Curriculum, teaching and support

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 independent learning oracy curriculum aspirations free resources KS3 cognitive challenge KS4 assessment language literacy critical thinking feedback metacognition resilience collaboration maths confidence English creativity wellbeing lockdown vocabulary access mindset problem-solving

Phiddlywinks: have you tried it yet?

Posted By NRICH, University of Cambridge, 04 June 2021

In March this year, NACE members had the opportunity to preview and trial a new maths game being developed by the team at NRICH – a University of Cambridge initiative providing free online maths resources that promote challenging, enriching learning experiences.

The game in question has now been launched, and in this blog post the NRICH team explain how it works, and how you and your learners can get playing.

Question: What happens when you bring together Tiddlywinks and football?

Answer: You get Phiddlywinks!

In this blog we’ll learn more about Phiddlywinks, including the charismatic mathematician who inspired the game and role of NACE members in bringing it to our screens.

What is Phiddlywinks?

Phiddlywinks is a strategy game for two players. The winner is the first player to get the white counter into the coloured region at the opposite end of the board. Player 1 is aiming for the blue region and Player 2 for the red region.

The game begins with the white counter in the centre circle.

Players take it in turns to either:

Place a black counter on the board or
Move the white counter.

The white counter moves by jumping in a straight line over one or more black counters. A player may be able to make more than one jump when it is their turn.

To get started, consider this screenshot from a game which is underway. Both players have chosen to use their turns to add black counters to the board (you’ll notice that the white counter remains in its starting position). It is Player 1’s turn. Can you see how Player 1 might move the white counter to win the game?

Here’s one possible winning move:

Player 1 clicks on 7E (or 8F) and the white counter moves to 9G
Player 1 clicks on 9F (or 9E) and the white counter moves to 9D
Player 1 clicks on 9C and the white counter moves to 9B
Player 1 clicks on 10B and the white counter will move to 11B, winning the game!

Do take some time exploring the interactivity. To help you learn to play the game, we’ve uploaded more mid-game scenarios here. You can also print off black and white or colour versions of the board.

Who was the inspiration behind Phiddlywinks?

John Horton Conway was a prize-winning mathematician who loved creating new games for all ages. He is best known to many for creating the Game of Life. He also developed a game called Philosopher's Football (also known as Phutball) which challenged players to manoeuvre a ball across a large grid towards their opponent's goal-line. Not surprisingly, the game soon became popular with his university students.

We have taken Phutball as the inspiration for our Phiddlywinks. We piloted the developmental version of the game with NACE members at a specially organised online event attended by both primary and secondary colleagues. The feedback from teachers attending NACE event, and the follow-up response from the classes of NACE members who kindly trialled Phiddlywinks with their classes, enabled our team to prepare the game for its release.

Phiddlywinks is almost identical to Philosopher's Football except that the white ball has become a white counter and the players have become black counters. The rules are the same but Phiddlywinks is played on a much smaller board. The way the counters move reminded us more of Tiddlywinks than football, hence the alternative name.

The NRICH team would like to acknowledge the support of NACE and its members who kindly trialled our initial version of the game, giving us invaluable feedback which informed the development of Phiddlywinks.

What maths games and activities have you and your learners been enjoying this year? Share your ideas in the comments below or in the NACE community forums.

Tags: enrichment free resources maths problem-solving remote learning

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

Providing effective challenge in mixed ability classrooms

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

Cognitive challenge: principles into practice – NACE publication (2020); accompanying live or recorded CPD is available
Leading and embedding more able policy and provision in your school – on-demand modular courses; including a focus on planning for challenge

Tags: cognitive challenge grouping metacognition problem-solving questioning research

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

Assessment in a remote learning environment: what have we learned?

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

Chartered College of Teaching (2020). Distance Learning Support Pack.
Chartered College of Teaching (2021). Education in times of crisis: Effective approaches to distance learning.
Education Endowment Foundation (2020). Best evidence on supporting students to learn remotely: Rapid evidence assessment examining the existing research to support the remote learning of pupils.
Department for Education (2020). Headteachers’ Standards.
Department for Education (2020). National Professional Qualification for Headteachers Framework.
Department for Education (2020). Remote Education Temporary Continuity Direction – Explanatory note.
Ofqual (2021). Decisions on how GCSE, AS and A level grades will be determined in summer 2021.
Ofsted (2019). School Inspection Handbook.
UNESCO (2020). COVID-19 response – remote learning strategy.

Additional resources and support

Read more from our “rethinking assessment” series
NACE spring & summer series: support to reflect, review and develop your provision

Tags: assessment feedback lockdown remote learning research technology

Share |

Permalink | Comments (1)

Using feedback for more able learners to promote self-regulated quality

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

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

Feedback for more able learners: three guiding principles

Posted By Keith Watson FCCT, 08 March 2021

Dr Keith Watson, NACE Curriculum Development Director and former CEO of Portswood Primary Academy Trust

“I once estimated that, if you price teachers’ time appropriately, in England we spend about two and a half billion pounds a year on feedback and it has almost no effect on student achievement.”

– Dylan Wiliam

So why do we do it? Primarily because the EEF toolkit identified feedback as one of the key elements of teaching that has the greatest impact. With this came the unintended consequence of an Ofsted handbook and inspection reports that criticised a lack of written feedback and response to pupils’ responses to marking which led to what became an unending dialogue with dangerous workload issues. At some point triple-marking seemed more about showing a senior leader or external inspector that the dialogue had happened. More recently, the 2016 report of the Independent Teacher Workload Review Group noted that written marking had become unnecessarily burdensome for teachers and recommended that all marking should be driven by professional judgement and be “meaningful, manageable and motivating”.

So what is “meaningful, manageable and motivating” in terms of marking and feedback for more able learners? Is it about techniques or perhaps more a question of style? At Portswood Primary Academy Trust our feedback has always been as close to the point of teaching as possible. It centres on real-time feedback for pupils to respond to within the lesson. Paul Black was kind enough to describe it as “marvellous” when he visited, so not surprisingly this is what we have stuck with. Teachers work hard in lessons to give this real-time feedback to shape learning in the lesson. The importance of this approach is that feedback is instant, feedback is relevant, and feedback allows pupils to make learning choices (EEF marking review 2016). But is there more to it for more able learners?

Getting the balance right

In giving feedback to more able learners the quality of questioning is crucial. This should aim to develop the higher-order skills of Bloom’s Taxonomy (analysing, evaluating and creating). A more facilitative approach should develop thinking. The questions should stimulate thought, be open, and may lead in unexpected directions.

A challenge for all teachers is how to balance feeding back to the range of attainment in a class. The recent Ofsted emphasis on pupils progressing through the programmes at the same rate is not always the reality for teachers. Curriculum demands are higher in core subjects, meaning teachers are under pressure to ensure most pupils achieve age-related expectations (ARE). The focus therefore tends to be more on pupils below ARE, with more time and effort focused there. The demands related to SEND pupils can also mean less teacher time devoted to more able pupils who have already met the standards.

Given that teachers may have less time for more able learners it is vital the time is used efficiently. For the more able it is less about the pupils getting the right answer, and more about getting them to ask the right questions. Detailed feedback in every lesson is unlikely so teachers should:

Look at the week/unit as a whole to see when more detailed focus is timely;
Use pre-teaching (such as in assembly times) to set up more extended tasks;
Develop pupils’ independence and resilience to ensure there is not an over-reliance on the teacher;
Identify times in lessons to provide constructive feedback to the more able group that would have the most impact.

Another tension for teachers is the relationship between assessment frameworks and creativity. For instance, at KS1 and KS2, the assessment criteria at greater depth in writing is often focused on technical aspects of writing. But is this stifling creativity? Is the reduction in students taking A-level English because of the greater emphasis on the technical at GCSE? As one able Year 10 writer commented, “Why do I have to focus on semicolons so much? Writing comes from the heart.” Of course the precise use of semicolons can aid writing effectively from the heart, but if the passion is dampened by narrow technical feedback will the more able child be inspired to write, paint or create? Teachers need to reflect on what they want to achieve with their most able learners.

Three guiding principles

So what should the guiding principles for feedback to more able learners be? Three guiding principles for teachers to think about are:

1. Ownership with responsibility

More able learners need to take more ownership of their work; with this comes responsibility for the quality of their work. Self-marking of procedural work and work that has a definitive answer (the self-secretary idea) allows for children to:

Check – “Have I got it?”
Error identify – “I haven’t got it; here's why”
Self-select to extend – “What will I choose to do next?”

Only the last of these provides challenge. The first two require responsibility from learners for the fundamentals. The third leads to more ownership for pupils to take their learning further. The teacher could aid this self-selection or only provide feedback once a course of action is taken. Here the teacher is nudging and guiding but not dictating with their feedback.

2. Developing peer assessment

There is a danger that peer assessment can be at a low level so the goal is developing a more advanced level of dialogue about the effectiveness of outcomes and how taking different approaches may lead to better outcomes or more efficient practice. For instance, peer feedback allows for emotional responses in art/design/computing work – “Your work made me feel...”; “This piece is more effective because...”. For some more able pupils not all feedback is welcome, whether from peers or teachers. The idea that I can reject your feedback here is important: “Can you imagine saying to Dali that his landscapes are good but he needs to work on how he draws his clocks?”

3. Being selective with feedback

The highly skilled teacher will, at times, decide not to give feedback, at least not straight away. They are selective in their feedback. If you jump in too quickly, it can stop thinking and creativity. It can eliminate the time to process and discover. It can also be extremely annoying for the learner!

In practical terms this means letting them write in English and giving feedback later, not while they are in the flow. In a mathematical/scientific/humanities investigative setting, let them have a go and ask the pertinent question later, perhaps when they encounter difficulty. This question will be open and may nudge rather than direct the pupils. It might not be towards your intended outcome but should allow for them to take their learning forward, perhaps in unexpected directions.

In summary, this gets to the heart of the difference in feedback for more able learners compared to other pupils. While the feedback will inevitably have higher-level subject content, it should also:

Emphasise greater responsivity for the pupil in their learning
Involve suggestion, what ifs and hints rather than direction, and…
Seek to excite and inspire to occasionally achieve the fantastic outcome that a more rigid approach to feedback never would. They may even write from the heart.

What does this look like in practice?

Jeavon Leonard, Vice Principal at Portswood Primary School, outlines a personal approach for more able learners he has used: “Think about when we see a puzzle in a paper/magazine – if we get stuck (as adults) we tend to flip to the answer section, not to gain the answer alone but to see how the answer was reached or fits into the clues that were given. This in turn leads to a new frame of skills to apply when you see the next problem. If this is our adult approach, why would it not be an effective approach for pupils? The feedback is in the answer. Some of the theory for this is highlighted in Why Don't Students Like School? by Daniel Willingham.”

Mel Butt, NRICH ambassador and Year 6 teacher at Tanners Brook Primary, models the writing process for her more able learners including her own second (and third) drafts which include her ‘Think Pink’ improvement and corrections. While this could be used for all pupils, Mel adds the specific requirements into the improved models for more able learners based on the assessment requirement framework for greater depth writing at the end of Key Stage 2. She comments: “I would also add something extra that is specific to the cohort of children based on the needs of their writing. We do talk about the criteria and the process encourages independence too. It's also good for them to see that even their teachers as writers need to make improvements.” The feedback therefore comes in the form of what the pupils need to see based on what they initially wrote.

Further reading

Education Endowment Foundation. Teaching and Learning Toolkit: Feedback.
Education Endowment Foundation (2018). Metacognition and self-regulated learning: Seven recommendations for teaching self-regulated learning & metacognition.
‘Four Quarters Marking’ – A Workload Solution? (2017)
Daniel Willingham (2009). Why Don't Students Like School?

From the NACE blog:

Additional support

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 differentiation feedback metacognition pedagogy questioning

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

How to develop critical thinking skills in the classroom

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

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

The power of effective feedback in remote teaching and learning

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

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

The “cutaway” approach to ability grouping: “Who do I need here now?”

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.

Cutaway

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

Eyre, D. (2002). Structured Tinkering: Improving Provision for the Gifted in Ordinary Schools. Gifted & Talented International 22(1):31-28.
Lowe, H. & McCarthy A. (2020). Making Space for Able Learners – Cognitive challenge: principles into practice. NACE.
Ann McCarthy (2021). Ability grouping: a role in cognitively challenging learning environments?. NACE blog.
Office for Standards in Education (2005). Reviews of Research – Educating the Very Able. Ofsted.
Rosenshine, B. (2010). Principles of Instruction. International Academy of Education.
Watson, K. (2005). Hearing the voice of gifted and talented pupils through the use of learning logs in order to improve teaching provision. NAGTY.

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 the NACE report; contact us to find out about future related live/recorded CPD, or to discuss bespoke training in this area.

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

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

Improving assessment in the current education context

Posted By Hilary Lowe, 14 January 2021

Hilary Lowe, NACE Education Adviser

Despite and also because of what is happening around us currently, we are returning to the big questions in education – what should schools be teaching, and how should we assess that on a day-to-day basis and for the purposes of public accountability and progression throughout all phases of education?

All the big questions are complex, but assessment is a particularly devilish one. It raises issues of course such as what we should be assessing (and ‘measuring’) and when, but also of how to reflect the different rates of progress and the learning capacities of different young people, of how to assess skills as well as knowledge, and of the place of current and possible future technologies in educational assessment. Assessment must also address wider questions of educational equity.

The smaller questions are also important – of how everyday formative and summative assessment practices in all classrooms, real and virtual, can be as effective as possible. All teachers must become as proficient in assessment as they are in pedagogy – two sides of the same coin. We return therefore to the central importance of high-quality, evidence-informed professional development and evaluation and planning tools for schools.

Your chance to contribute: NACE member survey

NACE has a keen interest in contributing to the debate about how everyday assessment practices and public accountability systems may be improved and reformed to the benefit of all learners, including the most able. As an organisation serving schools directly, we plan to start by looking at aspects which have current and practical application for teachers, informing the development of resources (including enhancement of the NACE Curriculum Audit Tool) and training programmes to support schools. Our engagement will also take account of the rapidly evolving context in which schools are working, and of the importance of improving day-to-day formative and summative assessment practices.

Our initial focus will be on:

The assessment of remote learning;
Assessment literacies and practices to promote the learning of more able pupils.

Both areas will of course make reference to issues of educational equity.

As a membership organisation we very much want to involve our members in our work on assessment, and to that end we are inviting members to respond to an online survey focusing on remote feedback and assessment. This will be used alongside a review of emerging best practice and theory in everyday assessment practices, including assessment of remote learning. Your survey contributions will be an important part of our work in this area, and we will feed the initial results back, so that you can benefit from others’ experiences. .

To contribute, please complete the survey by 4 February 2021.

Contribute to the survey.

Tags: assessment CPD feedback lockdown pedagogy remote learning technology

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

New free maths resource to develop self-reflection and motivation

Posted By Ems Lord, 13 January 2021

NACE is proud to NACE is proud to partner with Cambridge University’s NRICH initiative, which is dedicated to creating free maths resources and activities to promote enriching, challenging maths experiences for all. In this blog post, NRICH Director Dr Ems Lord shares details of the latest free maths resources from the team, and an exclusive opportunity for NACE members…

In this blog post, I’m delighted to introduce NRICH’s new child-friendly reflection tool for nurturing successful mathematicians – part of our suite of free maths resources and activities to promote enriching, challenging mathematical experiences for all. We very much hope that you enjoy exploring it with your classes to support them to realise their potential. Such innovations are developed in partnerships with schools and teachers, and we’ll also be inviting you to work directly with our team to help design a future classroom resource intended to challenge able mathematicians (see below or click here for details of our upcoming online event for NACE members).

At NRICH, we believe that learning mathematics is about much more than simply learning topics and routines. Successful mathematicians understand the curriculum content and are fluent in mathematical skills and procedures, but they can also solve unfamiliar problems, explain their thinking and have a positive attitude about themselves as learners of mathematics. Inspired by the 'rope model' proposed by Kilpatrick et al. (2001), which draws attention to the importance of a balanced curriculum developing all five strands of mathematical proficiency equally rather than promoting some strands at the expense of others, we have developed this new model and image which uses child-friendly language so that teachers and parents can share with learners five key ingredients that characterise successful mathematicians:

Understanding: Maths is a network of linked ideas. I can connect new mathematical thinking to what I already know and understand.
Tools: I have a toolkit that I can choose tools from to help me solve problems. Practising using these tools helps me become a better mathematician.
Problem solving: Problem solving is an important part of maths. I can use my understanding, skills and reasoning to help me work towards solutions.
Reasoning: Maths is logical. I can convince myself that my thinking is correct and I can explain my reasoning to others.
Attitude: Maths makes sense and is worth spending time on. I can enjoy maths and become better at it by persevering.

Using the tool during remote learning and beyond

This reflection tool helps learners to recognise where their mathematical strengths and weaknesses lie. Each of the maths activities in our accompanying primary and secondary features is designed to offer learners opportunities to develop their mathematical capabilities in multiple strands. We hope learners will have a go at some of the activities and then take time to reflect on their own mathematical capabilities, so that when full-time schooling returns for all they are ready to share their excitement about what they have achieved, and are eager to continue on their mathematical journeys.

At NRICH, we believe that following the current period of remote learning, success in settling back into schools will be aided by recognising and acknowledging the mathematical learning that has been achieved at home, and encouraging learners to reflect on how they see themselves as mathematicians. It may be that some learners will not recognise the value of what they have achieved while they have been out of the classroom, because what they have been doing at home may be quite different from what they usually do in school. We want learners to appreciate that there are many ways to demonstrate their mathematical capabilities, and to recognise the ways in which they behave mathematically. By inviting children and students to assess their mathematical progress on a broad range of measures, we hope to change the narrative to recognise what learners have achieved, rather than focusing on what they have missed.

Get involved….

As the current period of remote learning continues, we’re continuing to develop new free maths resources, and we always value input from teachers. On 3 February 2021, the NRICH team is hosting an online meetup for NACE members during which we’ll share an exciting new classroom resource, currently under development, intended to challenge able mathematicians. The session will involve an opportunity to explore this new resource and share your insights to help inform its future development. We look forward to working with you. Details and booking.

Very best wishes for 2021 – the NRICH team.

Ref: Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. and Findell, F. (eds) (2001) Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Mathematics Learning Study Committee: National Research Council.

Tags: confidence free resources lockdown maths metacognition mindset motivation remote learning

Share |

Permalink | Comments (0)

Filter by this tag »
Show all posts with this tag »
Find everyone who has used this tag »

	Edit This Favorite
Name:
Category:
Share:	Yes No, Keep Private

Edit This Favorite

What is Phiddlywinks?

Who was the inspiration behind Phiddlywinks?

What do we mean by “challenge for all”?

Are your questions big enough?

Can your learners build more complex schema?

Are you allowing time for “chunky” problems?

How effective is remote learning?

Assessment principles when learning remotely

Remote assessment practice reported by NACE member schools

Opportunities and concerns when using remote learning

Challenges when using remote assessment

How does this apply to more able pupils?

Returning to school: what next?

Assessment of learning summer 2021

Understanding the needs of the more able: a tragic parody

Unravelling the parody

Marking work or just marking time?

So what then should we do?

Getting the balance right

Three guiding principles

1. Ownership with responsibility

2. Developing peer assessment

3. Being selective with feedback

What does this look like in practice?

What is critical thinking?

How are critical thinking skills developed?

1. Context is king: the importance of background knowledge

2. Be explicit: approaches to critical thinking instruction

3. Be strategic: effective teaching strategies

The power of effective feedback

10 essentials of effective feedback

Conclusion

What is “cutaway” and why use it?

Who, when and how to cutaway

References

Additional reading and support

Share your views

Your chance to contribute: NACE member survey

Get involved….

About us

Members

NACE Challenge

Quick links

Contact us

Free updates