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.
Top tags:
pedagogy
questioning
enrichment
research
oracy
independent learning
curriculum
free resources
KS3
aspirations
cognitive challenge
KS4
assessment
language
literacy
feedback
resilience
critical thinking
maths
metacognition
collaboration
confidence
English
creativity
wellbeing
lockdown
vocabulary
access
mindset
CPD
 
|
Posted By Ann McCarthy,
14 February 2022
|
Dr Ann McCarthy, NACE Research and Development Director
It may seem strange to find an article with both metacognition and assessment in the title. Many people still view assessment as an activity which is separate from the art of teaching and is simply a list of checks and balances required by the education system to set targets, track learning, report to stakeholders and finally to issues qualifications. However, for those who are using assessment routinely, and at all points within the act of teaching and learning, they know the power of assessment which is both explicit and implicit within the process. The drive to focus on metacognition, for all ages of pupils, has opened opportunities for assessment practices to be developed within the classroom both by the teacher and by the pupils themselves.
Contents:
The story so far: summative and formative assessment
Historically, assessment processes were strongly linked to the curriculum and planned content because they responded to an education system which prepared pupils for endpoint examinations. This approach is still evident within the many summative assessments, tests of memory or vocabulary and algorithmic routines seen in classrooms today. One can understand the reliance on these practices as they lead to the maintenance of a school’s grade profile and with good teaching and leadership can promote improvements in external measures. It feels safe!
The strength of this type of assessment is that it can provide baseline markers or diagnostic information. Here the assessment focus is always linked to the curriculum, the content and the examination. Good teaching can then move pupils closer to the end goal. When pupils respond well to this style, they can gain the required results – but too often pupils do not respond well and do not necessarily develop beyond the limits of the examination style question. Here the agenda is owned by the teacher, with pupils expected to respond to the demands of the model.
The weakness of this style of assessment is that there is little space for variation to reflect the personalities and learning styles of pupils or to allow more able pupils to learn beyond the examination. Here pupils are trained to meet the end goal without necessarily seeing the potential of the learning beyond the final grade. How often do we hear people say “I can’t do this” or “I don’t know this” although it may be a subject studied in school?
The development of formative assessment in different teaching contexts has increased teachers’ understanding of cognition and cognitive strategies alongside subject-specific skills and content. However, teachers can still be drawn into summative assessment practices in the guise of formative assessment. These are often recall or memory activities or small-scale versions of summative assessments aligned to endpoint assessment.
Good formative assessment is embedded in the planning for teaching and classroom practice. An understanding of the assessment measures and effective feedback will enable pupils to take some ownership of their learning. However, in a cognitively challenging learning environment we seek to empower pupils to own their learning and to become resilient, independent learners. So how then can we think differently about assessment practice?
Limitations to traditional formative and summative assessment practices
With traditional summative and formative assessment methods pupils are responsive to the demands and expectations of the teacher. They are expected to act in response to assessment outcomes and teacher feedback, using the methods and strategies modelled or directed by the teacher. The teacher plans the content, makes a judgement and creates opportunities to gain experience within the planned model. The teacher then assesses within this model and offers advice to the pupils about what they must do next and the actions which the teacher believes will lead to better learning and outcomes.
This can be successful in achieving the endpoint grades or examination standards. It does not necessarily develop pupils’ ability to do this for themselves, both within and beyond the education system.
Developing cognition and cognitive strategies
At the heart of good teaching and learning there is a focus on mental processes (cognition) and skills (cognitive strategies). The most effective classroom assessment makes use of cognition and the cognitive strategies beneficial to the specialist subject, which are most appropriate for the pupils.
The teacher of more able pupils aims to create cognitively challenging learning experiences, which must not be adversely affected by the assessments. This requires carefully selected strategies which hone the cognitive processes at the same time as developing subject expertise. Teaching builds from what pupils already know and understand, what they need to learn and what they have the potential to achieve. It develops the skills needed to apply knowledge, understanding and learning in a variety of contexts.
To maximise the impact of planned teaching on learning, effective assessment practices are essential. An important factor when planning for assessment, which goes beyond the confines of endpoint limitations, is that it places the pupil, rather than the content, at the centre of the process. Assessment activities should not simply measure current performance against a list of content-driven minimum standards, but also lead to a greater depth of knowledge and improved cognition. These assessments are not positioned separately from the learning but are at the heart of the learning and the development of cognitive strategies.
Assessments planned as part of – and not separate from – teaching and learning might include:
- High-quality classroom dialogic discourse;
- Big Questions;
- Teacher-pupil, pupil-teacher and pupil-pupil questioning;
- Collaborative pursuits aimed to generate new ideas;
- Adopting learning roles to enhance and extend current skills;
- Problem solving;
- Prioritisation tasks;
- Research;
- Investigations;
- Explaining and justifying responses;
- Analytical tasks;
- Examining misconceptions;
- Recall for facts in novel contexts;
- Organisation of knowledge to develop new ideas.
By examining learning in the moment, with pupils working independently or together on pre-planned tasks, with clear and measurable success criteria, the teacher can assess more accurately. Using the planned teaching and learning repertoire as the assessment, the teacher makes learning visible. The teacher will gain a greater understanding of the teaching models which lead to greater improvements in cognition. The teacher is then also able to establish which cognitive strategies are used most effectively and which need to be developed.
By maintaining the learning while assessing the teacher acts as a resource and a learning activator. Timely questions, redirecting actions or thoughts and providing feedback are among the variety of actions which can take place in the instant. This does not prevent an analysis of the level of knowledge or understanding of the subject. By working in this way, the teacher can provide more precise input to either the individual or the class; in the moment, it will have the greatest benefit.
In classrooms where the teacher combines their subject knowledge with their understanding of cognition, they will inevitably understand the nature and power of appropriate assessment. Teaching and assessment which is rooted in an understanding of cognition has the potential to prepare pupils for learning both within and beyond the classroom.
When the nature of the learning, the tasks and the assessments are shared with the pupils, they can begin to take ownership of their learning and develop their skills under the guidance of the teacher. Assessing through an understanding of cognition and cognitive strategies allows the teacher to share more fully the process of learning both in terms of academic outcomes but also in relation to thought and cognitive strategies. The pupils can now more fully impact on their own learning, but there is still a dependency on the teacher’s feedback and planning.
Once we appreciate the power of cognitively aware teaching, learning and assessment then we realise that pupils can take action to improve their thinking and learning if they know more. Metacognition means that pupils have a critical awareness of their own thinking and learning. They can visualise themselves as thinkers and learners. If the assessment, teaching and learning model moves the learner towards owning the learning, understanding their own cognition and cognitive strategies, then greater short-term and long-term gains can be made. Developing metacognitively focused classrooms will lead to a better quality of assessment which pupils will understand and can interrogate to refine their own learning.
When teachers look to develop metacognition as a whole-school strategy and within individual subject teaching there can be greater gains. The pupils will learn about the process of learning and come to understand ways in which they can best improve their own learning. Metacognition is about the ways learners monitor and purposefully direct their learning. If pupils develop metacognitive strategies, they can use these to monitor or control cognition, checking their effectiveness and choosing the most appropriate strategy to solve problems.
When planning teaching which makes use of metacognitive processes the teacher must first help pupils to develop specific areas of knowledge.

Metacognitive knowledge refers to what learners know about learning. They must have a knowledge of:
- Themselves and their own cognitive abilities (e.g. I find it difficult to remember technical terms)
- Tasks, which may be subject-specific or more general (e.g. I am going to have to compare information from these two sources)
- The range of different strategies available, and an ability to choose the most appropriate one for the task (e.g. If I begin by estimating then I will have a sense of the magnitude of the solution).
Metacognitive knowledge must be explicitly taught within subjects. Where the assessment process works effectively within this the pupils can measure and understand their own learning. This is particularly important for more able learners who are then able to take greater responsibility for their learning, moving this beyond the constraints of the examined curriculum.
The Fisher-Frey Model shows how responsibility for learning moves from teacher to pupils through carefully planned teaching strategies. This model is also relevant to the development of metacognitive teaching strategies as they are developed within schools. The Education Endowment Foundation has shown how the teacher can learn about and teach metacognitive strategies, gradually passing the learning to the pupils.

Diagram based on work of Fisher-Frey and EEF
At each stage some form of assessment takes place to ensure the required or expected outcomes have been achieved. The teacher wants to know the impact of the teaching and the pupils want to know the effectiveness of their learning. The teacher must also assess the pupils’ ability to use metacognitive strategies. Are they simply accepting the situation as it is? Are they attempting to engage in the process but do not know which strategy is best? Are they able to use their learning strategically or have they moved on to become reflective and independent learners? The teacher uses the assessment information with the pupil to help them to become increasingly self-aware and more adept at using the strategies available to them, but also to recognise their own strengths.
Strategies used in metacognitively focused classrooms which can be developed with the teacher’s support, undertaken by pupils and assessed might include:
- Prioritising tasks
- Creating visual models such as bubble maps and flow diagrams
- Questioning
- Clarifying details of the task
- Making predictions
- Summarising information
- Making connections
- Problem solving
- Creating schema
- Organising knowledge
- Rehearsing information to improve memory
- Encoding
- Retrieving
- Using learning and revision strategies
- Using recall strategies
If pupils and teachers work together to assess and plan the process of learning about the things they need to know and about themselves as learners, then metacognitive self-regulation becomes possible. Metacognitive regulation refers to what learners do about learning. It describes how learners monitor and control their cognitive processes. Pupils can then learn through a cyclic process in which they learn how to plan, monitor and evaluate both what they learn and how they learn.

Based on diagram in Getting Started with Metacognition, Cambridge International Education Teaching and Learning Team
Pupils need to know how to work through these crucial stages to be successful in their academic work and in support of their metacognitive processes. For example, a learner might realise that a particular strategy is not achieving the results they want, so they decide to try a different strategy. Assessment information will help them to refine the strategies they use to learn. They will use this to evaluate their subject knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. They will become more motivated to engage in learning and can develop their own strategies and tactics to enhance their learning.
Conclusion: the potential of metacognition to enhance assessment, teaching and learning
If teaching is focused on subject content and only subject content is assessed, then teachers will be able to plan, track, set targets and work towards examination grades.
When a teacher is knowledgeable about cognition and cognitive strategies, teaching and learning becomes more interesting. The teacher begins to share the objectives and success criteria with the pupils. Planning for teaching and the learning activities develop cognition and move beyond simple recall and application of facts. Pupils become more able to use and organise information. They are more able to retain knowledge and use it in a variety of complex or original contexts. The teacher remains in control of the planning, teaching and assessment but pupils have some degree of understanding of this. They are now more able to respond to advice about their learning. They begin to try alternative methods for learning. They know what they are doing well, what they still need to do, how they need to do this and why it is important. They utilise the assessment criteria and feedback to enhance their learning.
Teachers who teach pupils about metacognition and help them to develop metacognitive awareness know the importance of giving control to the pupil. They collaborate with the pupils to assess their development in becoming more strategic or reflective in the use of strategies. Pupils learn better because they begin to assess their own learning strategies and their subject knowledge with a plan, monitor and evaluate model. Their motivation improves and the conversations between teachers and their pupils about learning are more insightful.
Call for contributions: share your school’s experience
In this article I highlight the importance of metacognition for learning and for the learner. I also explain the importance of assessing what is happening in the classroom. Assessment will give the teacher a clear indication of the impact of teaching and the effectiveness of learning. Assessment will help the self-regulated learner to reflect on their learning and develop the strategies needed to be a successful learner throughout life.
We are seeking NACE member schools to contribute to our work in this area by sharing information about effective assessment approaches in their contexts. Where has assessment practice been implicit within your teaching? How was it planned? How did if fit within the teaching? How was the process shared with the pupils? How did you and the pupils measure levels of achievement? How did this change the way they learned or the way you taught?
If you can share examples of the way you have built up assessment processes within the classroom and across the school, we would love to hear from you.
Please contact communications@nace.co.uk for more information, or complete this short online form to register your interest.
Read more: Planning effective assessment to support cognitively challenging learning
Connect and share: join fellow NACE members at our upcoming member meetup on the theme "rethinking assessment" – 23 March 2022 at New College, Oxford – to share ideas and examples of effective assessment practices. Details and booking
References and additional reading
- Anderson, Neil J. (2002). The Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching and Learning. ERIC Digest.
- Cahill, H. et al (2014). Building Resilience in Children and Young People: A Literature Review for the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. DEECD.
- Cambridge International Education Teaching and Learning Team. Getting Started with Metacognition.
- Chick, N. (2013). Metacognition. Centre for Teaching, Vanderbilt University.
- Education Endowment Foundation (2018). Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning: Seven recommendations for teaching self-regulated learning & metacognition
- EEF. Evidence Summaries: Metacognition and Self-Regulation
- EEF. Four Levels of Metacognitive Learners (Perkins, 1992)
- EEF. Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning: School Audit Tool
- EEF (Muijs D., Bokhove C., 2020). Metacognition and Self-Regulation Review
- EEF (Quigley, A., Muijs, D., & Stringer, E., 2020). Metacognition & Self-Regulated Learning Guidance Report
- Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Better Learning Through Structured Teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. ASCD.
- Lowe, H. and McCarthy, A. (2020). Making Space for Able Learners – Cognitive Challenge: Principles into Practice. NACE.
- Webb, J. (2021). Extract from The Metacognition Handbook. John Catt Educational.
Tags:
assessment
cognitive challenge
feedback
metacognition
myths and misconceptions
pedagogy
progression
questioning
research
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
 
|
Posted By Hilary Lowe,
08 November 2021
|
NACE Research and Development Director Hilary Lowe explores the relationship between language and learning, and the development of language-rich learning environments as a key factor in cognitively challenging learning experiences.
“We use language to define our world, while at the same time the social world in which we live defines our language. The structure of language and the variation we find within it depend both on the social world as well as the ways in which we create an identity for ourselves and the ways in which we build relations with others. Understanding how language both constrains our thoughts and actions and how we use language to overcome those constraints are important lessons for all educators.” (Silver & Lewin, 2013)
We are sometimes so busy talking in classrooms that we forget about the centrality of language for learning. It is for this reason that this blog post focuses on what is arguably a neglected area in the training of teachers: an understanding of the primacy of language in the learning process, of the link between language and higher-level cognition and high achievement, and the critical role of teachers in developing high-level language skills at all stages of schooling.
The development of language and literacy has long been a tenet of the National Curriculum as well as a significant area of research. Research such as that from Oxford Children’s Language (Oxford, 2018; 2020) has continued to emphasise the importance of linguistic wealth, and the link between paucity of language and academic failure and diminished life chances.
The notion of ‘oracy’ has been less visible in policy developments but has received more recent attention through, for example, the survey undertaken by the Centre for Education and Youth and Oxford University (2021) and the Oracy APPG Speak for Change Inquiry report (April, 2021). The APPG inquiry found that the development of spoken language skills requires purposeful and intentional teaching and learning throughout children’s schooling. It also found that there is a concerning variation in the time and attention afforded to oracy across schools, meaning that for many children the opportunity to develop these skills is left to chance. The inquiry concluded that there is an indisputable case for oracy as an integral aspect of education. The conclusions also emphasised the primordial place of oracy for young people and the critical role of employers, teachers and Ofsted in trying to ensure that these skills are developed to a high level.
In the first phase of NACE’s research initiative Making Space for Able Learners, which focuses on cognitive challenging learning, we were delighted to find examples of effective practices in language development and use, which led us to a renewed interest in the significance of language and discourse in high achievement. The schools in the project which demonstrated consistently excellent practice and high achievement for their most able learners had a systematic and systemic approach to the development and use of high-level language skills alongside wider literacy and oracy development (see below for examples).
Some background: language, thinking and learning
The interaction between thought and language has long been the subject of research and academic debate. The thesis that natural language is involved in human thinking is universally well supported, although research into language and cognition often makes reference to ‘strong and weak theories’ of this thesis. Research suggests that higher-level language processes hold a pivotal role in higher-order executive and cognitive activities such as inference and comprehension, and indeed wider expressive communication skills.
Vygotsky (1978) writes that "[…] children solve practical tasks with the help of their speech, as well as their eyes and hands" (p. 26). In Vygotsky's view, speech is an extension of intelligence and thought, a way to interact with one's environment beyond physical limitations: “[…] the most significant moment in the course of intellectual development, which gives birth to the purely human forms of practical and abstract intelligence, occurs when speech and practical activity, two previously completely independent lines of development, converge.” (p. 24).
This higher level of development enables children to transcend the immediate, to test abstract actions before they are employed. This permits them to consider the consequences of actions before performing them. But most of all, language serves as a means of social interaction between people, allowing "the basis of a new and superior form of activity in children, distinguishing them from animals" (p. 28f). Vygotsky wrote, "human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them" (p. 88). Language acts both as a vehicle for educational development and as an indispensable tool for understanding and knowledge acquisition.
In the classroom, therefore, we need to attend to the development of higher-level language processes as explicitly as we do to substantive subject skills and knowledge.
The functions of language in education
The various functions of language most pertinent in the classroom include:
- Expression: ability to formulate ideas orally and in writing in a meaningful and grammatically correct manner.
- Comprehension: ability to understand the meaning of words and ideas.
- Vocabulary: lexical knowledge.
- Naming: ability to name objects, people or events.
- Fluency: ability to produce fast and effective linguistic content.
- Discrimination: ability to recognize, distinguish and interpret language-related content.
- Repetition: ability to produce the same sounds one hears.
- Writing: ability to transform ideas into symbols, characters and images.
- Reading: ability to interpret symbols, characters and images and transform them into speech.
(Lecours, 1998).
All of these functions are key components in the teaching and learning process. Teachers and students use spoken and written language to communicate with each other formally and informally. Students use language to comprehend, to question and interrogate, to present tasks and learning acquired – to display knowledge and skills. Teachers use language to explain, illustrate and model, to assess and evaluate learning. Both use language to develop relationships, knowledge of others and of self. But language is not just a medium for communication – it is intricately bound up with the nature of knowledge and thought itself.
What does this mean for cognitively challenging learning?
For the development of high levels of cognition and to achieve highly, pupils need to develop the language associated with higher-order thinking skills in all areas of the curriculum, such as hypothesising, evaluating, inferring, generalising, predicting or classifying (Gibbons, 1991).
In an educational context it is through iterations of linguistic interactions between teacher and student – and peer to peer – that the process of advancing in learning and knowledge occurs. As Hodge (1993) notes, with limited time in the classroom, teachers often spend much of the available time conveying information rather than ensuring comprehension. This reduces the opportunities for a range of linguistic interactions and for learners to acquire and practise the higher-level language skills associated with high achievement. Planning and organising teaching and learning therefore needs to allow for an increase in opportunities for rich language environments and interactions alongside a cognitively challenging curriculum.
In the NACE research project school visits, we witnessed numerous incidences of highly effective and consistent practices in classroom discourse which clearly contributed to the achievement of highly able learners. These included:
- Teachers modelling advanced language and skilled explanation and questioning;
- Pupils being taught the language of skills such as reasoning, synthesis, evaluation;
- Frequent use of ‘dialogic’ frameworks and enquiry-based learning;
- The use of disciplinary discourse and higher tiers of language;
- Instructional models which include and prioritise the above.
Examples of effective, language-rich learning environments from the project include:
- Portswood Primary School: focus on the early development of vocabulary, language and talk. Teachers use sophisticated language to communicate expectations and learning.
- Alfreton Nursery School: teaching develops skills of concentration, as pupils focus on a central stimulus/object and formulate “big questions”. There is also an explicit focus on team working with reference to reasons “why we can agree to disagree” and the importance of listening. The teacher follows these pupil-led ideas in later sessions.
- Glyncoed Primary School: a challenging curriculum is achieved through planning and delivery of problem solving-based activities, extended and cognitively demanding tasks, and pupil choice. Teacher talk and high-level and qualitatively differentiated questioning, rich dialogue and cognitive talk is in evidence. Excellent modelling and explanations are also pervasive.
- Greenbank High School: pupils are stimulated by differentiated questions prompting them to test hypotheses, make predictions and transfer their knowledge to new contexts. As a result, pupils are working at a strong, sustained pace.
You can read more about the project and order copies of the report here.
Improving the quality and nature of linguistic interaction and discourse within the classroom can better equip learners to engage in cognitive challenge. Learners thus equipped can also move more effectively from guided practice to independence and self-regulation. Teachers working with more able pupils must have a clear pedagogical strategy in mind, with discourse and well-planned questioning an integral part of that strategy. By using a highly interactive pedagogical model, which is language-dependent, teachers get rapid feedback about how well knowledge schemas are forming and how fluent pupils have become in retrieving and using what they have learnt. Working with the most able learners, the quality of questioning and questioning routines must provide the teacher with diagnostic information and the pupils with increased challenge.
Creating language-rich schools and classrooms: implications for teacher development
The development of language is too important to be left to be ‘caught’ alongside the rest of the taught curriculum. We need to give it explicit attention across the curriculum, alongside subject knowledge and skills. To do this expertly teachers should have access to professional development opportunities which give them insights into substantive areas of language acquisition and development – including what that means at different ages and stages and for learners of different abilities and language experience.
NACE’s future CPD and resources will therefore focus on issues in and strategies for language development for high achievement, including:
- Case studies of NACE evidence schools with excellent practice in language for high achievement;
- The language needs and characteristics of different learners, including the most able;
- Creating language-rich school environments;
- Approaches to teaching and learning for language development;
- EAL learners;
- Developing a whole-school language policy.
Schools accredited with the NACE Challenge Award are invited to join our free termly Challenge Award Schools Network Group events (online) to share effective practice in this and other areas. View upcoming events here, or contact communications@nace.co.uk to learn more about NACE’s work in this field and/or to share your school’s experience.
References
- Oracy All-Party Parliamentary Group, Speak for Change, oracy.inparliament.uk, 2021
- Centre for Education and Youth with Oxford University Press, Oracy after the Pandemic, cfey.org, 2021
- Gibbons, P., Learning to Learn in a Second Language, Primary English Teaching Association, 1991
- Hillman, D. C. A., https://www.quahog.org/thesis/role.html, 1997
- Hodge, B., Teaching as Communication, Routledge, 1993
- Hodge, G. I. V. and Kress, G. R., Language as Ideology, Routledge, 1999
- Lecours, A. R. et al, Literacy and The Brain in The Alphabet and The Brain, Springer-Verlag, 1988
- Lowe, H. and McCarthy, A., Making Space for Able Learners, NACE, 2020
- Oxford Language Report, Why Closing the Language Gap Matters, OUP, 2018
- Oxford Language Report, Bridging the Word Gap at Transition, OUP, 2020
- Silver, R. E. and Lewin, S. M., Language in Education: Social Implications, Bloomsbury, 2013
- Vygotsky, L. S., Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, London: Harvard University Press, 1978
Tags:
cognitive challenge
CPD
language
oracy
research
vocabulary
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
 
|
Posted By Ann McCarthy,
06 October 2021
|
NACE Research & Development Director Dr Ann McCarthy shares key principles for effective assessment planning and practice, within cognitively challenging learning environments.
Following two academic years of uncertainty and alternative arrangements for teaching and assessment, the conversation regarding testing and assessment has become increasingly important. Upon return to the routines of day-to-day classroom teaching, schools have had to find ways to assess knowledge, progress and understanding achieved through distance learning or redesigned classroom practices. For older pupils there has been a need to provide evidence to examination boards to secure grades and guarantee appropriate progression routes. This inherent need to provide checks and balances before pupils’ achievement is recognised can become a distraction from the art of teaching. In fact, Rimfield et al (2019) found a very high agreement between teacher assessments and exam grades in English, maths, and science.
- Could we examine less often and use classroom-based assessment more often?
- Should we rethink testing and assessment and their position in the learning process?
Testing vs assessment
The terms test and assessment are often used interchangeably, but in the context of education we need to recognise the difference. A test is a product which is not open to interpretation; it uses learning objectives and measures success achieved against these. Teachers use tests to measure what someone knows or has learned. These may be high-stakes or low-stakes events. High-stakes tests may lead to a qualification, grading or grouping, whereas low-stakes tests can support cognition and learning. Testing takes time away from the process of learning and as such testing should be used sparingly, when necessary and when it contributes significantly to the next steps in teaching or learning.
Assessment, by contrast, is a systematic procedure which draws on a range of activities or evidence sources which can then be interpreted. Regardless of the position teachers hold regarding the use of testing and examinations, meaningful assessment remains an essential part of teaching and learning. Assessment sits within curriculum and pedagogy, beginning with diagnostic assessment to plan learning which best reflects the needs of the learner. A range of formative assessment activities enable the teacher and pupils to understand progress, improve learning and adapt the learning to reflect current needs. Endpoint activities can be used as summative assessments to appreciate the degree to which knowledge has been acquired, alongside varied and complex ways in which that knowledge can be used.
Assessment might be viewed in three different ways: assessment of learning; assessment for learning; and assessment as learning. The choice of assessment practice will then impact on its use and purpose. Regardless of the process chosen and the procedures used, the teacher must remember that the value of the assessment is in the impact it has on pedagogy and practice and the resulting success for the pupils, rather than as an evidence base for the organisation.
NACE research has shown that cognitively challenging experiences – approaches to curriculum and pedagogy that optimise the engagement, learning and achievement of very able young people – will have a significant and positive impact on learning and development. But how can we see this working, and what role does assessment play? When planning for cognitively challenging learning, assessment planning should reflect the priorities for all other aspects of learning.
A strategic approach to assessment which supports cognitively challenging learning environments
When considering the place of assessment in education, teachers must be clear about:
- What they are trying to assess;
- How they plan to assess;
- Who the assessment is for;
- What evidence will become available;
- How the evidence can be interpreted;
- How the information can then be used by the teacher and the pupil;
- The impact the information has on the planned teaching and learning;
- The contribution assessment makes to cognition, learning and development.
Effective assessment is integral to the provision of cognitively challenging learning experiences. With careful and intentional planning, we can assess cognitive challenge and its impact, not only for the more able pupils, but for all pupils. Assessments are used to measure the starting point, the learning progression, and the impact of provision. When working with more able pupils, in cognitively challenging learning environments, the aim is to extend assessment practices to include assessment of higher-order, complex and abstract thinking.
When used well, assessment provides the teacher with a detailed understanding of the pupils’ starting points, what they know, what they need to know and what they have the potential to do with their learning. The teacher can then plan an engaging and exciting learning journey which provides more able pupils with the cognitive challenge they need, without creating cognitive overload.
The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has joined with others to recognise the importance of cognitive science to inform interventions and classroom practice. Spaced learning, interleaving, retrieval practice, strategies to manage cognitive load and dual coding all support cognitive development – but are dependent on effective assessment practices which guide the teaching and learning. The best assessment methods are those that integrate fully within curriculum teaching and learning.
Assessment and classroom management
It is important to place the learner at the centre of any curriculum plan, classroom organisation and pedagogical practice. Initially the teacher must understand the pupils’ strengths and weaknesses, together with the skills and knowledge they possess, before engaging in new learning. This understanding facilitates curriculum planning and classroom management, which have been recognised as essential elements of cognitively challenging learning. Often, learning time is lost through additional testing and data collection, but when working in cognitively challenging environments, planned learning should be structured to include assessment points within the learning rather than devising separate assessment exercises.
When assessing cognitively challenging learning, pupils need opportunities to demonstrate their abilities using analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. They must also show how they use their existing knowledge in new, creative, or complex ways, so questions might include opportunities to distinguish between fact and opinion, to compare, or describe differences. The problems may have multiple solutions or alternative methodologies. Alternatively, pupils may have to extend learning by combining information shared with the class and then adding new perspectives to develop ideas.
Assessing cognitively challenging learning will also include measures of pupils’ abilities to think strategically and extend their thinking. Strategic thinking requires pupils to reason, plan, and sequence as they make decisions about the steps needed to solve problems, and assessment should measure this ability to make decisions, explain solutions, justify their methods, and obtain meaningful answers. Assessments which demonstrate extended thinking will include investigations, research, problem solving, and applications to the real world. Pupils’ abilities to extend their thinking can be observed through problems with multiple conditions, a range of sources, or those drawn from a variety of learning areas. These problems will take pupils beyond classroom routines and previously observed problems. Assessment at this level does not depend on a separate assessment task, but teaching and learning can be reviewed and evaluated within the learning process itself.
Assessment in language-rich learning environments
Language-rich learning environments support cognitive challenge, high-order thinking and deep learning for more able pupils. It is therefore inevitable that language, questioning and dialogic discourse are key elements of formative assessment. They allow the teacher to assess learning in the moment and adjust the course of learning to adapt to the needs of the pupils.
Assessment in the moment, utilising effective questions and dialogic discourse, does not happen by accident, but is planned into the learning. When planning a lesson, the big ideas and essential questions which will expose, extend and deepen the learning are central to the planning and assessment. When posing the planned questions or creating opportunities for discourse, pupils need time to formulate their ideas and think before discussing the responses and extending learning with their own questions and ideas.
Within the language-rich classroom where an understanding of assessment is shared with pupils, the ownership of learning can be passed to them. The teacher will introduce the theory, necessary linguistic skills, and technical language, using these to model good questions and questioning techniques. More able pupils will develop their own oracy, language and questioning techniques, and then develop them together. Through regular practice and good classroom routines, pupils gain the confidence and skills to ask ‘big questions’ themselves and engage in dialogue. At this point, discussion and questioning becomes an effective mode of ongoing assessment. As pupils explain their thinking, misconceptions or gaps in knowledge will be exposed, allowing the teacher to assess, support learning, and encourage deeper thinking.
Priorities for effective assessment
Within the classroom, the teacher needs to use assessment:
- To understand what the pupils know already;
- To promote and sustain cognitive challenge and progression:
- To measure the impact of both the teaching and the learning;
- To adapt practice in a timely manner;
- To support, extend and enhance learning;
- To examine how effectively the knowledge is used in new, varied and complex contexts.
Assessment has the potential to support pupils as learners as they will:
- Understand the nature and purpose of activities so that they can benefit from them;
- Appreciate the demands of learning;
- Engage in the learning journey;
- Develop their own cognitive skills and learning attributes;
- Take action to improve themselves;
- Take ownership of learning;
- Become increasingly autonomous and self-regulating.
Assessment is not a separate part of teaching and learning, but should be planned within the teaching. Assessment should not distract pupils from learning, and learning should not be framed to meet assessment criteria. Assessment is not about data gathering and organisational checks, but it should lead to enriched learning and refined practice with teachers and pupils working together to achieve an exciting learning environment.
What next?
This year, NACE is focusing on exploring effective assessment practices within Challenge Award-accredited schools. We hope that many schools will participate in this project, to provide evidence and share examples of effective assessment: what works, how, and why? By sharing our expertise with others we can move the conversation about assessment forwards and provide exciting and engaging learning for our pupils. To find out more or to express your school’s interest in contributing to this initiative, please contact communications@nace.co.uk
References
- Education Endowment Foundation (2021), Cognitive science approaches in the classroom (a review of the evidence)
- Rimfield. K, et.al. (2019), Teacher assessment during compulsory education are as reliable, stable, and heritable as standardized test scores. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 60(12) (1278-1288)
Read more:
Tags:
assessment
cognitive challenge
feedback
myths and misconceptions
oracy
progression
questioning
research
Permalink
| Comments (2)
|
 
|
Posted By Keith Watson FCCT,
22 March 2021
|
Dr Keith Watson, NACE Curriculum Development Director
What I Talk About When I Talk About Running by Haruki Murakami is one of my favourite books… even if reading it did not make me run faster. The title did, however, lead me to ask students: “What do you think about when you think about learning?” This is not an easy question to answer. We increasingly recognise the importance of developing metacognition in learning and the need to challenge pupils cognitively, but this is not always easy in the mixed ability classroom.
In the NACE report Making space for able learners – Cognitive challenge: principles into practice (2020), cognitive challenge is defined as “ how learners become able to understand and form complex and abstract ideas and solve problems”. We want students to achieve these high ambitions in their learning, but how is this achieved in a mixed ability class with increasing demands on the teacher, including higher academic expectations? The NACE report provides case studies showing where this has been achieved and highlights the common features across schools that are achieving this – and these key themes are worth reflecting upon.
What do we mean by “challenge for all”?
“Challenge for all” is the mantra often recited, but is it a reality? At times it can appear that “challenge” is just another word for the next task. Or, perhaps, just a name for the last task. Working with teachers recently I asked: why do the more able learners need to work through all the preceding the tasks to get to the “challenge”? Are you asking them to do other work that is not challenging? Or coast until it gets harder? A month later the same teachers talked about how they now move those learners swiftly on to the more challenging tasks, noting that their work had improved significantly, they were more motivated and the learning was deeper. This approach also led to learners being fully engaged, meaning the teacher could vary the support needed across the class to ensure all pupils were challenged at the appropriate level.
“Teaching to the top” is another phrase widely used now and it is a good aspiration, although at times it is unclear what the “top” is. Is it grade 7 at GCSE or perhaps greater depth in Year 6? It is important to have these high expectations and to expose all learners to higher learning, but we need to remember that some of our learners can go even higher but also be challenged in ways that do not relate to exams. For instance, at Copthorne Primary School, the NACE report notes that “pupils are regularly set complex, demanding tasks with high-level discourse. Teachers pitch lessons at a high standard”. Note the reference to discourse – a key feature of challenge is the language heard in the classroom, whether from adults or learners. The “top” is not merely a grade; it is where language is rich and learning is meaningful, including in early years, where we often see the best examples.
Are your questions big enough?
The use of “low threshold, high ceiling” tasks are helpful in a mixed ability class, with all pupils able to access the learning and some able to take it further. In maths, a question as simple as “How many legs in the school?” can lead to good outcomes for all (including those who realise the question doesn’t specify human legs). But there is often a danger that task design can be quite narrow. The minutiae of the curriculum can push teachers to bitesize learning, which can be limiting – especially when a key aim has to be linking the learning through building schema. Asking “Big Questions” can extend learning and challenge all learners. The University of Oxford’s Oxplore initiative offers a selection of Big Questions and associated resources for learners to explore, such as “Should footballers earn more than nurses?” and “Can money buy happiness?”. There is a link to philosophy for children here, and in cognitively challenging classrooms we see deep thinking for all pupils.
Can your learners build more complex schema?
All pupils need to build links in their learning to develop understanding, and more able learners can often build more detailed schema. To give a history example, understanding the break from Rome at the time of Henry VIII could be learned as a series of separate pieces of knowledge: marriage to Catherine of Aragon, the need for a male heir, wanting a divorce in order to marry Anne Boleyn, the religious backdrop, etc. Knowing these items is one thing, but learners need to make links between them and create a schema of understanding. The more able the pupil, the more links can be made, again deepening understanding. That is why in cognitively challenging classrooms skilled teachers ask questions such as:
- What does that link to?
- What does that remind you of?
- When have you seen this before?
- What is this similar to? Why?
These questions are especially useful in a busy mixed ability classroom. Prompt questions like these can be used in a range of situations, rather than always requiring another task for the more able pupil who has “finished”. (As if we have ever really finished)
Are you allowing time for “chunky” problems?
So, what else provides challenge? The NACE report notes: “At Portswood Primary School pupils are given ill-structured problems, chunky problems, and compelling contexts for learning”. Reflecting upon the old literacy hour, I used to joke: “Right Year 5, you have 20 minutes to write like Charles Dickens. Go!” How could there be depth of response and high-level work in such short time scales? What was needed were extended tasks that took time, effort, mistakes, re-writes and finally resolution. The task often needed to be chunky. Some in the class will need smaller steps and perhaps more modelling from the teacher, but for the more able learners their greater independence allows them to tackle problems over time.
This all needs organising with thought. It does not happen by accident. With this comes a sense of achievement and a resolution. Pupils are challenged cognitively but need time for this because they become absorbed in solving problems. This also works well when there are multiple solution paths. In a mixed ability class asking the more able to find two ways to solve a problem and then decide which was the most efficient or most effective can extend thinking. It also calls upon higher-order thinking because they are forced to evaluate. Which method would be worth using next time? Why? Justify. This also emphasises the need to place responsibility with the learner. “At Southend High School for Boys, teachers are pushed to become more sophisticated with their pedagogy and boost pupils’ cognitive contribution to lessons rather that the teacher doing all the work”. In a mixed ability class this is vital. How hard are your pupils working and, more importantly, thinking?
I wrote in a previous blog post about how essential the use of cutaway is in mixed ability classes. Retrieval practice, modelling and explanation are vital parts of a lesson, but the question is: do all of the students in your class always need to be part of that? A similar argument is made here. More able learners are sometimes not cognitively challenged as much in whole-class teaching and therefore, on occasion, it is preferable for these pupils to begin tasks independently or from a different starting point.
As well as being nurturing, safe and joyful, we all want our classrooms to be cognitively challenging. This is a certainly not easy in a mixed ability class but it can be achieved. High expectations, careful task design and an eye on big questions all play a part, alongside the organisation of the learning. In this way our teaching can be improved significantly – far more than my running ever will be…
Related blog posts
Additional reading and support
Tags:
cognitive challenge
grouping
metacognition
problem-solving
questioning
research
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
 
|
Posted By Ann McCarthy,
16 March 2021
|
NACE Research & Development Director Dr Ann McCarthy explores the evolution of remote assessment over the past 12 months, and the challenges and opportunities ahead.
Over the past year schools have been developing remote learning solutions. These are systems, platforms, methods, or tools that enable remote learning. As the year progressed the quality and flexibility of these have improved. The need for improvement does not reflect teachers’ commitment at the start of the first lockdown, but the limitations caused by available technology, training in the use of the technology, and pupils’ access levels.
In October 2020, the Department for Education stated that all children attending state-funded schools must be given immediate access to remote education if they needed to self-isolate, or if restrictions required pupils to stay at home. Schools were expected to have a contingency plan in place for remote education so that pupils had access to meaningful and ambitious work every day. Provision was to include online tools which allow for interaction, assessment and feedback and high-quality online and offline resources and teaching videos. To support this, they aimed to increase pupils’ access to the internet and introduced Oak Academy.
By March 2021, schools were in a much better position to provide high-quality remote learning, having developed a variety of solutions. Live (synchronous) learning takes place when schools have videoconferencing in place for real-time lessons. Dependent on the age of the pupils and the availability of technology both within the school and at home this may be for a few short sessions each week or for all lessons. Self-paced (asynchronous) learning is also being used. This may utilise technologies such as recorded videos, teaching software, quizzes, games or TV programmes. This may also use more traditional learning tools such as textbooks, worksheets or other written or practical activities which do not make immediate use of a computer. Asynchronous learning enables pupils to work on the same work as others in the class but with more control over when they study and how long they spend on each task.
How effective is remote learning?
The EEF's Rapid Evidence Assessment on Distance Learning stated that teaching quality is more important than how lessons are delivered. The EEF found that there was no real difference between synchronous and asynchronous teaching. If all elements of effective teaching are present and teaching builds clearly on pupils’ prior learning, then pupils will learn well.
The EEF found that peer interactions and support for pupils to work independently can both provide motivation and improve learning outcomes. They did, however, note that ensuring access to technology is key, especially for disadvantaged pupils, and this has been seen to be a problem throughout the lockdown periods. Teachers have also had to be aware that different approaches to remote learning suit different types of content and pupils. One strength of remote learning is that it also provides more opportunities for pupils to take more control of their learning and as such they might also engage in a greater degree of individual learning where they can follow their own learning interests or study a whole-class topic in a different way or in greater depth.
Assessment principles when learning remotely
The wide range of possible teaching input, learning access, learning engagement, home support and learning output has led to greater consideration of assessment: its purpose; use and reliability. The Ofsted Handbook (2019) states that: “When used effectively, assessment helps pupils to embed knowledge and use it fluently and assists teachers in producing clear next steps for pupils.” The headteachers’ standards (2020) require headteachers to ensure “valid, reliable and proportionate approaches are used when assessing pupils’ knowledge and understanding of the curriculum”.
The principles are important, but when moving from classroom contact to remote contact teachers and leaders have had to resolve some practical issues. So, how and what do you assess when learning is remote? In some schools, adaptive software is in use for elements of the curriculum. This responds to pupils’ online learning and adapts the content and practice accordingly. This enables the teacher to monitor learning and focus on in depth one-to-one support. In other environments nonadaptive software is used to set the tasks but the teacher must monitor the learning outcomes closely. What must not be lost in the drive to use remote learning and technology to support this is the place of assessment in the learning process.
“Pay particular attention to securing alignment between curriculum, assessment and teaching, and of these to the school’s ambitious goals for pupils.” – NPQH Framework (2020)
The Chartered College (2020) recognises the challenges related to moving from classroom to remote assessment and feedback. They show the principles of good feedback and assessment can still apply if they are reframed to fit this new context. When planning learning activities assessment must be considered in relation to the possible outputs and the potential of the output being the work not solely of the individual student concerned.
The Chartered College’s Distance Learning Resource Pack (2020; member login required) provides some clear tips about successful remote feedback and assessment, including:
- Assessment should be purposeful and provides meaningful, actionable information.
- Questions should help the teacher to assess what pupils have learned already and where they might need some more support, as well as helping them to test their own learning.
- Students should help to design questions, as they will revise study material while they put together a question board.
- Students should know when tests are low stakes or no stakes and understand that these are only used to help learning.
- Structured responses, prompts and partially completed templates may be helpful for pupils working without a teacher.
- Hinge questions can be used to check understanding and allow pupils to move on or receive further support.
- Multiple-choice questions with well-planned incorrect answers allow teachers to spot common misconceptions.
- In online learning sessions, prepared questions and use of the chat function, whole group or individual responses promote engagement and tracking.
- A daily ‘big idea’ question supported by multiple smaller questions can provide the teacher with information about engagement and learning.
- Pupils need feedback, which should be task-specific, providing a clear direction. Verbal feedback can be beneficial as an alternative to written feedback. Feedback on independent work is particularly important.
- Self- and peer-assessment remains an important part of the assessment process with the use of group chat or breakout rooms and shared learning.
The Chartered College’s report on effective approaches to distance learning (2021) states that “formative assessment is crucial in providing regular feedback to help students improve and to inform future teaching. Therefore, in order to maintain academic achievement, it is important that this continues to take place during distance and blended learning. During distance learning, teachers are less able to rely on incidental formative assessment opportunities and, therefore, will have to be more systematic and intentional about how and when assessment will take place.”
When planning for remote learning, some assessments only need minor adjustment but others need to be completely changed to reflect the change in teaching methods and potentially changes in the learning sequence. Teachers have had to revisit the intended learning outcomes and the assessment strategies needed to measure these. They also must protect academic integrity. The Department for Education (2020) suggested the use of dedicated software for questioning and discussion, and live feedback and marking.
Remote assessment practice reported by NACE member schools
NACE members were invited to respond to a survey on their practice in assessing remote learning, with a particular focus on provision for more able learners. NACE schools provided feedback on their remote assessment practices and the resources used to support these.
When using synchronous practices, teachers reported using online discussion, questioning, the use of the chat function, live view of written work and live marking of work. Assessment of asynchronous learning included low stakes quizzes either produced by the teacher or created by dedicated software, online assessment tools, e-portfolios, work uploaded and marked using a learning platform, and work assessed via email. In some schools the technology makes it possible to live view or mark as well as marking and returning work. This is more often seen with older pupils. Online assessment tools have enabled teachers to provide individual or whole-class feedback and use outcomes to inform planning.
Where pupils have greater opportunities for independent learning, they are likely to be engaged in longer-term projects, essays, or research activities. These tasks are more likely to utilise greater detail in assessment criteria being shared with the pupils and more opportunities for individual feedback. For these and other tasks, GRIT (growth resilience independent task) pupil responses are used to help them to understand and develop their own learning.
The choices made in each school are driven by ethos and existing policies and procedures, but they have been rolled out in accordance with the circumstances. In general, schools report that they are using the available advice from EEF and others. They have had to make choices about the technology being used, including the means of communication, learning platforms, and other online resources. They have then had to make this work based on the availability of technology in pupils’ homes and their ability to engage with the technology.
Many teachers confirmed that pupil voice is effective in assessing during remote learning, especially when learners have been working independently. Teachers have tried many different approaches to assessment and feedback. Peer interaction during remote learning can motivate pupils and improve outcomes. Assessment strategies using peer marking and feedback, sharing models of good work, and opportunities for live discussions of content, are possible and are reported to be increasingly effective as pupils get older.
Feedback to pupils has varied according to the task and between schools. This ranged from a comment “well done” to detailed written feedback. The use of success criteria continues to be important when giving feedback on tasks. Some teachers have given open-ended feedback as they would in a class situation. This has enabled them to adapt and differentiate work to the unique situations of the children as well as their ability. Others have been calling pupils to answer questions raised in online chat, to address outcomes in activities such as group agree/disagree questioning, online quizzes, or independent work. Online comments at the end of a piece of work have been shared with pupils. Emails have been sent to parents where children do not access online learning.
This range of responses reflects the range of practice and the differences in access to technology, training in the use of technology and home learning environments. Where possible, the methods used for teaching, learning assessment and feedback are like those used in class as this provides consistency and stability to the pupils when they are not in school.
Opportunities and concerns when using remote learning
Considering the advice available to schools, the increased availability of internet access, learning platforms and dedicated software, one might assume that there is an equitable learning experience for all pupils. Schools have invested in a distance learning infrastructure and are now able to provide a blended learning approach which will enable pupils to make progress. However, what pupils learn, how quickly they progress and their depth of understanding are not necessarily the same as they would be in school. Pupils spend most of their remote learning time working independently and may not have home support.
NACE member schools have recognised the range of responses to home learning from pupils. Some more able pupils thrive in an environment where they can manage their day and their learning. Home learning provides pupils with time to reflect and research so that mastery, analytical skills, and problem solving can be developed. Not all pupils cope with these greater freedoms and many miss the collaborative nature of the classroom where they can enhance their learning by engaging in cognitive discourse. Others lack resilience or the metacognitive skills needed to learn without the support of the teacher. Teachers raised concerns that some pupils may have developed gaps in learning and understanding. Others were concerned that there was learning fatigue and that continued remote learning impacts on the health and wellbeing of the pupils.
Challenges when using remote assessment
Within a classroom environment visual clues are often used to assess understanding and learners’ confidence, but these are not easy to establish through online learning. When engaged in remote learning, teachers find it more difficult or impossible to use the normal assessment practice of tracking learners' work and assessing their progress in skills. One major barrier to assessment is that teachers do not know the level of support each learner receives at home from family members. Some pupils receive significant input and have considerable access to additional learning materials, support and guidance. Other pupils work in isolation and lack any additional resources, support or learning capital which would enable them to respond well to learning tasks. These differences not only impact on the quality of learning, but also on the teacher’s understanding of what pupils know, understand and can do independently.
A second issue related to assessment and reported by NACE member schools was that not all pupils engage with or complete the work. Written work completed at home is not always submitted and when it is the teacher is not always clear as to whether the child completed the work independently.
Some schools report difficulties in the assessment of foundation phase learning based on outcome alone, which is what is seen from remote learning, particularly for those with limited access to online sessions and activities. Normal assessment practice would be far more fluid and formative questioning part and parcel of the process. This is far more difficult to achieve remotely, especially where parents are present and 'supporting' the child by answering for them.
How does this apply to more able pupils?
The surveyed NACE schools recognised the many difficulties and pitfalls in providing remote learning and assessment. Despite this they remained committed to high-quality provision which embraces assessment as an integral part of the process. As one member commented: “This is very much a work in progress and we are learning as we go, always striving to improve.”
NACE's research suggests that cognitively challenging learning environments are dependent upon curriculum design, management of learning and cognitive discourse (read more here).

In planning learning for more able pupils, schools have made best use of available technology and have adapted the curriculum to reflect the new learning environment. They have created new learning opportunities and adapted existing ones, but cannot manage all aspects of the pupils’ home learning experiences. Some more able learners do not have the same learning advantages as others and as such there will be difference in outcomes and in the responses to assessment measures. The greatest difficulty in using remote learning and assessment to develop cognitively challenging learning for more able pupils results from the absence of rich and extended talk and cognitive discourse which would be found in the classroom. Short periods of engagement online cannot generate the quality of language which would be present in the classroom throughout the day.
Returning to school: what next?
As pupils and teachers return to face-to-face teaching and learning there is much to consider. How will teachers use the assessments undertaken during remote learning to plan for next steps and to resolve any lost learning or misconceptions? Will disadvantaged more able pupils have the same opportunities to achieve as others whose learning has progressed well? Where more able pupils have taken their learning beyond the expected standard, will they have opportunities to continue to deepen learning having returned to a classroom environment?
Teachers are now tasked with the challenge of managing learning recovery, assessment and new learning simultaneously, while rebuilding the relationships and expectations of the classroom.
Assessment of learning summer 2021
As pupils return to school there is another issue related to assessment. Pupils due to complete a course of study this year will have an assessed outcome which is no longer linked to a final examination. Where the remote assessment is well-established and provides a direct link to what has been learnt, teachers will be able to report on pupils’ learning accurately. However, in many schools, pupils will return to school to face a series of activities which provide evidence of what they know. Pupils’ qualifications this year will be based on school assessments.
“Teachers must assess their students’ performance, only on what content has been delivered to them by their teachers, to determine the grade each student should receive.” “Heads of centres will have to confirm that students have been taught sufficient content to allow progression to the next stage of their education.” – Ofqual (2021)
Teachers have increasingly recognised the importance of creating a link between curriculum, planning, teaching, learning and assessment. Is this examination requirement going to mean that pupils spend more time having their learning measured at the expense of developing as learners? How could the examination system work so that it fits with the way in which teaching and learning takes place?
We will continue to consider these inter-related issues as we explore assessment methodology, opportunities, limitations and next steps for more able learners.
With thanks to all the NACE member schools who have so far contributed to our work in this area. To share your own experience, please contact communications@nace.co.uk.
References
Additional resources and support
Tags:
assessment
feedback
lockdown
remote learning
research
technology
Permalink
| Comments (1)
|
 
|
Posted By Robin Bevan,
08 March 2021
|
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.
From the NACE blog:
Additional support
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.
Tags:
assessment
feedback
independent learning
metacognition
research
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
 
|
Posted By Lauren Bellaera,
03 March 2021
|
Dr Lauren Bellaera is Director of Research and Impact at The Brilliant Club, a UK-based charity which aims to increase the number of pupils from under-represented backgrounds that progress to highly selective universities. In this blog post (originally published on The Learning Scientists website), Dr Bellaera explores research-informed approaches to develop critical thinking skills in the classroom – ahead of her forthcoming live webinar on this theme for NACE members (recording available to watch back when logged in as a member).
What is critical thinking?
Many definitions of critical thinking exist – far too many to list here! – but one key definition that is often used is:
“[the] purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which judgment is based” (1, p. 3).
Despite the different definitions, there is a consensus regarding the dimensions of critical thinking and these dimensions have implications for how critical thinking is understood and taught. Critical thinking includes skills and dispositions (1). The former refers to reasoning and logical thinking, e.g., analysis, evaluation, and interpretation, whereas the latter refers to the tendency to do something, e.g., being open-minded (2). This blog post primarily is referring to the development of critical thinking skills as opposed to dispositions.
Critical thinking can be subject-specific or general, and thus can either be embedded within a specific subject or it can be developed independently of subject knowledge – something that we will revisit later.
How are critical thinking skills developed?
Developing critical thinking is often regarded as the cornerstone of higher education, but the reality is that many educational institutions are failing to develop critical thinking consistently and reliably in their students, with only around 6% of university graduates considered proficient (3), (4), (5).
Thus, there is a disconnect between the value of critical thinking and the degree to which it is supported by effective instruction (6). So, what does effective instruction look like? Helpfully, cognitive psychology provides us with some of the answers:
1. Context is king: the importance of background knowledge
The important question at hand here is: are some types of critical thinking more difficult to develop than others? The short answer is yes – subject-specific critical thinking appears to be easier to develop than general critical thinking. Studies have shown that critical thinking interventions improve subject-specific as opposed to general critical thinking (7), (8). This is also what we have found in our own research (9).
Possible reasons for why this is the case include the fact that the length of time needed to develop general critical thinking is much greater. This is coupled with the idea that general critical thinking is simply not as malleable as subject-specific critical thinking (10). For balance, though, some studies have reported improvements in general critical thinking, indicating that under the right circumstances, general improvement is possible (6), (11). The key message here is that background knowledge is an important part of teaching critical thinking and the extent to which you aim to develop critical thinking beyond the scope of the course content should be assessed dependent on what is achievable in the given context.
2. Be explicit: approaches to critical thinking instruction
The importance of background knowledge also has implications for critical thinking instruction (12). There are four main approaches to critical thinking instruction; general, infusion, immersion and mixed (13):
The general approach explicitly teaches critical thinking as a separate course outside of a specific subject. Content can be used to structure examples and activities but it is not related to subject-specific knowledge and tends to be about everyday events.
The infusion approach explicitly teaches both subject content and general critical thinking skills, where the critical thinking instruction is taught in the context of a specific subject.
Similarly, the immersion approach also teaches critical thinking within a specific subject, but it is taught implicitly as opposed to explicitly. This approach infers that critical thinking will be a consequence of interacting with and learning about the subject matter.
Lastly, the mixed approach is an amalgamation of the above three approaches where critical thinking is taught as a general subject alongside either the infusion or immersion approach in the context of a specific subject.
In terms of which are the best instructional approaches to adopt, evidence from a meta-analysis of over 100 studies showed that explicit approaches led to the greatest increase in critical thinking compared to implicit approaches. Specifically, the mixed approach where critical thinking was taught explicitly as a separate strand and within a specific subject was the most effective, whereas the implicit immersion approach was the least effective. This research suggests that developing critical thinking skills separately and then applying them to subject content explicitly works best (14).
3. Be strategic: effective teaching strategies
The knowledge that critical thinking needs to be deliberately and explicitly built into courses is integral to developing critical thinking. However, without the more granular details of exactly what teaching strategies sit beneath this, it will only get us so far. A number of teaching strategies have been shown to be effective, including the following:
Both answering and generating higher-order thinking questions have been shown to increase critical thinking (8) (14). For example, psychology students who were given higher-order thinking questions compared to lower-order thinking questions significantly improved their subject-specific critical thinking (8). Alison King’s work on higher-order questions provides some useful examples of question stems (15).
Ensuring that critical thinking is anchored in authentic instruction that allows students to engage with problems that make sense to them, and that enables further inquiry, is important (6). Some ways to facilitate authentic instruction include simulations and applied problem solving.
Closely related to higher-order questions and authentic instruction is dialogue – essentially discussions are needed to develop critical thinking. Teachers asking questions is particularly beneficial to the development of critical thinking, in part because teachers will often be asking questions that require higher-order thinking. A meta-analysis study showed that authentic instruction and dialogue were particularly effective for developing general critical thinking (6).
Engaging pupils in explicit self-reflection techniques promotes critical thinking. For example, asking students to judge their performance on a paper can increase their ability to understand where they need to improve and develop in the future (16). Other formalisations of this include reflection journals (17). In my current role, we also employ self-reflection activities to increase critical thinking.
So, to conclude, remember when developing critical thinking skills that context is king, always be explicit and always be strategic!
Find out more… On 29 April 2021 Dr Bellaera presented a live webinar for NACE members exploring the research on critical thinking and how to apply it in your school. Watch the recording here (login required). Plus: Dr Bellaera's research paper on critical thinking is available to read and download here until 4 August 2021.
References:
(1) Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report).
(2) Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper-Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(3) American Association of Colleges and Universities (2005). Liberal education outcomes: Preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, DC: AAC&U.
(4) Dunne, G. (2015). Beyond critical thinking to critical being: Criticality in higher education and life. International Journal of Educational Research, 71, 86-99.
(5) Ku, K. Y. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 70- 76.
(6) Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 275-314.
(7) Williams, R. L., Oliver, R., & Stockdale, S. (2004). Psychological versus academic critical thinking as predictors and outcome measures in a large undergraduate human development course. The Journal of General Education, 53, 37-58.
(8) Renaud, R. D., & Murray, H. G. (2008). A comparison of a subject-specific and a general measure of critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 85-93.
(9) Bellaera, L., Debney, L., & Baker, S. (2018). An intervention for subject comprehension and critical thinking in mixed academic ability university students. The Journal of General Education.
(10) Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C, & Giancarlo, C. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20, 61-84.
(11) Halpern, D. F. (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of General Education, 50, 270–286.
(12) Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6, 1-49.
(13) Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18, 4-10.
(14) Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1102-1134.
(15) King, A. (1995). Designing the instructional process to enhance critical thinking across the curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 13-17.
(16) Austin, Z., Gregory, P. A., & Chiu, S. (2008). Use of reflection-in-action and self-assessment to promote critical thinking among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72, 1-8.
(17) Mannion, J., & Mercer, N. (2016). Learning to learn: Improving attainment, closing the gap at Key Stage 3. The Curriculum Journal, 27, 246-271.
Tags:
cognitive challenge
critical thinking
metac
questioning
research
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
 
|
Posted By Jonathan Doherty,
17 February 2021
|
Dr Jonathan Doherty, Leeds Trinity University
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.
Additional reading and support:
Tags:
assessment
feedback
lockdown
remote learning
research
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
 
|
Posted By Keith Watson FCCT,
27 January 2021
|
Dr Keith Watson, NACE Associate
In recent years many new developments in teaching have been most welcome and have helped the shift towards a more research-informed profession. NACE’s recent report Making space for able learners – Cognitive challenge: principles into practice provides examples of strategies used for the design and management of cognitively challenging learning opportunities, including reference to Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction (2010) which outline many of these strategies.
These principles of instruction are particularly influential in current teaching, which is pleasing to the many good teachers who have been used them for years, although they may not have attached that exact language to what they were doing. These principles are especially helpful for early career teachers, but like all principles they need to be constantly reflected upon. I was always taken by Professor Deborah Eyre’s reference to “structured tinkering” (2002): not wholesale change but building upon key principles and existing practice.
This is where “cutaway” comes in – another of the strategies identified in the NACE report, and one which I would like to encourage you to “tinker” with in your approach to ability grouping and ensuring appropriately challenging learning for all.

What is “cutaway” and why use it?
The “cutaway” approach involves setting high-attaining students off to start their independent work earlier than the vast majority of the class, while the teacher continues to provide direct instruction/ modelling to the main group. In this way the high attainers can begin their independent work more quickly and can avoid being bored by the whole class instruction which they can find too easy, even when the teacher is trying to “teach to the top”. Once the rest of the class has begun their independent work, the teacher can then focus on the higher attaining group to consolidate the independent work and extend them further.
There are more nuances which I will explain later, but you may wonder, how did this way of working come about?
An often-quoted figure from the National Academy of Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) was that gifted students may already have acquired knowledge of 40-50% of their lessons before they are taught. If I am honest, this was 100% in some of my old lessons! With whole class teaching, retrieval practice tasks and modelling (all essential elements in a lesson), there are clear dangers of pupils being asked to work on things they already know well. There is the issue of what Freeman, (quoted in Ofsted, 2005:3), called the “three-time problem” where: “Pupils who absorb the information the first time develop a technique of mentally switching off for the second and the third, then switching on again for the next new point, involving considerable mental skill.” Why waste this time?
The idea of “cutaway” was consolidated when I carried out a research project involving the use of learning logs to improve teaching provision for more able learners (Watson, 2005). In this project teachers adapted their teaching based on pupil feedback. The teachers realised that, in a primary classroom, keeping the pupils too long “on the carpet” was inappropriate and the length of time available to work at a high level was being minimised. One of the teachers reflected: “Sometimes during shared work on the carpet, when revising work from previous lessons to check the understanding of other pupils, I feel aware of the more able children wanting to move on straight away and find it difficult to balance the needs of all the children within the Year 5 class.”
It therefore became common in lessons (though not all lessons) to cutaway pupils when they were ready to begin independent work. By using “cutaway” the pupils use time more effectively, develop greater independence, can move through work more quickly and carry out more extended and more challenging tasks. The method was commented upon favourably during a HMI inspection that my school received and has ever since been a mainstay of teaching at the school.
Who, when and how to cutaway
So how does a teacher decide when and who to cutaway? The method is not needed in all lessons, the cutaway group should vary based upon AfL, and at its best it involves pupils deciding whether they feel they need more modelling/explanation from the teacher or are ready to be cutaway. In a recent NACE blogpost on ability grouping, Dr Ann McCarthy emphasises that in using cutaway “the teacher constantly assesses pupils’ learning and needs and directs their learning to maximise opportunities, growth and development” and pupils “leave and join the shared learning community”. This underlines the importance of the AfL nature of the strategy and the importance of developing learners’ metacognition, which was another key finding in the NACE report.
Sometimes the cutaway approach is decided on before a lesson by the teacher based upon previous work. In GCSE history, a basic retrieval task on the Norman invasion could be time wasted for a more able pupil who has secure knowledge, whereas being cutaway to do an independent task centred on the role of the Pope in supporting William would be more challenging and worthwhile. It comes down to one key question a teacher needs to ask themselves when speaking to the whole class: “Who do I need here now?” Who needs to retrieve this knowledge? Who needs to hear this explanation? Who needs to see this model or complete this example? If a small group of higher attainers do not need this, then why slow the pace of their learning? Why not start them either on the same work independently or more challenging work to accelerate learning?
Why not play around with this idea? Explain your thinking to the pupils and see how they respond. Sometimes, at the end of one lesson, a task for the next lesson can be explained and the pupils could start the next lesson by working on that task straight away. The 2015 Ofsted handbook said, “The vast majority of pupils will progress through the programmes of study at the same rate”, and ideally, they will. However, a few pupils will progress at a faster rate and therefore need adapted provision. The NACE research and accompanying CPD programme suggests the use of “cutaway” can achieve this and it is well worth all teachers doing some “structured tinkering” with this strategy.
References
Additional reading and support
Share your views
How do you use ability grouping, and why? Share your experiences by commenting on this blog post or by contacting communications@nace.co.uk
Tags:
cognitive challenge
differentiation
grouping
independent learning
pedagogy
research
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
 
|
Posted By Emma Sanderson,
12 January 2021
|
Emma Sanderson, Head of English at NACE member and Challenge Award-accredited Hartland International School (Dubai), shares advice for successful use of “Genius Hour” project-based learning to challenge and motivate learners, inspired by Google’s “20% time”.
As teachers, our awareness of the importance of challenging questions is always at the forefront of our minds, particularly with our more able learners. However, the onus of asking challenging questions shouldn’t always be placed on the teacher. Cue Genius Hour, an idea inspired by Google’s “20% time”, in which employees are encouraged to spend 20% of their time working on any project of their choosing, on the condition that it ultimately benefits the company in some way, and which is famously credited with giving rise to many of Google’s most successful innovations.
Google’s “20% time” is similar to the use of Genius Hour in our school: encouraging students to take ownership of their learning by using a proportion of curriculum time to focus on topics they are passionate about. By coming up with their own driving question to focus their research, students manage their own learning journey and subsequently become even more engaged with the learning process.
Here are three key steps to use Genius Hour project-based learning effectively:
1) Support students to develop their driving question.
The driving question of the project will become the focus of the students’ research. Whilst students may be tempted to simply find out more information about a topic close to their heart, the key is to construct a question that allows for in-depth research and is also broad enough for students to include their personal opinions. Even our most able learners will need support with this task, and for this, question stems can be incredibly useful:
- What does _______ reveal about _________?
- To what extent does…?
- What motivates_________?
- How would you develop…?
- What alternatives are there for…?
- How can technology be used to…?
- What assumptions are there about…?
- What are the [ethical] implications of…?
- How can we challenge…?
- What would happen if…?
- How can we improve…?
- What might happen if…?
Students might be encouraged to come up with solutions to real-life problems or delve into ideas linked to current affairs that they are intrigued by. Either way, these broad question stems allow for thorough exploration of a topic.
2) Help students develop their research skills.
Left to their own devices, students may be tempted to simply Google their question and see what answers come up. Instead, offer guidance on the best and most reliable sources of information for their project.
It may be that students are directed towards relevant reference books in the library. Additionally, online resources can prove invaluable; the Encyclopaedia Britannica offers a wealth of knowledge for students, whilst news websites aimed at teenagers (for example Newsela and The Day) encourage students to form their own opinions on current affairs and offer suggestions for further reading.
Our more able learners may be more adept at focusing their internet searches and filtering through the vast array of results. If this is the case, students would be expected to determine whether a source is reliable or biased and should be confident at citing their sources.
3) Encourage creativity in how students present their findings.
Ideally, students will be excited and motivated to complete their Genius Hour project, and originality in how they present their results should be encouraged. Students may want to create a video, make a presentation, write a passionate and persuasive speech, design an informative leaflet… The more freedom the students have, the more their creativity will flourish.
One of our students gave a rousing speech on the question, “What alternatives are there to living on planet Earth?” (ultimately concluding there were none and that we need to change our lifestyles in order to save the planet). Another offered a passionate presentation on the theme “How can we improve Earth’s biodiversity while allowing people to still eat meat and plants?” And after witnessing the impact of Covid-19 first hand, one student wrote an insightful article to answer the question, “What has Covid-19 revealed about our society in 2020?”
This approach to project-based learning can also be effectively applied during distance learning – students can be given the success criteria for the project and set the challenge of managing their own time. There is ample opportunity to use technology to give presentations remotely, either live through Zoom or Teams, or recorded individually using a platform such as Flipgrid.
In summary…
Overall, Genius Hour is a fantastic tool to promote deeper thinking in the classroom, whilst also having huge benefits across the wider curriculum. We have found this approach has worked particularly well with Key Stage 3 students and is the perfect opportunity to refine the research and presentation skills required at GCSE, whilst also impacting positively across the curriculum in all lessons. Furthermore, it sends the message to students that their passions outside of school are valued, which in itself can prove to be hugely motivational. Presenting their findings at the end of the project instils confidence in our learners, giving them the vital communication, leadership and time management skills necessary for life beyond education.
Further reading: “Cognitive challenge: principles into practice”
NACE’s report “Cognitive challenge: principles into practice” explores approaches to curriculum and pedagogy which optimise the engagement, learning and achievement of very able young people, combining relevant research and theory with examples of current practice in NACE Challenge Award-accredited schools. Preview and order here.
Not yet a NACE member? Find out more, and join our mailing list for free updates and free sample resources.
Tags:
confidence
creativity
enquiry
enrichment
independent learning
motivation
problem-solving
project-based learning
questioning
research
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|