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? 

• Using feedback for more able learners to promote self-regulated quality
• The power of effective feedback in remote teaching and learning

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.

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

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

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

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

 

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

Does ability grouping benefit learners?

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

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

How should teachers and schools approach ability grouping?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Additional reading and support

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

Share your views

How do you use ability grouping, and why? Share your experiences by commenting on this blog post or by contacting communications@nace.co.uk 

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

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

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

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

Here are eight key areas discussed during the meeting:

1. Strengthening monitoring and evaluation

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

2. Engaging with parents and carers

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

3. The zone of proximal development

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

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

4. Myths and misconceptions

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

5. High expectations for all

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

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

6. Developing literacy and writing skills

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

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

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

7. Metacognition

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

8. Curriculum planning

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

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

References:

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

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

Join your nearest NACE R&D Hub

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