Teacher Choices – helping teachers make better decisions in the classroom

E3803B82-A6C5-44EB-8491-BA4CA403344C

Last week the EEF introduced a new initiative called Teacher Choices. It aims to generate the kinds of evidence that teachers can put to practical use in their classrooms with their students. These short teacher-led research studies should be able to help provide teachers with answers to some of the questions they want to ask, rather than the ones often asked on their behalf.

Whilst large-scale research clearly has its place, the focus is not always on the experiences of the classroom teacher and the decisions he or she has to make as routine, often on their own with little or no support and guidance. They tend to answer bigger and more generalizable questions operating at institutional or system-level.

There can also be a lag between the commissioning of big studies and some of the answers teachers want help with right now, such as how exactly should I be using these knowledge organisers I’ve produced? What does it actually mean to quiz frequently in my subject? When is dual coding most useful in lessons? What is the best way to model writing under the visualiser?

This shift in emphasis has the potential to be a helpful and responsive way of drawing upon the knowledge and expertise of the EEF to better support practitioners to make more informed choices. Often top-down decisions can overlook the role of the teacher in making change happen. The Teacher Choices initiative addresses this problem by directly comparing different approaches used by teachers.

The first Teacher Choices trial involves a comparison of different ways of starting a lesson. It compares opening a lesson with a retrieval quiz with starting a lesson with a short discussion. This is exactly the kind of choice that many teachers – including this one – have made over the years and would like to be more informed about in the future.

Other proposed questions include the most effective way to read with a class and whether or not getting students to line up outside a classroom improves behaviour or not. In most schools, it would be really useful to know if asking questions during reading makes a difference to learning or gets in the way on an initial read through. We often do things out of habit without any evidence that it is that effective. Teacher Choices could fill this insight gap.

Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the new EEF approach is that it is driven by teachers themselves. It is classroom practitioners who can frame the direction the EEF takes in this initiative. With this in mind, it would be great to get as many teachers involved in these trials as possible. Recruiting has begun and closes on 7 October 2019.

If these initial questions are not really relevant for your context, it might be worth starting to formulate ones that are. There are lots of possibilities, not just for generalised aspects of classroom teachers, but also for those with a more subject-specific focus. The scope to get evidence on various aspects of subject pedagogy is exciting and a chance to hone our day to day practice.

Here are some suggestions for additional Teacher Choices studies:

  • Does using PPT slides help improve learning?
  • Does greeting your students at the door improve conduct?
  • What is the most effective way of improving students’ notetaking?
  • What is the best way to end a lesson?
  • What is the most effective way to give exam feedback?
  • What is the best time to give back the results of a test?
  • What is the most effective way to model writing?
  • What is the best way to introduce a new poem to class?
  • When is the best time to start teaching analytical writing?

This is a great opportunity to get involved in the future direction of the EEF and get answers to some of the things that you want to ask and that will help improve the impact of your teaching.

 

I didn’t see that coming – how critical friends can help us improve

Screenshot 2019-02-27 19.43.21The critical friend is a recognised feature of school improvement. Someone knowledgeable who is not blinded by institutional bias can point out weaknesses in plans and identify ingredients likely to increase chances of success. The same rationale applies to individuals too – teachers can improve by asking each other challenging questions and by challenging each other’s questionable assumptions.

In Thinking with Bets Annie Duke calls the process of holding ourselves accountable to other people in an effort to improve our practice as ‘truth-seeking’. In a previous life Duke was a highly successful poker player, and in her book she applies her experiences of learning how to make better poker decisions to learning how to get better at decision-making. She offers a number of salient lessons for teachers keen to learn from past decisions so that they make better ones in the future.

Duke notes that when we seek out others to challenge our thinking we are not only tapping into their expertise, but we are also actively taking steps to overcome aspects of our human fallibility, in particular our self-serving tendencies. We are hardwired to take credit for our successes and to look elsewhere for the causes of our mistakes. Exposing ourselves to the scrutiny of others who might see things differently can help us to examine some of the conclusions we reach, often subconsciously.

In the poker world, the practice of taking credit for successes but passing on mistakes is called resulting. Like teachers, poker players often equate the quality of their decisions to the quality of their outcome. So, a successful hand is the result of good-decision making, whereas an unsuccessful hand is the result of poor decision-making, or worse, simply dismissed as bad luck. Think here of the undue attachment we place on students’ results – good or bad. Not only in these instances is the self-serving bias served, but, more importantly, the chance to learn from the decision is lost too.

The differences between success and failure are often very marginal; a good decision one day can be a terrible one the next! Anyone who has ever taught the same lesson to different classes with very different results will recognise this truism. If only the unsuccessful lesson was taught, we might conclude it was a terrible plan and we may even question our teaching. Conversely, if the lesson went well, we could be tempted to take the credit and share our ‘insights’ with others.  But because we experienced both outcomes, we suspect there are more things going on and beyond our control.

Of course, admitting to our errors of judgement and questioning our decisions is painful. But if we slip into resulting we risk missing valuable opportunities to learn from our choices. In cultures where, as Mary Myatt puts it, there is ‘high challenge, low threat’, this opening up of oneself to the feedback of others is seen as healthy and simply part of what it means to improve. Feedback is limited to specific areas of development, so the scope of inquiry and challenge is understood and respected. In this way teachers support each other to get better and a culture of intelligent improvement is normalised.

There has to be ground rules for such collaboration to work properly, though. These rules provide a degree of accountability but also offer a framework in which pairs or small groups of teachers can work together effectively. The person being developed has to be transparent and open to honest feedback and challenge. They have to take responsibility for pinpointing areas of improvement and to share objectivity details of how their decisions pan out. They also have to try and resist the temptation to interpret events in advance of a meeting. This is hard but important, otherwise the process of resulting has already begun before the issues have been laid bare for joint consideration.

In turn the critical friend or friends have to be equally honest. They have to commit to giving accurate feedback within the agreed scope and to ask suitably challenging questions that probe and get to the heart of any potential issues. It is not easy to tell people things they may not want to hear, but providing this is done fairly and within given parameters, it is far more helpful and kind to be honest in the long run. Being a critical friend is not about picking holes in everything, but neither is it about acting as an echo chamber. A critical friend doesn’t have to know everything, but they need to know how to ask the right questions and to encourage others to be truthful with themselves.

Who we approach to act as a critical friend is important. Whilst it may be tempting to gravitate to a buddy in the department, it may be wiser to choose someone else. In Being and ExistenceSartre explains that when we approach someone for their genuine and ‘objective’ advice, we are in fact enacting decisions that have already been made. We choose what we want to hear. Even though we are clearly not discussing the notion of abandonment in an existential world, the point remains: working with familiar faces may reinforce our current thinking, rather than challenge us to be better.

In Thinking Small, Service and Gallagher, two members of the Behavioural Insights Team, outline some of the psychological explanations for why working with others and sharing our insights with partners or groups can be a powerful way of improving. They cite various examples of how voluntarily holding ourselves accountable to other people helps us to be more committed to change and therefore improvement. Groups like Alcoholic Anonymous and Weight Watchers, for instance, work because everyone in the group sees themselves as effectively accountable to each other. They operate on the basis of trust and shared goals – individuals commit to being open and to the changes that the process of openness teases out.

Seeking out a critical friend is ultimately about taking control over your own development. It is about recognising that we all have limitations and ways of seeing things that are not always accurate or the full picture. It’s about targeting specific areas of our practice and drawing upon the experience and perceptions of other people to help us improve them. It is not an exercise in self-flagellation; teaching is tough enough and there is always more that can be done. The point is not whether we can improve or not, but how can we bring about sustained improvement in a sustainable way.

Useful questions and prompts to critical discussions

Learner

  • X happened the other day when I did Y. What do you think?
  • What do you think about me trying X next lesson?
  • Could you look through Y and tell me whether you think it addresses Z?
  • Have you ever experienced X in a lesson? How did you deal with it?
  • Do you think that over the coming weeks X would be a good strategy for dealing with Y?
  • During the lesson I noticed X, Y and Z – what do you think they might mean?
  • Student X and Y do not seem to understand Z. How would you help them?
  • My reasons for X are Y and Z. Do you think these are the right reasons?

Critical friend

  • What were you feeling at this point? How might these feelings have affected your decisions?
  • What is the evidence for your feelings? Might that evidence offer a different explanation?
  • Have you considered Y and Z?
  • What was the outcome of the other students?
  • What might be the consequence of X?
  • Talk me through your decision-making process.
  • If Y happened instead of X, would you still feel the same way? What would be different?

Developing Great Writing Part III – Contrasting Characters

http_com.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonawsThis is the third in a series of blogs on using sentences to develop great writing. My previous two posts looked at sentences that contrast ideas and sentences that link details in a text to relevant contextual information outside of it. This post returns to sentences that contrast, but the focus shifts from contrasting ideas to contrasting characters.

Before half term I spent a bit of time looking at how complex sentences provide a useful structure for comparing and contrasting. Complex sentences make it possible to have the two aspects of a comparison held together within a single sentence. The grammatical flexibility of subordinate clauses also allows for the idea or thing being compared to come first or second – an important feature in terms of improving argument coherence and style.

My focus was comparing the initial presentation of the two main female characters in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, Nora and Christine. Early in Act One, the two childhood friends are on stage together for a prolonged duration. They have not seen each other in years and during that time they’ve had very different experiences, which have impacted on their character and appearance.  Although the end goal is an open comparison across texts, I am keen to practise short, focused comparisons like these as and when they occur to breed confidence and fluency.

Last time round we discussed the sentence dynamics and used content generated in the lesson to model one or two examples on the board. On this occasion, I changed tact. Because I felt students now knew enough about the structure of complex sentences and we had already discussed some of the main differences between Nora and Christine, I got students to write a paragraph cold in response to the question, ‘How does Ibsen contrast the characters of Nora and Christine?’ The only stipulation was that in the set-up, students must use one of the contrasting sentence structures.

Picture6Picture5Picture4

After the lesson I took the paragraphs in and spent a few minutes at break looking over them. This gave me some useful pointers I could address next time. The first thing I did next lesson was to identify some small technical points in a handful of individual answers. Under the visualiser we quickly reviewed half a dozen or so responses, noting a couple of minor grammatical errors and celebrated some of points made. Students could quickly see different ways the sentences had been used and different positions the contrasts had come in the paragraphs.

I then zoomed in on one example in more detail, an answer I thought had an issue common to other responses. The paragraph I chose represented the best example of the point I wanted to make: that overloading contrasting sentences with too many qualifying clauses can lead to confusion and a loss of accuracy. Whilst I want my students to be able to express more complex ideas, I never want that complexity to come at the cost of clarity.

I first showed them the original sentence the student wrote.

Picture1

I then made a couple of changes to improve the phrasing, whilst retaining the underlying structure.

Picture7

The next step was to provide a graphic representation of the different components of the sentence. I wanted to visually show students how within the two sides of the original comparison, there were clauses containing additional analytical comments. This not only enabled the students to see how the sentence worked, but also how the additional information affected the clarity. Increasing the sophistication of the analysis diluted the strength of the comparison between Nora and Christine.

Picture2

The next slide – which stripped out the two analytical clauses – helped to visualise how the sentence had become much clearer. It was easy for students to see that in the reduced version there was less information to hold in mind. What’s more, by removing the additional analysis to later on in the paragraph, the contrasting points could now be seen directly next to each other. It was much easier to see and therefore understand the different ways the two women had changed over the years.

Picture3

I had wanted students to take these insights from the worked class example and apply them to their own paragraph, but there was not enough time left. I probably won’t return to this activity next lesson, but I have made a note to create further opportunities for practice the next time we work on comparative writing.

Thanks for reading.

Developing Great Writing Part II – from Text to Context

914f69693cafc9951be88400871229e2This is the second in a series of blogs on developing great writing. It is intended to chart my ongoing attempts to improve the analytical writing of my A Level students as part of my professional learning, and to share any ideas and strategies I am using with others, for better or for worse. The focus of my approach is the sentence, the building block of great extended writing.

Since my last post, I’ve decided to give a little bit more structure to my plans – to make what I am doing a bit more intentional and systematic. I have identified all the sentences types I want to use with my students and will note them down when I use them. This will help me to cover all the structures, and make it possible for me to better plan when to revisit them at regular intervals.

Here are the sentence functions I want to teach my students over the next two years:

1.1          Locate passage in the play

1.2          Locate passage in the play (with more specific qualifying details)

1.3          Locate passage in the play (with comment on its significance)

1.4          Establish significance of a passage

1.5          Establish structural significance of a passage (follow up point)

1.6          Establish thematic significance of a passage (follow up point)

2.1          Analysing the overall visual spectacle

2.2          Analysing character positioning on stage

2.3          Identifying a dramatic method and explaining its effect

2.4          Identifying linguistic features used in a speech

2.5          Identifying a language feature and explaining its effect

2.6          Exploring images and figurative language

2.7          Commenting on effect of individual words or phrases

3.1          Linking techniques to context (cause then effect)

3.2          Elaborating on techniques

3.3          Connecting details to context (inside out)

3.4          Connecting context to details (outside in)

4.1          Establishing a thematic point of similarity

4.2          Establishing a thematic point of difference

4.3          Establishing a point of difference (within an overarching similarity)

4.4          Linking a previous comparative point to a new comparative point

4.5          Exploring similarities between characters

4.6          Defining differences between characters

5.1          Introducing a critical view to support a point

5.2          Tracing the source of a point made to a critical interpretation

5.3          Introducing a critical view to be explored in more detail

My main writing focus over the coming weeks is helping students to make meaningful contextual links. There are lots of different ways that outside knowledge of the text can illuminate what’s inside it, such as through the depiction of the characters, the choice of setting and obviously through the development of ideas. I want my students to have access to a range of skilful ways of drawing on this background knowledge to enhance their analysis.

Through their study of some Christina Rossetti poems students already know a bit about the Victorian period. They are familiar with the division between the public and the private sphere, the dominance of men in the world of work and the limited scope for women outside the home. They are also aware of the imbalance between male and female attitudes towards sexuality, the important of reputation and of the emergence of the middle classes during this time.

This half term we have moved on to an initial read through of A Doll’s House, another text of the Victorian period with which students will eventually have to compare and contrast to Rossetti’s poetry. The opening of Ibsen’s play represents an ideal opportunity to relate some of this understanding of middle class domesticity to the setup of the Helmer home as shown in the opening stage directions and the early exchanges between Torvald and Nora thereafter.

After reading half a dozen or so pages, students answer a number of straightforward comprehension questions. The purpose here is to check basic understanding, but also to provide opportunities to deepen understanding through elaboration. Planning out these questions in advance is crucial to get the wording and the layering of complexity right. It is this surface / depth questioning that provides students with the confidence and material to write more extensively later on.

After the comprehension work comes a longer, extended question. It is focused around the material already discussed and knitted together by a specific writing focus, in this instance making links between the methods of presentation used by Ibsen and relevant context. Next time it will be on comparing different aspects of the characterisation of Nora and Christine, something I introduced a couple of weeks ago.

This is the point I introduce one of the sentence structures I have identified from the outset (see below). I tend to unpick its structure a bit as a class, but no longer spend quite so much time developing an understanding of the grammatical metalanguage behind it. From experience, this takes far too long and the gains from students knowing the precise technical details is marginal and probably, on balance, not worth it at this stage.

3

There is then some paired discussed about what should be included in the paragraph, which we discuss as a class and usually involves using the same ideas and examples already rehearsed. The idea is to give every opportunity for students’ writing to be successful. I then model an exemplar sentence or two, taking on of the more challenging points the students will probably leave alone. I narrate my thinking for the first example and then do another together with the help of the class. This usually works quite well and doesn’t take too long.

The final part is the independent writing. Because the content has been repeated on several different occasions and students have had seen some modelled examples and orally modelled others themselves, they write quite happily and with confidence for around 7-8 minutes. I’ll focus on the different ways I feedback in a subsequent post, but suffice to say for now it usually immediately under the visualiser or the next lesson after I have time to be a bit more considered.

As ever, here are some of the examples, which I am generally quite happy about. The highlighted sentences are the ones the students consciously crafted on the back of our work in the lesson.

Picture5Picture6Picture7Picture8

Developing Great Writing Pt.1 – Contrasting Ideas

Over the past few years I’ve developed a number of academic sentence structures to use with my students in an effort to improve their writing. I started with generic structures – I had supporting whole school writing in mind – but more recently I’ve developed more subject-specific sentences.

The main focus of my work on improving writing has been A Level, and the fact that I have taught the same syllabus for a number of years now has given me the opportunity to refine and review each year. Whilst I’ve had good feedback from students and teachers who use the sentences, I’m not convinced I’ve fully optimised either the structures or the way I use them in class.

In order to understand what I intend to do next, it might be useful to know a bit of what I’ve done already. In recent years I’ve left extended writing until year 13, believing that students write much better when they know more about the material. Most of year 12 has therefore been spent building up an understanding of the texts, which include Rossetti’s poetry, A Doll’s House and Hamlet

In the main this has proved successful – when students have started writing at length their sentences have been much more controlled and deliberate. I’m beginning to think, however, that their writing could be even better if they mastered a number of specific, high-leverage, sentence forms in year 12 too. I don’t want to lose the focus on knowledge development, but I do want to get them to practise applying some of that knowledge at the point of acquisition through small bursts of writing. I think this will help internalise certain sentence structures, which we can then build upon in year 13 when we turn our attention to synthesising knowledge and understanding in full essays.

So, this year I’ve started building in lots of deliberate practice with the subject-specific sentence structures that I have honed over the past few years. Sometimes we practise single sentences whilst at other times we write whole paragraphs, but with a particular focus on just one or two sentence constructions within that paragraph. I’m constantly using other effective strategies whilst teaching writing, such as including examples and non-examples, live modelling and co-construction with the students, dual coding and frequent oral rehearsal.

My first attempt is illustrated below:

1

I spent a couple of minutes recapping students’ understanding of complex sentences, and then showed them how these sentence structures can be used to make simple comparison points, such as to contrast aspects of a character or theme. Through further exemplification we looked at how contrasts can come after the main clause or before it. We considered the stylistic and analytical rationales for each approach.

The next step was a bit of practice in class with the different sentence formulations, including punctuating the clauses correctly.

2

What I like about this kind of activity is the ease with which I can get a handle on a whole class’s writing. I have 13 students in my class and I can look at the sentences that each of them produce in just a few minutes. I don’t really give them any detailed individual feedback, but rather look for trends across the class. The students like the quick turnaround and since they frequently make the same kind of errors, they can see the benefit of this approach.

And here are some of the results. Not perfect, of course, but there are some clearly focused comparisons, which we can build upon later on.

IMG_5106IMG_5108IMG_5107IMG_5109

I think my next focus is going to be on weaving in contextual details.

Thanks for reading.