Dr Ann McCarthy, NACE Associate and co-author of NACE’s new publication “Cognitive challenge: principles into practice”.

To group or not to group: that is the question…

The organisation and management of cognitively challenging learning environments is one of three focus areas highlighted in NACE’s new research publication, “Cognitive challenge: principles into practice”, which marks the first phase in our “Making Space for Able Learners” project. Developed in partnership with NACE Challenge Award-accredited schools, the research examines the impact of cognitive challenge in current school practice against a backdrop of relevant research. 

As teachers, we aim to provide a cognitively challenging learning environment for our more able and exceptionally able pupils, which is beneficial to them. The organisational decisions surrounding this should therefore optimise opportunities for learning. Teachers and school leaders must not only consider content to be studied, but also the impact of classroom management decisions from the perspective of the learner. The NACE research showed that these classroom management and organisational decisions were one of three key factors impacting on cognitively challenging learning, alongside curriculum organisation and design and the use of rich and extended talk and cognitive discourse.

 

One aspect of managing cognitively challenging learning environments is any choice relating to mixed ability teaching versus a variety of designs for selection and grouping by ability. Within the classroom the teacher also balances demands to provide opportunities for all, while simultaneously identifying the nature and opportunity for challenge. 

Does ability grouping benefit learners?

There is a paucity of strong evidence that ability grouping is beneficial to academic outcomes for all. However, Parsons and Hallam (2014) did find that grouping can benefit more able pupils. This benefit is not necessarily associated with the act of setting, but with the quality of teaching provided for these groups. Pupils also have opportunities to work at a faster pace, but against this aspiration, Boaler et al. (2000) found pace incompatible with understanding for many pupils. Regardless of the choice made to group or not to group, there is a need to reflect on whether teaching is homogenous or designed to meet the needs of the pupils. Often the weakness is the assumption that grouping alone will drive the learning experience, without an understanding of the cognitive and emotional impact this has on the pupils themselves. 

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has examined the use of setting and streaming, which are usually related to attainment rather than ability, and has found that there is often a small negative impact for disadvantaged pupils and lower abilities. When designing learner groupings, it is important to be aware of the impact for all learners and create a beneficial model for all.

How should teachers and schools approach ability grouping?

First, decide what you hope to teach and what it is pupils have the potential to achieve, given enough learning opportunities. Remember, learning is not limited to reproducing planned content by rote, but instead its success lies within a growth of knowledge, its complexity, and its application. Pupils bring a wide range of prior learning, knowledge and experiences which they can share with each other and use to construct new schema. In a well-designed learning environment, pupils have the potential to develop their knowledge, skills and understanding beyond the delivered content. Young et al. (2014) demonstrate the importance of powerful knowledge which takes pupils beyond their own experiences. The development of metacognition and exposure to wider experience should therefore be included in decisions related to the organisation of groups and lesson planning.

Second, decide what environment will provide the best learning experience for the pupils. 

• Is it best to present advanced curricula at an accelerated rate?
• Does teaching include multiple high-order thinking models and skills?
• Is learning pupil-centred?
• Are multiple modality enquiry methods in play?
• Will grouping take account of the complexity of ability and enhance its manifestation?
• Will pupils benefit from a wide range of perspectives?
• Will pupils utilise the learning experiences of others to reflect upon and refine their own learning?

The answers to these questions will help teachers to make decisions regarding the nature of grouping and classroom organisation. The choice of model should be one which most benefits the learner, one which is not driven by systemic organisational requirements, and one which recognises the impact of external factors on perceived ability.

Finally, what models are available and how can cognitive challenge be achieved within them?

• Mixed ability grouping has the benefit of exposing pupils to the wider knowledge, background, and experience of others. In these environments, problems with different layers of complexity and multiple learning routes are often used. The big question or cognitively challenging proposition often promotes the learning with supporting systems and prompts in place for those challenged by the learning.
• Cutaway models are an alternative to the simpler mixed ability model. In the cutaway approach, the teacher constantly assesses pupils’ learning and needs and directs their learning to maximise opportunities, growth, and development. Pupils join and leave the shared learning (“cutting away” as appropriate), based on prior learning and their response to the existing task. This model develops and utilises independence and metacognition.
• Grouping by task is often used when it is possible to create smaller groups working on different tasks within the same classroom. The teacher uses very specific knowledge relating to pupils’ prior learning and abilities to organise the classroom groups. The teacher can therefore target the teaching to respond to more specific learning opportunities, which in turn can increase pupils’ enjoyment and engagement in their learning.
• Grouping by subject is an extension of grouping by task. If pupils learn all their subjects within the same class group, this enables the teacher to note the different strengths within the subject. In larger schools, pupils are often grouped by overall performance in specific subjects. This model might include advanced curriculum and require higher-order thinking skills. Pupils might be given opportunities to research more deeply into areas of interest. For this model to be successful there needs to be fluidity between the groups so that pupils are well-placed to enjoy cognitively challenging experiences.

With these ideas in mind, schools will then create an overarching model which reflects the school vision, ethos and culture. Teachers will consistently strive to provide cognitively challenging learning opportunities which benefit all. They use their knowledge of the pupils’ past and present learning and their vision of what the pupils can be and can achieve in the future to design the learning environment. They then organise the classroom to excite, engage and challenge their pupils – remembering that regardless of the sophistication of the approach, every group will be mixed ability as no two pupils are identical. If high-quality and engaging teaching is child-centred and not homogenous, then pupils will excel in cognitively challenging classrooms.

References

• Boaler, J., Wiliam, D. and Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping – disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Education Research Journal, 26 (5), 631–648.
• Education Endowment Foundation, Teaching and Learning Toolkit
• Parsons, S. and Hallam, S. (2014). The impact of streaming on attainment at age seven: evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study. The Oxford Review of Education, 40 (5), 567-589.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. and Brown, E. (2007) Toward Best Practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 342.
• Young, M and Muller, J. (2013). On the Powers of Powerful Knowledge. Review of Education1(3) 229-250.

Additional reading and support

• Cognitive challenge: principles into practice – preview this NACE report and order a copy
• Creating cognitively challenging classrooms – three-part online course based on this NACE research 

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 

NACE is collaborating with York St John University on research and resources to help schools support more able learners with higher levels of perfectionism. In this blog post, the university’s Laura C. Fenwick, Marianne E. Etherson and Professor Andrew P. Hill explain how some classrooms are more perfectionistic than others and how reducing the degree to which classrooms are perfectionistic can help enhance learning and maintain student wellbeing. 

Research suggests that more able learners are typically more perfectionistic than their classmates. Accordingly, more able learners place great demands on themselves to achieve unrealistic standards and respond with harsh self-criticism when their standards go unmet. However, more recently researchers have begun to explore the idea that perfectionism may not solely be an individual problem. Instead, environments such as the classroom have perfectionistic qualities that can both increase levels of perfectionism among those in the environment as well as having a detrimental impact on everyone in the environment regardless of their personal level of perfectionism. This is of concern as perfectionistic environments are likely to hinder learners’ capacity to thrive, and contribute to a range of negative outcomes, such as greater stress and poorer wellbeing. 

A perfectionistic environment (or “perfectionistic climate”) refers to cues and messages that promote the view that performances (e.g. grades) must be perfect and less than perfect performances are unacceptable. The cues and messages are created by important social agents such as teachers, coaches and parents, and can be communicated both intentionally as well as inadvertently. In the classroom, the teacher is likely to be the main source of this information; in particular, though the language that is used, how tasks are structured, and the strategies used to reward or sanction student behaviour. Fortunately, teachers also have the potential to help reduce how perfectionistic the classroom is by purposefully avoiding certain cues and messages and promoting others. Here, we identify key components of a perfectionistic classroom and provide alternative strategies aimed at reducing the likelihood that the classroom is experienced as being perfectionistic by students.

Unrealistic expectations

Perfectionistic classrooms include expectations that are unrealistic and never lowered. The expectations are uniformly applied and do not account for the individual ability of the learner, their personal progress, or individual circumstances.

Key takeaways: In most classrooms, it is likely that learners will know what is expected of them in terms of behaviours and grades. However, what is most important about these targets and expectations is that they are realistic and adaptable for each learner. Standards that are personally challenging and lie within reach with concerted effort are the most optimally motivating and offer the greatest development opportunity for students.  

Frequent or excessive criticism

Frequent or excessive criticism is also a feature of a perfectionistic classroom. This can include a focus on minor and inconsequential mistakes or an undue emphasis on the need to get everything “just right”.

Key takeaways: Avoid pointing out unimportant mistakes and focusing on errors when work reflects a student’s best effort or shows progress. Remedial feedback is obviously necessary, but the language used is important. Effective feedback focuses on the quality of the work, not the qualities of the learner (“this aspect of the work can be improved” versus “you have made a mistake here”). Ensure that positives are highlighted and reinforced before offering critical comments, especially for more perfectionistic students.

Problematic use of rewards and sanctions

The use of rewards and sanctions are common and powerful motivational tools in the classroom but when used to create feelings of shame or guilt, they can become problematic. Public displays of reward or sanction are best avoided because they promote these types of coercive emotions and encourage social comparison as opposed to a focus on personal development. Withdrawal of recognition and appreciation based on performance, for example, also reinforces the view that personal value comes solely from recognition and achievement. 

Key takeaways: It is difficult to avoid the use of rewards and sanctions, but where possible these need to be provided privately. For rewards, focus on behaviours (e.g. effort) rather than innate qualities and for sanctions, encourage a sense of personal ownership and agency in proposed repreparation. Ultimately, it is important that students feel liked and valued regardless of their performances and behaviour, good or bad.

Anxiousness or preoccupation with mistakes

One final aspect of a perfectionistic classroom is anxiousness or preoccupation with mistakes. Risk taking is avoided and failure is discouraged.

Key takeaways: Mistakes (even big ones) need to be normalised in the classroom. A strong focus on creativity, problem-solving, and opportunities for learning through “trial and error” will instil a more resilient mindset and counterbalance undue apprehension regarding mistakes. 

Summary

The concept of perfectionistic environments emphasises the need for more purposeful construction of the classroom. In being mindful of each of the issues above, and better monitoring and changing the cues and messages provided in the classroom, we believe teachers can alter the degree to which the environment is experienced as perfectionistic by students. In addition, in doing so, this will help reduce perfectionism and its negative effects among all students and be especially useful and important for more able and talented students who are more prone to the problems associated with perfectionism.

References

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.

Hill, A. P., & Grugan, M. (2020). Introducing perfectionistic climate. Perspectives on Early Childhood Psychology and Education, 4, 263-276.

Stricker, J., Buecker, S., Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Intellectual giftedness and multidimensional perfectionism: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 391-414.

Read more:

• Perfectionism in more able learners: what do we know and what next?
• Perfectionism and “mattering” in more able learners
• Survey results: understanding the impact of lockdown learning

Join the conversation… York St John University’s Professor Andrew P. Hill will lead a keynote session on 17 November 2020 as part of the NACE Leadership Conference, exploring current research on perfectionism and more able learners, and how schools can create learning environments that reduce perfectionistic thinking. View the full conference programme.

Fisher and Frey: the gradual release of responsibility

Sandringham Research School: the memory clock 

Ensuring learning is transferred into long-term memory

Additional reading and resources

• Daisy Christodoulou, “Remote learning: why hasn’t it worked before and what can we do to change that?” (March 2020) – includes a list of learning apps that are effective in helping pupils to recall and self-regulate their learning at home.
• Fisher, D. and N. Frey, Better Learning Through Structured Teaching: A Framework for the Gradual Release of Responsibility, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia, 2008.
• Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 989–998.
• Free resources: supporting challenge beyond the classroom – roundup of free resources from NACE partners and other organisations.
• NACE community forums – share what’s working for your staff and students.

NACE is collaborating with York St John University on research and resources to help schools support more able learners with high levels of perfectionism. In this blog post, the university’s Luke F. Olsson, Michael C. Grugan and Andrew P. Hill outline the current research in this field and how growing awareness of the problem can be used to reshape classroom climates for the better.

The need to be or appear perfect pervades all aspects of society. In education, this is evident in that the experiences of many students appear to be underpinned by irrational beliefs that they need to perform perfectly. Perfectionism – an aspect of people’s personality that involves unrealistically high standards and overly critical evaluation – is therefore a particularly important characteristic to examine when considering the experiences of students.

Recent research suggests that perfectionism has become a hidden epidemic among students over the last 30 years, with students now more perfectionistic than ever before. In addition, this complex characteristic has been found to explain a wide range of outcomes among students. On one hand, some aspects of being perfectionistic are related to better academic performance. But, on the other hand, other aspects of perfectionism have been found to be significant sources of psychological distress for students, including burnout and depression.

Regarding more able learners, one interesting study of 10 samples including over 4,000 students found that intellectually gifted students tend to display higher levels of aspects of perfectionism than non-gifted students. One implication is that more able students are potentially at greater risk for mental health and wellbeing issues. This is evident in other research which has found that while more able students perform better academically, they can also be unhappier, lonelier, and have lower self-esteem. Tellingly, this may also be why more able students often respond to failure and setbacks more negatively.

As a consequence of what we have learned from research, it is apparent that more may need to be done to better support perfectionistic more able learners. Critically, if more able learners display signs of mental health difficulties, they need to be referred to a mental health professional. As such, those who work with more able students will need to be able to recognise when this might be the case. Improving mental health literacy among teachers is one way to do so.

There is also a great deal that can be done in regard to preventing mental health difficulties before they arise. We believe that prevention efforts aimed at reducing perfectionism are particularly important in this regard. One new area of research focuses on understanding how the environment created in achievement contexts such as the classroom can be designed in a way to discourage perfectionistic thinking among students. Our work in this area suggests that perfectionistic environments can involve a number of features including unrealistic standards (e.g. demanding extremely high standards regardless of ability), harsh criticism (e.g. fixating on minor mistakes and errors), manipulation and control (e.g. public punishments and rewards to motivate students), and anxiousness (e.g. signalling excessive concern over mistakes).

As awareness of the negative effects of perfectionism for more able learners students increases, there will be a greater emphasis on what teachers can do to support students. We believe that reshaping the classroom climate and making it less perfectionistic is one way teachers can help do so, and combat the hidden epidemic of perfectionism in young students.

NACE, York St John University and Haybridge High School (a NACE R&D Hub leading school) are currently trialling new resources to help schools raise awareness about perfectionism and support students with high levels of perfectionism. Watch out for updates in our monthly email newsfeed.

Laura March, Hub Lead of the NACE R&D Hub at Southend High School for Boys, shares eight key issues discussed at the Hub’s inaugural meeting earlier this term.

Our inaugural NACE R&D Hub meeting was attended by colleagues from 12 schools, spanning a range of phases and subject areas. Ensuring the Hub meetings are focused on evidence and research allows us to respond to the masses of misinformation presented to us. A collaborative approach to understanding the needs of more able and talented (MAT) learners, and how to support them, enables colleagues to become more open and reflective in their discussions.

We started the meeting by sharing our own experience at Southend High School for Boys (SHSB), exploring our work towards gaining and maintaining the NACE Challenge Award over the last 15 years, and what strategies have had the biggest impact.

In the following discussion, it was interesting to explore what ‘differentiation’ means to different colleagues and key issues raised about what constitutes ‘good’ practice. It was also useful for colleagues from different fields – science, MFL, primary, physics, English and RE – to share approaches to developing writing skills, such as using ‘structure strips’, visualisers to model work, or tiered approaches to subject vocabulary. Finally, some questions were raised about communicating more able needs with parents; what should be included in the school’s more able policy; and how to monitor the impact of strategies on more able learners.

Here are eight key areas discussed during the meeting:

1. Strengthening monitoring and evaluation

This had been identified as an area for development at SHSB. MAT Coordinators and Subject Leaders are responsible for completing an audit to review their previous targets for more able learners and to outline opportunities, trips, competitions, resources and targets for the new academic year. This enables the MAT Lead to identify areas for pedagogical development so that targeted support can be put in place, as well as any budget requirements to purchase new resources.

2. Engaging with parents and carers

We shared the example of our parent support sheet. Not only are we bridging the gap between academic research and classroom practice, we aim to encourage a positive dialogue with parents by sharing the latest research on memory and strategies of how to stretch and challenge their sons and daughters at home. This has been very positive during parents’ evenings, with departments recommending extended reading; apps for effective revision such as Quizlet and Seneca; and You Tube videos for specific topics.

3. The zone of proximal development

As part of the Department for Education Teachers’ Standards, teachers must adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils. This includes knowing when and how to differentiate appropriately and using approaches which enable pupils to be taught effectively (Department for Education, 2011). We looked at the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky) and how we ensure pupils avoid the ‘panic zone’.

As Martin Robinson (2013) says: “We are empowered by knowing things and this cannot be left to chance”. We cannot assume that more able learners know it all and simply leave them to their own devices in lessons. In contrast, we must avoid providing work that they are too comfortable with, resulting in easy learning and limited progress.

4. Myths and misconceptions

We looked at common myths surrounding more able learners and agreed that many of these are unfounded and untrue. Not all more able pupils are easy to identify because the opportunities are not always provided for talents to emerge. Likewise, SEN can mask multi-exceptionalities and we should ensure we have measures in place to identify these. We are also aware that the more able learners are not always the most popular or confident; many will suffer from ‘tall poppy syndrome’ or ‘imposter syndrome’.

5. High expectations for all

The key message is ensuring all learners have high aspirations and expectations and are provided with different routes to meet these. The research indicates that good differentiation is setting high-challenge learning objectives defined in detail with steps to success mapped out. It includes looking at the variety of ways teachers support and scaffold students to reach ambitious goals over time. We should avoid using language that sends a message to students that this part of the curriculum is not for them and that high expectations are only for ‘some’. We know that teaching to the top will raise aspirations for all learners.

“Effective differentiation is about ensuring every pupil, no matter their background and starting point, is headed towards the same destination, albeit their route and pace may differ. In other words, we should not ‘dumb down’ and expect less of some pupils, but should have high expectations of every pupil.” – Matt Bromley (SecEd, April 2019)

6. Developing literacy and writing skills

As part of our School Improvement Plan, we have a renewed focus on disciplinary literacy. Embedding this in lessons is a key way to ensure all pupils are able to express themselves within their subject domain.

“The limits of my language are the limits of my mind.” – Ludwig Wittgenstein

The range of writing we ask students to do is broad: analytical, evaluative, descriptive, explanatory, persuasive. Expecting them to shift between these without a clear structure is understandably going to create problems, so good modelling is essential. To support this, our MAT Coordinators have been using visualisers to model how to use key words in writing and to close the ‘knowing and doing gap’.

7. Metacognition

Externalising our thinking aloud enables pupils to improve metacognition. This is an essential skill in critical thinking and self-regulated, lifelong learning. It is important for learners to have skills in metacognition because they are used to monitor and regulate reasoning, comprehension, and problem-solving, which are fundamental components of effective learning.

8. Curriculum planning

We finished our meeting by looking at the new education inspection framework, specifically the guidance on subject curriculum content. Does it emphasise ‘enabling knowledge’ to ensure that it is remembered? Is the subject content sequenced so pupils build useful and increasingly complex schemata?

Our next Hub meeting will focus on the most effective ways to build up pupils’ store of knowledge in long-term memory.

References:

• Bromley, M. (2019) Effective differentiation: What does it look like in practice? SecEd April 2019.
• Robinson, M. (2013) Trivium 21c: Preparing Young People for the Future with Lessons from the Past. Carmarthen, Wales: Independent Thinking Press.

Before you buy… For discounts of up to 30% from a range of education publishers, view the list of current NACE member offers (login required).

Join your nearest NACE R&D Hub

NACE’s Research and Development (R&D) Hubs offer regional opportunities for NACE members to exchange effective practice, develop in-school research skills and collaborate on enquiry-based projects. Each Hub is led by a Challenge Award-accredited school, bringing together members from all phases, sectors and contexts. Participation is free for staff at NACE member schools. Find out more.