lack depth, or that there is a limitation in the student's prior knowledge.
Whatever form the feedback takes, it loses value (and renders the assessment process null) unless the student is provided with the opportunity to act on the advice. The feedback and the action are individual and set at the level of the learner, not the class.
In a similar vein, approaches to “going through” mock examinations and other tests require careful preparation. Teacher commentary alone, whilst resolving short-term confusion, is unlikely to lead to long-term gains in achievement. Alternatives are available:
i. Pupils can be asked to design and solve equivalent questions to those that caused difficulty;
ii.Pupils can, for homework, construct mark schemes for questions requiring a prose response, especially those which the teacher has identified as having been badly answered;
iii.Groups of pupils (or individuals) can declare themselves “experts” for particular questions, to whom others report for help and to have their exam answers scrutinised.
Again, in each of these practical approaches the most able are positioned close to the optimal point of learning as they articulate and demonstrate their own understanding for themselves or for others. In doing so, they can confidently approach the self-regulated production of quality answers.
Further reading
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. School of Education, King’s College, London.
Fontana, D. and Fernandes, M. (1994). ‘Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school children’. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 64 pp407-17.
James, M. (1998) Using Assessment for School Improvement. Heinemann, Oxford.
Ronayne, M. (1999). Marking and Feedback. Improving Schools. Vol. 2 No. 2 pp42–43.
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science. Vol. 18 pp119-144.
NACE Curriculum Develop Director Dr Keith Watson is presenting a webinar on feedback on Friday 19 March 2021, as part of our Lunch & Learn series. Join the session live (with opportunity for Q&A) or purchase the recording to view in your own time and to support school/department CPD on feedback. Live and on-demand participants will also receive an accompanying information sheet, providing an overview of the research on effective feedback, frequently asked questions, and guidance on applications for more able learners. Find out more.
Dr Keith Watson, NACE Curriculum Development Director and former CEO of Portswood Primary Academy Trust
“I once estimated that, if you price teachers’ time appropriately, in England we spend about two and a half billion pounds a year on feedback and it has almost no effect on student achievement.”
– Dylan Wiliam
So why do we do it? Primarily because the EEF toolkit identified feedback as one of the key elements of teaching that has the greatest impact. With this came the unintended consequence of an Ofsted handbook and inspection reports that criticised a lack of written feedback and response to pupils’ responses to marking which led to what became an unending dialogue with dangerous workload issues. At some point triple-marking seemed more about showing a senior leader or external inspector that the dialogue had happened. More recently, the 2016 report of the Independent Teacher Workload Review Group noted that written marking had become unnecessarily burdensome for teachers and recommended that all marking should be driven by professional judgement and be “meaningful, manageable and motivating”.
So what is “meaningful, manageable and motivating” in terms of marking and feedback for more able learners? Is it about techniques or perhaps more a question of style? At Portswood Primary Academy Trust our feedback has always been as close to the point of teaching as possible. It centres on real-time feedback for pupils to respond to within the lesson. Paul Black was kind enough to describe it as “marvellous” when he visited, so not surprisingly this is what we have stuck with. Teachers work hard in lessons to give this real-time feedback to shape learning in the lesson. The importance of this approach is that feedback is instant, feedback is relevant, and feedback allows pupils to make learning choices (EEF marking review 2016). But is there more to it for more able learners?
Getting the balance right
In giving feedback to more able learners the quality of questioning is crucial. This should aim to develop the higher-order skills of Bloom’s Taxonomy (analysing, evaluating and creating). A more facilitative approach should develop thinking. The questions should stimulate thought, be open, and may lead in unexpected directions.
A challenge for all teachers is how to balance feeding back to the range of attainment in a class. The recent Ofsted emphasis on pupils progressing through the programmes at the same rate is not always the reality for teachers. Curriculum demands are higher in core subjects, meaning teachers are under pressure to ensure most pupils achieve age-related expectations (ARE). The focus therefore tends to be more on pupils below ARE, with more time and effort focused there. The demands related to SEND pupils can also mean less teacher time devoted to more able pupils who have already met the standards.
Given that teachers may have less time for more able learners it is vital the time is used efficiently. For the more able it is less about the pupils getting the right answer, and more about getting them to ask the right questions. Detailed feedback in every lesson is unlikely so teachers should:
Look at the week/unit as a whole to see when more detailed focus is timely;
Use pre-teaching (such as in assembly times) to set up more extended tasks;
Develop pupils’ independence and resilience to ensure there is not an over-reliance on the teacher;
Identify times in lessons to provide constructive feedback to the more able group that would have the most impact.
Another tension for teachers is the relationship between assessment frameworks and creativity. For instance, at KS1 and KS2, the assessment criteria at greater depth in writing is often focused on technical aspects of writing. But is this stifling creativity? Is the reduction in students taking A-level English because of the greater emphasis on the technical at GCSE? As one able Year 10 writer commented, “Why do I have to focus on semicolons so much? Writing comes from the heart.” Of course the precise use of semicolons can aid writing effectively from the heart, but if the passion is dampened by narrow technical feedback will the more able child be inspired to write, paint or create? Teachers need to reflect on what they want to achieve with their most able learners.
Three guiding principles
So what should the guiding principles for feedback to more able learners be? Three guiding principles for teachers to think about are:
1. Ownership with responsibility
More able learners need to take more ownership of their work; with this comes responsibility for the quality of their work. Self-marking of procedural work and work that has a definitive answer (the self-secretary idea) allows for children to:
Check – “Have I got it?”
Error identify – “I haven’t got it; here's why”
Self-select to extend – “What will I choose to do next?”
Only the last of these provides challenge. The first two require responsibility from learners for the fundamentals. The third leads to more ownership for pupils to take their learning further. The teacher could aid this self-selection or only provide feedback once a course of action is taken. Here the teacher is nudging and guiding but not dictating with their feedback.
2. Developing peer assessment
There is a danger that peer assessment can be at a low level so the goal is developing a more advanced level of dialogue about the effectiveness of outcomes and how taking different approaches may lead to better outcomes or more efficient practice. For instance, peer feedback allows for emotional responses in art/design/computing work – “Your work made me feel...”; “This piece is more effective because...”. For some more able pupils not all feedback is welcome, whether from peers or teachers. The idea that I can reject your feedback here is important: “Can you imagine saying to Dali that his landscapes are good but he needs to work on how he draws his clocks?”
3. Being selective with feedback
The highly skilled teacher will, at times, decide not to give feedback, at least not straight away. They are selective in their feedback. If you jump in too quickly, it can stop thinking and creativity. It can eliminate the time to process and discover. It can also be extremely annoying for the learner!
In practical terms this means letting them write in English and giving feedback later, not while they are in the flow. In a mathematical/scientific/humanities investigative setting, let them have a go and ask the pertinent question later, perhaps when they encounter difficulty. This question will be open and may nudge rather than direct the pupils. It might not be towards your intended outcome but should allow for them to take their learning forward, perhaps in unexpected directions.
In summary, this gets to the heart of the difference in feedback for more able learners compared to other pupils. While the feedback will inevitably have higher-level subject content, it should also:
Emphasise greater responsivity for the pupil in their learning
Involve suggestion, what ifs and hints rather than direction, and…
Seek to excite and inspire to occasionally achieve the fantastic outcome that a more rigid approach to feedback never would. They may even write from the heart.
What does this look like in practice?
Jeavon Leonard, Vice Principal at Portswood Primary School, outlines a personal approach for more able learners he has used: “Think about when we see a puzzle in a paper/magazine – if we get stuck (as adults) we tend to flip to the answer section, not to gain the answer alone but to see how the answer was reached or fits into the clues that were given. This in turn leads to a new frame of skills to apply when you see the next problem. If this is our adult approach, why would it not be an effective approach for pupils? The feedback is in the answer. Some of the theory for this is highlighted in Why Don't Students Like School? by Daniel Willingham.”
Mel Butt, NRICH ambassador and Year 6 teacher at Tanners Brook Primary, models the writing process for her more able learners including her own second (and third) drafts which include her ‘Think Pink’ improvement and corrections. While this could be used for all pupils, Mel adds the specific requirements into the improved models for more able learners based on the assessment requirement framework for greater depth writing at the end of Key Stage 2. She comments: “I would also add something extra that is specific to the cohort of children based on the needs of their writing. We do talk about the criteria and the process encourages independence too. It's also good for them to see that even their teachers as writers need to make improvements.” The feedback therefore comes in the form of what the pupils need to see based on what they initially wrote.
Dr Keith Watson is presenting a webinar on feedback on Friday 19 March 2021, as part of our Lunch & Learn series. Join the session live (with opportunity for Q&A) or purchase the recording to view in your own time and to support school/department CPD on feedback. Live and on-demand participants will also receive an accompanying information sheet, providing an overview of the research on effective feedback, frequently asked questions, and guidance on applications for more able learners. Find out more.
The pandemic has significantly changed how and where learning takes place. For the first time in history, teachers are tasked with providing education remotely, beyond the school. Not without its challenges, this does provide an opportunity to rethink the core principles of teaching and learning and at the same time promote high standards of achievement.
Technology can help excite, engage and empower more able learners. It opens new channels of communication. It is a chance for learners to own and shape their own learning and it creates opportunities for tailored learning. In his podcast, Assessment and feedback in an online context (February, 2020), Jamie Scott suggested that the principles of good feedback and assessment apply to the online environment; they just need to be reframed to fit a new context. This blog post discusses one important aspect of teaching and learning – feedback – and provides some strategies to promote this in the context of remote teaching.
The power of effective feedback
Hundreds of articles have been written about feedback and its role in knowledge and skill enhancement and on motivation to learn. When effective feedback is combined with effective teaching, it can be very powerful in facilitating learning. John Hattie (2007) placed it in the top 10 influences on pupil achievement. So what is it and why is it such a powerful facilitator of learning? Feedback is “the process in which learners make sense of information about their performance and use it to enhance the quality of their work or learning strategies" (Henderson et al., 2018, p. 16). This definition of feedback goes beyond just providing comments about pupils’ work. It describes the process of using information resulting from a task to make improvement. Feedback can come from different sources: beginner learners require much scaffolding, while prompts to do with self-regulation are appropriate for more able pupils.
Task prompts include:
Does the answer meet the success criteria?
Can he/she elaborate on the answer given?
Is there other information that could be included to meet the criteria?
Process prompts include:
What strategies were used and why?
What does this tell me about his/her understanding of key concepts and knowledge?
Self-regulation prompts include:
How can he/she monitor this work?
How can he/she reflect on his/her own learning?
What learning goals has the pupil achieved?
Can you teach another pupil to…?
Decades of education research support the idea that greater learning comes from teaching less and providing more feedback. In remote teaching, there are reduced opportunities to pick up on pupils’ non-verbal cues such as nods, frowns and expressions of elation from new understandings normally seen in a classroom. Whilst these might be interpreted as important cues, they are not the most reliable sources of feedback and are in effect poor proxies for learning. In remote teaching and learning, it is more difficult to get such feedback, which means we need to be much clearer on the purpose of the activity, its assessment and the ways in which feedback is given.
Effective feedback, given remotely or face-to-face, reduces the “gap” in learning – that is the space between current and desired understanding. Feedback is most powerful when it helps learners negotiate the gap between where they are and where they need to be. It should address three fundamental questions:
Where am I going? Pupils must understand their goals and what success at those goals looks like. Goals relate to feedback by informing learners on what is needed (success criteria) so they can direct and evaluate their actions. It allows them to set reasonable goals ahead.
How am I doing? This entails feedback about past, present or how to progress from the starting point to the next or endpoint. It is information about progress, about personal performance and attitude to learning. It offers information about what is and what is not understood and allows learners to track their performance.
Where to next? This feedback helps learners in choosing the next appropriate challenges, to achieve self-regulation, the strategies to work on for greater fluency and ultimately deeper understanding. Feedback allows pupils and teachers to set further appropriately challenging goals for ongoing learning.
Effective feedback is NOT… supplying only a mark for a piece of work or giving a generalised comment. “This is a poor piece of writing” is a value judgement and not good feedback. Similarly, “You might want to use more paragraphs”, is advice and not helpful feedback either.
10 essentials of effective feedback
Feedback resides in what is received and interpreted by a student, rather than what a teacher believes has taken place.
Feedback is only successful if pupils use it to improve their performance.
Feedback is more effective when the criteria for success are known in advance and where the goal to achieve success is shared by pupil(s) and teacher.
The purpose(s) of the feedback should be made clear and be specific.
It should be timely and given as soon as possible.
It must assure learners that meeting cognitive challenge is part of learning.
It should be elaborative, i.e. telling the learner something about their work that they were not able to see for themselves.
It works best in a positive, affirming climate (including online classrooms).
It should help to teach more able learners to answer their own questions and develop self-regulation skills.
Feedback must challenge pupils to invest effort in moving forwards.
Conclusion
Effective feedback is one of the powerful enablers of learning. Consistently asking “Where am I going? How am I doing? Where to next?” embeds this in deep learning and aligns with classroom assessment. It is not an isolated nor time-consuming process.
References
Hattie, J.& Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 81–112
Henderson, M., Boud, D., Molloy, E., Dawson, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., & Mahoney, P. (2018). Feedback for learning: closing the assessment loop. Australian Government Department of Education and Training.
Scott. J. (2020) Assessment and feedback in an online context. Evidence-based Education. Podcast 24th February. Accessed 14 February 2021.
Despite and also because of what is happening around us currently, we are returning to the big questions in education – what should schools be teaching, and how should we assess that on a day-to-day basis and for the purposes of public accountability and progression throughout all phases of education?
All the big questions are complex, but assessment is a particularly devilish one. It raises issues of course such as what we should be assessing (and ‘measuring’) and when, but also of how to reflect the different rates of progress and the learning capacities of different young people, of how to assess skills as well as knowledge, and of the place of current and possible future technologies in educational assessment. Assessment must also address wider questions of educational equity.
The smaller questions are also important – of how everyday formative and summative assessment practices in all classrooms, real and virtual, can be as effective as possible. All teachers must become as proficient in assessment as they are in pedagogy – two sides of the same coin. We return therefore to the central importance of high-quality, evidence-informed professional development and evaluation and planning tools for schools.
Your chance to contribute: NACE member survey
NACE has a keen interest in contributing to the debate about how everyday assessment practices and public accountability systems may be improved and reformed to the benefit of all learners, including the most able. As an organisation serving schools directly, we plan to start by looking at aspects which have current and practical application for teachers, informing the development of resources (including enhancement of the NACE Curriculum Audit Tool) and training programmes to support schools. Our engagement will also take account of the rapidly evolving context in which schools are working, and of the importance of improving day-to-day formative and summative assessment practices.
Our initial focus will be on:
The assessment of remote learning;
Assessment literacies and practices to promote the learning of more able pupils.
Both areas will of course make reference to issues of educational equity.
As a membership organisation we very much want to involve our members in our work on assessment, and to that end we are inviting members to respond to an online survey focusing on remote feedback and assessment. This will be used alongside a review of emerging best practice and theory in everyday assessment practices, including assessment of remote learning. Your survey contributions will be an important part of our work in this area, and we will feed the initial results back, so that you can benefit from others’ experiences. .
To contribute, please complete the survey by 4 February 2021.
NACE is collaborating with York St John University on research and resources to help schools support more able learners with higher levels of perfectionism. In this blog post, the university’s Laura C. Fenwick, Marianne E. Etherson and Professor Andrew P. Hill explain how some classrooms are more perfectionistic than others and how reducing the degree to which classrooms are perfectionistic can help enhance learning and maintain student wellbeing.
Research suggests that more able learners are typically more perfectionistic than their classmates. Accordingly, more able learners place great demands on themselves to achieve unrealistic standards and respond with harsh self-criticism when their standards go unmet. However, more recently researchers have begun to explore the idea that perfectionism may not solely be an individual problem. Instead, environments such as the classroom have perfectionistic qualities that can both increase levels of perfectionism among those in the environment as well as having a detrimental impact on everyone in the environment regardless of their personal level of perfectionism. This is of concern as perfectionistic environments are likely to hinder learners’ capacity to thrive, and contribute to a range of negative outcomes, such as greater stress and poorer wellbeing.
A perfectionistic environment (or “perfectionistic climate”) refers to cues and messages that promote the view that performances (e.g. grades) must be perfect and less than perfect performances are unacceptable. The cues and messages are created by important social agents such as teachers, coaches and parents, and can be communicated both intentionally as well as inadvertently. In the classroom, the teacher is likely to be the main source of this information; in particular, though the language that is used, how tasks are structured, and the strategies used to reward or sanction student behaviour. Fortunately, teachers also have the potential to help reduce how perfectionistic the classroom is by purposefully avoiding certain cues and messages and promoting others. Here, we identify key components of a perfectionistic classroom and provide alternative strategies aimed at reducing the likelihood that the classroom is experienced as being perfectionistic by students.
Unrealistic expectations
Perfectionistic classrooms include expectations that are unrealistic and never lowered. The expectations are uniformly applied and do not account for the individual ability of the learner, their personal progress, or individual circumstances.
Key takeaways: In most classrooms, it is likely that learners will know what is expected of them in terms of behaviours and grades. However, what is most important about these targets and expectations is that they are realistic and adaptable for each learner. Standards that are personally challenging and lie within reach with concerted effort are the most optimally motivating and offer the greatest development opportunity for students.
Frequent or excessive criticism
Frequent or excessive criticism is also a feature of a perfectionistic classroom. This can include a focus on minor and inconsequential mistakes or an undue emphasis on the need to get everything “just right”.
Key takeaways: Avoid pointing out unimportant mistakes and focusing on errors when work reflects a student’s best effort or shows progress. Remedial feedback is obviously necessary, but the language used is important. Effective feedback focuses on the quality of the work, not the qualities of the learner (“this aspect of the work can be improved” versus “you have made a mistake here”). Ensure that positives are highlighted and reinforced before offering critical comments, especially for more perfectionistic students.
Problematic use of rewards and sanctions
The use of rewards and sanctions are common and powerful motivational tools in the classroom but when used to create feelings of shame or guilt, they can become problematic. Public displays of reward or sanction are best avoided because they promote these types of coercive emotions and encourage social comparison as opposed to a focus on personal development. Withdrawal of recognition and appreciation based on performance, for example, also reinforces the view that personal value comes solely from recognition and achievement.
Key takeaways: It is difficult to avoid the use of rewards and sanctions, but where possible these need to be provided privately. For rewards, focus on behaviours (e.g. effort) rather than innate qualities and for sanctions, encourage a sense of personal ownership and agency in proposed repreparation. Ultimately, it is important that students feel liked and valued regardless of their performances and behaviour, good or bad.
Anxiousness or preoccupation with mistakes
One final aspect of a perfectionistic classroom is anxiousness or preoccupation with mistakes. Risk taking is avoided and failure is discouraged.
Key takeaways: Mistakes (even big ones) need to be normalised in the classroom. A strong focus on creativity, problem-solving, and opportunities for learning through “trial and error” will instil a more resilient mindset and counterbalance undue apprehension regarding mistakes.
Summary
The concept of perfectionistic environments emphasises the need for more purposeful construction of the classroom. In being mindful of each of the issues above, and better monitoring and changing the cues and messages provided in the classroom, we believe teachers can alter the degree to which the environment is experienced as perfectionistic by students. In addition, in doing so, this will help reduce perfectionism and its negative effects among all students and be especially useful and important for more able and talented students who are more prone to the problems associated with perfectionism.
References
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.
Hill, A. P., & Grugan, M. (2020). Introducing perfectionistic climate. Perspectives on Early Childhood Psychology and Education, 4, 263-276.
Stricker, J., Buecker, S., Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Intellectual giftedness and multidimensional perfectionism: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 391-414.
Join the conversation… York St John University’s Professor Andrew P. Hill will lead a keynote session on 17 November 2020 as part of the NACE Leadership Conference, exploring current research on perfectionism and more able learners, and how schools can create learning environments that reduce perfectionistic thinking. View the full conference programme.
In the opening weeks of this term, we held two online meetups for NACE members – focused on exploring challenges and opportunities in the current context, sharing ideas and experiences with peers, and identifying priorities and core principles for the coming weeks and months.
While acknowledging the significant differences in the experiences of both students and staff members over the past six months, the two sessions also highlighted some strong common themes and key messages:
1. Humanity first and teaching first
While wellbeing is and should remain a priority, NACE Associate Neil Jones makes the case that for more able learners, study is in fact an intrinsic part of their humanity. The meetups highlighted the need to focus on restoring learners’ confidence and self-belief; reinstating healthy and effective learning routines; showing care, calm and confidence in learners’ abilities and futures; continuing to consider the needs of the more able in planning and practice (and supporting colleagues to do so); maintaining high expectations and ambitions; and being aware of the risk of learning becoming “endless” for the more able (particularly in remote/independent learning).
2. Assess, but don’t add stress
While meetup attendees agreed on the importance of understanding where students are and identifying gaps in learning, they also emphasised the importance of achieving this without creating additional pressure, either for staff or learners. Take time over this, building in low-/no-stakes assessment, regular verbal feedback, and involving students in the process of identifying where they feel more/less confident and what they need to do next.
3. Stay ambitious in teaching and learning
A recurrent message from the meetups was the importance of remaining ambitious in teaching and learning – balancing the need to pare back/streamline without narrowing the curriculum or lowering expectations, and auditing deficits without leaping to remedial/deficit thinking. Key ideas shared included a focus on meaningful tasks; teaching to where learners could be now; choosing language carefully to inspire, excite and set high expectations; finding ways to incorporate hands-on as well as theoretical learning; finding opportunities for collaboration; and prioritising dialogic teaching and learning – recognising the loss of rich language exchange during school closures.
4.Continue to build on “lessons from lockdown”
Both sessions also highlighted the many innovative practices developed during school closures, many of which will be retained and further developed. Examples included the use of technology and/or project-based learning to support learners in working both independently and in collaboration with one another.
Finally, the meetups reinforced the importance of engaging and listening to students – involving them in conversations about their experience, interests and passions, and making them part of the creative, innovative thinking and discussion that will help schools and individuals continue to move forward positively. Or as NACE Associate Dr Keith Watson has written, “Not merely recovering, but rebounding and reigniting with energy, vigour and a celebration of talents.”
For more on these key messages and other ideas explored during the meetups, watch the recordings:
NACE member meetups are free to attend for all NACE members, offering opportunities to connect and share ideas with peers across the UK and beyond, as well as hearing from NACE Associates and leading schools.
Not yet a NACE member? Starting at just £95 +VAT per year, NACE membership is available for schools (covering all staff), SCITT providers, TSAs, trusts and clusters. Members have access to advice, practical resources and CPD to support the review and improvement of provision for more able learners within a context of challenge and high standards for all. Find out more.
This article was originally published in our “beyond recovery” resource pack. View the original version here.
Whilst primary schools share some of the general issues faced by all phases following the pandemic, there are specific aspects that need to considered for more able primary pupils. Research on the impact of the pandemic is still in its infancy and inevitably still speculative; while other catastrophic events such as the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, are referred to, the pandemic is on a far greater scale and the full impact will take time to emerge.
What, at this stage, should primary school leaders and practitioners focus on to ensure more able learners’ needs are met?
1. Do: focus on rebuilding relationships
When pupils return to school the sense of community will need to be re-established and relationships will be central to this process. Pupils will need to feel safe and secure in school and the return to routines and robust systems will help with this. Not all more able pupils will have had the same experience both in terms of learning and home life. As always, creating a supportive learning environment will be vital.
2. Do: provide opportunities for reflection and rediscovery
All pupils need the opportunity to tell their lockdown stories and more able pupils should be encouraged to do so using their talents – whether written, artistically, through dance or other means. How best can they express their feelings over what has happened? This will allow them to come to terms with their experiences through reflection but also allow thoughts to turn positively to the future. In this sense they will be able to rediscover themselves and focus on their hopes for the future.
3. Do: use positive language
A key question (as they sing in Hamilton) is “What did I miss?” What are the gaps in learning and what is the school plan for transitioning back into learning generally and then with specific groups? We need to be careful of negative language; even terms like “catch up” and “recovery” risk suggesting we will never make up for lost time. Despite the challenge, we need to show our pupils and parents how positive we are as teachers about their future.
4.Do: find out where your pupils are
Each school will want some form of baseline assessment early in the year, whether using tests or more informal methods. Be ready to reassure more able pupils who perhaps do not achieve their normal very high scores on any testing. For more able pupils a mature dialogue should happen using pupil self-assessment alongside any data collected. Of course, each child is different and it is crucial that teachers know the individual needs of the pupils.
5.Don’t: overlook the more able
There is a danger here of the unintended consequence. The priority is likely to be given to pupils who have fallen even further below national expectation and this could lead to teachers having to divert even more time, energy and focus to these pupils at the expense of giving attention to more able pupils who may be deemed not to be a priority. More able pupils must not be neglected in this way due to assumptions that they are “fine” in terms of emotions and learning. They need to be engaged in purposeful learning and challenged as always.
6.Don’t: narrow your curriculum
Mary Myatt has previously talked of the “disciplined pursuit of doing less” and the pandemic is leading to consideration of the essential curriculum content that needs to be learned now. It may force schools to be even clearer on key learning, but we need to be careful of even greater narrowing of the curriculum, especially to test criteria. The spectre of “measurement-driven instruction” is always with us, particularly for Year 6.
7.Do: focus on building learners’ confidence
Pupils need to be settled and ready for learning, but this is often achieved through purposeful tasks. Providing more able pupils with the chance to work successfully on their favourite subjects as soon as possible can build confidence. It may be that pupils who are able across the curriculum have subjects where they fear having fallen behind more than in others. Perhaps they are very strong in both English and maths but worry about not excelling in the latter, and therefore feel concerned that they have fallen behind. It is important to gauge their feelings across the curriculum, perhaps through them RAG rating their confidence; this could then lead to individual dialogue between teacher and pupil regarding how to rebuild confidence or revisit areas where they perceive the learning is weaker. Learning is never linear; this needs to be acknowledged and pupils reassured.
8.Do: review your writing plan for the year
Teachers will be mindful of the challenges of achieving the criteria for greater depth, particularly in relation to the writing. It will be important to review the normal writing plan for the year to see that the key tasks are still appropriate and timed correctly. What does the writing journey look like throughout the year to achieve greater depth and will the normal milestones be compromised? The opportunity to experiment with their writing is essential for more able pupils, so when will this happen? Teachers in all year groups must not panic about the demanding standards needed, but instead remember they have the year to help their pupils achieve those standards, even if current attainment has dipped.
9.Do: review and adapt teaching and learning methods
The methods of teaching more able pupils will also have to be considered in the changed learning environment. Collaborative group work may be more challenging with pupils often sitting in rows and also having less close proximity to their teacher. A group of more able pupils crouched around sugar paper designing the best science experiment since the days of Newton may not currently be possible. But dialogue remains vital and time still needs to be made for it despite restrictions on classroom operations.
10.Do: remain optimistic and ambitious
We must remain optimistic for our more able pupils. We must not shy away from the opportunities to go beyond the curriculum to encourage and develop talents. More able pupils need to have the space to show themselves at their best. The primary curriculum provides so many opportunities for more able pupils to push the boundaries in the learning beyond the narrow confines of subject areas. This can be energising. The London School of Music and Dramatic Arts (LAMDA) proudly declares its students to be:
Creators
Innovators
Collaborators
Storytellers
Engineers
Artists
Actors
We can also add athletes and many more to this list. More able pupils need to develop their metacognition and seeing themselves in some of these roles can inspire and motivate them. Remember though, creativity can’t be taught in a vacuum. It needs content so that the creativity can be encouraged.
Given that the “recovery curriculum” may spend a lot of time re-establishing a mental health equilibrium and helping those with large gaps in knowledge to “catch up”, it may be that those more able pupils who are ready for it can be given license by teachers to experiment more with the curriculum, have more independence and get to apply their learning more widely.
Not merely recovering, but rebounding and reigniting with energy, vigour and a celebration of talents.
Join the conversation: NACE member meetup, 15 September 2020
Join primary leaders and practitioners from across the country on 15 September for an online NACE member meetup exploring approaches to the recovery curriculum and beyond. The session will open with a presentation from NACE Associate Dr Keith Watson, followed by a chance to share approaches and ideas with peers, reflecting on some of the challenges and opportunities outlined above. Find out more and book your place.
Not yet a NACE member? Starting at just £95 +VAT and covering all staff in your school, NACE membership offers year-round access to exclusive resources and expert guidance, flexible CPD and networking opportunities. Membership also available for SCITTs, TSAs, trusts and clusters. Learn more and join today.
Posted By Hilary Lowe,
11 December 2019
Updated: 03 December 2019
NACE Education Adviser Hilary Lowe goes in search of the perfectly pitched challenge...
Building on NACE’s professional development and research activities, we continue to explore and refine the concept of ‘challenge’ in teaching and learning for high achievement – the central tenet of much of our work and the heart of provision for very able learners.
What do we mean by challenge?
The notion of challenge is multi-faceted and goes further than designing individual learning and assessment tasks. It merits a subheading which makes it clear what we mean. As a provisional and necessarily evolving definition:
“Challenge leads to deep and wide learning at an optimal level of understanding and capability. It encompasses appropriate learning activities but is more than that. Its other facets include, for example: the learning environment, the language of classroom interactions, and learning resources, together with the skills and attributes which the learner needs to engage with challenging learning encounters. These encounters may take place both within and beyond the classroom.”
Some of these building blocks coincide with pedagogical approaches and theoretical perspectives which enable challenging learning for a wide group of learners. It is important therefore that we also interrogate these perspectives and adapt related classroom practices to ensure relevance and application for the most able learners.
Our work on challenge in teaching and learning is part of a wider campaign that will also explore and promote the importance of a curriculum model which offers sufficient opportunity and challenge for more able learners.
Below, we focus on the design and delivery of challenging tasks and activities in the classroom which are likely to enable more able learners to achieve highly and to engage in healthy struggle.
Pitching it right: keep the challenge one step ahead
If teaching for challenge is providing difficult work that causes learners to think deeply and engage in healthy struggle, then when learners struggle just outside their comfort zone they will be likely to learn most. Low challenge with positive attitudes to learning and high-level skills and knowledge can generate boredom within a lesson, just as high challenge with poor learning attitudes and a low base of knowledge and skills can create anxiety. Getting the flow right, ensuring the level of challenge is constantly just beyond the learners’ level of skills and knowledge and their ability to engage will then create deeper learning and mastery.
By scaffolding work too much and for too long, and stealing the struggle from learners, we can undermine expectations and restrict the ranges of response that our learners could potentially develop unaided.
Implications for planning and teaching
What then are the implications for planning and for using every opportunity inside and outside the classroom to “raise the game”? Challenge should involve planned opportunities to move a learner to a higher level of achievement. This might therefore include planning for and finding opportunities in classroom interactions for:
Tasks which encourage deeper and broader learning
Use of higher-order and critical thinking processes
Demanding concepts and content
Abstract ideas
Patterns, connections, synthesis
Challenging texts
Modelling and expecting precise technical and disciplinary language
Taking account of faster rates of learning
Questioning which promotes and elicits higher-order responses
When considering the level of challenge in your classroom, ask:
Do you set high expectations which allow for the potential more able learners to show themselves?
Have you reflected on prior learning and cognitive ability to inform your plans?
Is your classroom organised to promote differentiation?
Do you plan for a range of questions that will scaffold, support and challenge the full range of ability in your class?
Can you recognise when learners are under- or over-challenged and adapt accordingly?
Are you using examples of excellence to model?
Will learners be challenged from the minute they enter?
Share with your learners your expert knowledge, your passion, your curiosity, your love of the subject and of learning. Have high expectations – and resist the urge to steal their struggle!
Challenge in the classroom: upcoming NACE CPD
New for 2020, NACE is running a series of one-day courses focusing on approaches to challenge and support more able learners in key curriculum areas. Led by subject experts, each course will explore research-informed approaches to create a learning environment of high challenge and aspiration, with practical strategies for challenge in each subject and key stage.
An earlier version of this article was published in NACE Insight, the termly magazine for NACE members. Past editions are available here (login required).
In this article, originally published on the Psychology Today website, NACE patron Richard Bailey explores the problem(s) with praise…
There have been a number of reports and research articles trying to help teachers distinguish between effective and ineffective practices. One useful example comes from the University of Durham, when a team led by Professor Robert Coe reviewed a wide range of literature to find out what works, and what probably does not, in the Sutton Trust report What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research (2014).
Among the report’s examples of teaching techniques whose efficacy is not supported by research evidence was the widely discredited idea of "learning styles," as well as commonly used practices like "ability grouping" and "discovery learning." Even more surprising for many readers, perhaps, was the inclusion of "Use praise lavishly" in the list of questionable strategies. This is likely to be surprising because praise for students is seen as inherently affirming and beneficial by many people and is a core element of a positive philosophy of teaching, coaching, and parenting. In a similar way, criticism is now frequently condemned for being negative and harmful.
There are school programs and sports organisations based explicitly on the dual premises of plenty of praise and minimal criticism. And the rationale for this is usually that praise bolsters self-esteem and criticism harms it. In effect, this is the "gas gauge" theory of self-esteem, in which praise fills up the tank with good feelings and social approval, and criticism drains it.
Creating positive learning experiences
How can one not applaud the movement towards more positive approaches to education and sports? Especially for young people, these settings should be joyous, exciting experiences, and we know from vast amounts of research evidence from the United States and elsewhere that this is not always the case (link) (link).
We know, for example, that bullying, harassment and abuse still hide in dark corners, and that far too many parents, coaches, and teachers confuse infant needs with adult wants and infant games with professional competitions. We also know that such behaviours drive children away from engagement in and enjoyment of these pursuits because young people, if not all adults, know that learning, playing sports, and taking part in other activities are supposed to be fun.
Consider sports specifically for a moment. Research from the United States suggests that sports participation drops by 30% each year after age 10. According to a report from the National Alliance for Youth Sports, over 70% of children drop out of organised sports by age 13.
Numerous studies report that many children are put off participating in sports by an over-emphasis on winning and that this effect is especially strong among girls. Children are too often presented with a narrow and uninspiring range of opportunities, and while many love team games and athletic events, others find these traditional forms of physical activity irrelevant, boring, or upsetting.
Remember: this pattern of children dropping out from sports is happening as the health and happiness of young people are being compromised by unprecedented levels of physical inactivity. With activity levels low, and predicted to go even lower, we cannot afford to turn children off sports, and the movement toward more positive athletic experiences is undoubtedly a movement in the right direction.
There is a danger, though, in embracing praise as wholeheartedly and unconditionally as some parents, coaches, and teachers seem to have done.
When praise goes wrong…
Praise for students may be seen as affirming and positive, but a number of studies suggest that the wrong kinds of praise can be very harmful to learning. Psychologist Carol Dweck has carried out some of the most valuable research in this regard. In one study from 1998, fifth-graders were asked to solve a set of moderately difficult mathematical problems and were given praise that focused either on their ability ("You did really well; you're so clever") or on their hard work ("You did really well; you must have tried really hard”). The children were then asked to complete a set of more difficult challenges and were led to believe they had been unsuccessful. The researchers found that the children who had been given effort-based praise were more likely to show willingness to work out new approaches. They also showed more resilience and tended to attribute failure to lack of effort, not lack of ability. The children who had been praised for their intelligence tended to choose tasks that confirmed what they already knew, displayed less resilience when problems got harder, and worried more about failure.
What many might consider a common-sense approach – praising the child for being smart, clever, or "a natural" – turned out to be an ineffective strategy. The initial thrill of a compliment soon gave way to a drop in self-esteem, motivation, and overall performance. And this was the result of just one sentence of praise.
Some researchers have argued that praise that is intended to be encouraging and affirming of low-attaining students actually conveys a message of low expectations. In fact, children whose failure was responded to with sympathy were more likely to attribute their failure to lack of ability than those who were presented with anger. They claim:
“Praise for successful performance on an easy task can be interpreted by a student as evidence that the teacher has a low perception of his or her ability. As a consequence, it can actually lower rather than enhance self-confidence. Criticism following poor performance can, under some circumstances, be interpreted as an indication of the teacher's high perception of the student's ability.”
So, at the least, the perception that praise is good for children and criticism is bad needs a serious rethink: praise can hinder rather than help development and learning if given inappropriately. Criticism offered cautiously and wisely can be empowering.
Well-chosen criticism over poorly judged praise
These findings would seem to call for a reconsideration of a very widely held belief among teachers and coaches that they should avoid making negative or critical comments, and that if they must do so, then they should counter-balance a single criticism with three, four, or even five pieces of praise. This assumption is clearly based on the "gas gauge" model of self-esteem described earlier, viewing any negative comment as necessarily damaging, and requiring positive comments to be heaped around it in order to offset the harm.
I am unaware of any convincing evidence that criticism or negative feedback necessarily causes any harm to children's self-esteem. Of course, abusive comments and personal insults may well do so, but these are obviously inappropriate and unacceptable behaviours. Well-chosen criticism, delivered in an environment of high expectations and unconditional support, can inspire learning and development, whilst poorly judged praise can do more harm than good. Even relatively young children can tell the difference between constructive and destructive criticism, and it is a serious and unhelpful error to conflate the two.
We actually know quite a lot about effective feedback, and that knowledge is summarised nicely by the educational researcher John Hattie: "To be effective, feedback needs to be clear, purposeful, meaningful, and compatible with students’ prior knowledge, and to provide logical connections.”
I suggest that it would be extremely difficult to deliver feedback that is clear, purposeful, etc. in the context of voluminous praise. Eventually, the parent, teacher, or coach simply ends up making vague, meaningless or tenuous platitudes. And this can cause more damage to the learner-teacher relationship than criticism.
Build confidence by being present
The psychoanalyst Stephen Grosz describes a conversation he had with a school teacher named Charlotte Stiglitz – the mother of the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:
"I don't praise a small child for doing what they ought to be able to do," she said. "I praise them when they do something really difficult – like sharing a toy or showing patience. I also think it is important to say ‘thank you’, … but I wouldn't praise a child who is playing or reading.”
Grosz watched as a four-year-old Stiglitz showed her a picture he had been drawing. She did not do what many would have done (including me when I taught this age group) and immediately praise such a lovely drawing. Instead, she had an unhurried conversation with the child about his picture. “She observed, she listened. She was present,” Grosz noted.
I think Stephen Grosz’s conclusion from this seemingly everyday event is correct and important: being present for children builds their confidence by demonstrating that they are listened to. Being present avoids an inherent risk associated with excessive praise, as with any type of reward, that the praise becomes an end in itself and the activity is merely a means to that end. When that happens, learning, achievement, and the love of learning are compromised.
Praise is like sugar. Used too liberally or in an inappropriate way, it spoils. But used carefully and sparingly, it can be a wonderful thing!
Oracy skills underpin all areas of learning and life – and they certainly shouldn’t be taught only to those who join the school debating club, argues Natasha Goodfellow of the English-Speaking Union. Build oracy into every lesson with these five simple activities – suitable for all learners, phases and subjects.
Think about what you’ve done today. How much time have you spent talking, explaining, listening to deduce meaning or ease conflict? How much time have you spent persuading people to your point of view, or to do something you want doing, versus writing essays or doing maths?
Most communication is verbal, rather than written. And yet oracy receives much less attention in the school curriculum than literacy and numeracy. Even in schools which pride themselves on their oracy results, too often the teaching happens in debate or public speaking clubs as opposed to lesson time.
Why make oracy part of every lesson?
While a lunchtime or after-school club can be a good place to start, participants will generally be self-selecting, precluding many of those who might benefit the most. It’s far better to introduce an oracy element into every lesson.
As good teachers know, oracy is about far more than speaking and listening alone. Oracy activities encourage learners to voice and defend their opinions, to think for themselves and to listen critically. And, perhaps most importantly, they build confidence and resilience. However able an individual may be, it’s one thing to argue a point in an essay; it’s quite another to do that in person, in front of an audience, with others picking holes in your arguments, questioning your thought processes or your conclusions. And it’s another leap again to review the feedback and adjust your opinion or calmly concede that you may have been wrong.
With regular practice, what might initially seem uncomfortable or impossible is soon recognised as simply another skill to be learnt. Happily, it’s all part of a virtuous circle – the better learners are at speaking, the better their written work will be. The firmer their grip on the facts, the more convincing their arguments. And, ultimately, the more they are challenged and asked to think for themselves, the more rewarding their education will be.
Here are five simple oracy activities to incorporate in your daily teaching:
1. Balloon debate
Display a range of themed prompts on the board. For instance, in chemistry or physics you might choose different inventors; in PSHE you might choose “protein”, “fat” and “sugar”. Ask the class to imagine they are in a balloon which is rapidly sinking and that one person or item must be thrown out of the balloon. Each learner should choose a prompt and prepare a short speech explaining why he/she/it deserves to stay in the balloon. For each of the items listed, choose one learner to take part in the debate. The rest of the class should vote for the winners/losers.
2. Draw a line
This activity works well for lessons that synthesise knowledge. For example, you may use it to recap a scheme of work. Draw a line on the board. Label it “best to worst”, “most certain to least certain”, or whatever is appropriate. Learners should copy this line so they have their own personal (or small group) version. Introduce items – for example, in geography, different sources of energy; in history, difference sources of evidence. As you discuss each item and recap its main features, learners should place the item on their own personal line. In small groups or as a class, learners can then discuss any disagreements before placing the item on the collective class line on the board.
3. Where do you stand?
Assign one end of the room “agree” and the other “disagree”. When you give a statement, learners should move to the relevant side of the room depending on whether they agree or disagree. Using quick-fire, true/false questions allows you to swiftly assess understanding of lesson content, while more open questions allow learners to explain and defend their thinking.
4. Talking bursts
At appropriate points in a lesson, ask individual learners to speak for 30 seconds on a theme connected to the subject in hand. This could be in a colloquial mode – an executioner arguing that hanging should not be banned, for example; or a more formal mode – such as a summary of the history of capital punishment. Begin with your more able learners as a model; soon the whole class will be used to this approach.
5. Praise and feedback
Finally, make time for praise and feedback – both during oracy activities and as part of general class discussions. Invite comments on how speeches could be improved in future, and recognise and celebrate learners when they make good arguments or use appropriate vocabulary.
Natasha Goodfellow is Consultant Editor at the English-Speaking Union where she oversees the publication of the charity’s magazine, Dialogue, and content on its website. She has worked as an English teacher abroad and is now a writer and editor whose work has appeared in The Sunday Times, The Independent and The Week Junior.
NACE is proud to partner with the English-Speaking Union (ESU), an educational charity working to ensure young people have the speaking and listening skills and cultural understanding they need to thrive. The ESU’s Discover Debating programme, a sustainable programme designed to improve listening and speaking skills and self-confidence in Years 5 and 6, is now open for applications, with large subsidies available for schools with high levels of FSM and EAL. To find out more and get involved, visit www.esu.org/discover-debating
Blog Home
All Blogs
Print Page
RSS
