Michele Filippone commented that, ‘The greatest attribute of questioning is that it stimulates thinking in the classroom.’

Classroom teachers spend a large percentage of time in the questioning–response mode, with research indicating approximately 40% of classroom time is spent in this mode. In many classrooms the questioning-response modes follows the IRE pattern: initiate a question, gather a response, evaluate the response. 

 I – Initiate

R – Respond

E – Evaluate

Consider the following two scenarios based on two geography lessons where Charlotte and Luke are teaching year 9 students the reasons why waterfalls are formed. Imagine that teachers, Charlie and Luke, have finished delivering their explanation and modelling for how waterfalls are formed and they want to check for understanding and whether students have been listening:

Scenario 1

Charlie begins to check for understanding by asking her first question using cold calling:

“What is hydraulic action…..(wait time), Emily?”

“Hydaulic action is the sheer force of the water wearing away the land.”

“Excellent, Emily.”

“The sheer force of the water acting on the land is called…(wait time), Tom?”

“Hydraulic action, Miss.”

Charlie continues to use cold calling to check students’ understanding of the key processes and the stages of waterfall formation. She asks alternating questions to check that students are listening to their peer responses. After asking several questions she sets her students off on an independent task.

Now lets consider the next scenario from Luke’s classroom.

Scenario 2

Luke begins to check for understanding with the same purpose as Charlie in scenario 1:

“When I ask the question, I want you to think for a short time before giving me your answer. [Pause] I want all hands up for this question and I want you to answer in a full sentence. I know you can do it! How does hydraulic action shape the landscape……Emily?”

“Hydraulic action is the sheer force of the water wearing away the land, sir.”

“A clear and correct answer, Emily.”

“Let’s all to do this one together. Where bedload in the river wears away its bed and bank this is called?”

“Abrasion” (whole class together) / (one student shouts out attrition)

“Lucy, why did you go for attrition?”

“I thought attrition involved the bedload wearing away the land.”

(Luke makes a note of this to come back to)

“Hands down for this question. The sheer force of the water wearing away the land is known as…….Sophie?

“Hydraulic action, sir.”

Over the next few minutes Luke continues using a range of different questions to check for understanding and whether students are and have been listening. Luke mixes up between hands up, hands down cold calling and uses mini whiteboards to check students have accurately remembered the sequence of formation before they begin the independent task.

In both scenarios, Charlie and Luke have used cold calling but it is not always clear if all students are listening and have understood. When Charlie asks her first question she can’t be certain all students are listening and ultimately can only ask a few students to check their understanding.

In the second scenario Luke uses a range of strategies to build and sequence his questions to both check for understanding and whether his students are listening. Using a range of hands up, hands down, choral and mini whiteboard responses, Luke can get a picture of students’ understanding. Alongside this, by using a variety of different strategies to question he can reduce the potential of students merely mimicking other students. Instead, he can check if they are listening.

Once Luke has finished using this sequence of questions he can then set them off on an independent task to explain why waterfalls form.

Ultimately, questions should stimulate thinking and when we are introducing new knowledge to students the aim is to sequence our questions so they build in complexity as we check for understanding and see whether students are still listening. When we do this there is a greater probability in demonstrating their understanding as they move from guided to independent practice.

A few years ago, knowledge organisers were the new trend in education. Twitter was awash with fancy decorated A4 or A3 sheets filled with knowledge from a topic. But, more recently they seem to have disappeared with many seeing them as one of those fads that have merely fizzled out and become nothing more than a burden on teacher’s time. Another example of a trend that didn’t really take off.

I wonder if that’s because of the reason why they were introduced and how they have subsequently been introduced. Like all trends in education, the impact they can have on learning is all dependent on how well they are implemented and subsequently reviewed for your own individual context. Similarly to road maps, something I blogged about a few months ago, knowledge organisers take time to create and we know teacher’s time is precious so maybe they just aren’t worth the paper they are written on? 

Jon Hutchinson provided a useful definition for knowledge organisers:

‘Knowledge Organisers are the beating heart of each unit, with the core content meticulously curated and itemised to clarify the necessary (but not sufficient) knowledge to develop a sophisticated schema for each unit of work.’

Whilst Bradford Research School define knowledge organsiers as:

‘A Knowledge Organiser is a one-page document which presents curated, essential, organised knowledge with clarity. Knowledge is presented in a format which facilitates retrieval practice, elaboration and organisation, in order to develop a schema.’

I think both definitions are a useful starting point when considering how to create and use knowledge organisers within your own school context; the idea that they provide essential knowledge that has been carefully curated to enable the development of schema. It’s this careful creation and organisation of the knowledge that is the most important aspect when thinking about introducing knowledge organisers. Instead, all too often we see something produced by someone else and try to retrospectively insert it into our own context and wonder why it doesn’t work. 

When knowledge organisers were first appearing, the typical format being presented was an A4 or A3 document that covered all the important knowledge that pupils would need for a unit of study. I trialled this approach for a number of years and quickly realised that I was having to make the following decisions based on the space available:

• What knowledge is most important?
• What knowledge can I miss out?
• How do I structure them to be most effective in supporting learning?
• What do I do with knowledge not on the organiser?

It quickly became apparent to me that this wasn’t the best approach because I was having to make decisions about what knowledge I could leave out because there wasn’t sufficient room to fit it into this neat A4 or A3 document. Equally, the structure of the organiser became an issue because the whole unit organisers became confusing and actually not organised at all. In my experience, pupils had to not only navigate such a complex document, they also had to find the knowledge that they wanted to revisit with little reference back to how it was connected to the learning intention. Inevitably, we had a situation where pupils were using a knowledge organiser at a surface level. 

Let’s revisit one of our curriculum road maps based on our year 8 Hazardous World study, illustrated below:

This particular unit of study has six core learning intentions which build on prior knowledge and connect knowledge from previous study across the broader year 8 curriculum. From this we then have our six chunked knowledge checkers that are directly linked to each of these core learning intentions, illustrated below:

Each one of these chunked knowledge organisers links to the component from the curriculum road map with clear guidance for students written at the top and what will be on the next one. One of the key benefits of the knowledge checkers is pupils don’t have to search for the information they need on one A4 or A3 sheet because the knowledge is focused on each component of the curriculum journey. It has also allowed all of the core components to be included, unlike previously structured knowledge organisers. The knowledge checkers have the same format based on what we have taught pupils for each one of the core curriculum components.

• Core knowledge
• Key vocabulary
• Wider reading
• Core misconceptions

During lessons, pupils will use the knowledge checkers when learning new content and to support reflection of previously taught content. For example, when applying knowledge to an application task, we will get pupils to refer back to the knowledge checkers to promote the use of the appropriate core vocabulary.

For homework, students will complete several retrieval activities and these will be reviewed at the beginning of the next lesson. The knowledge checkers help to clarify what students are expected to know and will also be referred to in lessons when introducing or asking students to use key terminology.

At the end of the learning cycle, students will use the learning journey to review the core knowledge that they are expected to know and practise retrieving knowledge from memory. 

Let’s go back to my thoughts at the beginning of this blog: Are knowledge checkers, similarly to road maps, a waste of time or not? If there is a clear rationale and well-thought-out implementation, knowledge checkers can be a tool to support students with their understanding of the core components of the curriculum and for revisiting and reflecting on previously taught content.

Over the last few months, I have seen a degree of scepticism over the use of curriculum road maps. In one camp, many argue that it is a waste of teacher time, and in the other camp that they can be a tool to support learning. For me, it comes back to why we are creating the curriculum maps and how schools and teachers are choosing to use them. If they are there as a glossy poster for visitors or only ever appear at specific points of the year, then I would suggest that it was probably a waste of teachers’ time. Equally, a curriculum map that displays the whole subject curriculum over years 7-11 is nothing more than a poster to look at because there is too much information for a pupil or parent to absorb in a meaningful way. So, should we just ditch them and invest our time in something else? 

Let’s take a moment to reflect on the complexity of learning. It is widely accepted that learning is complex with the relationship between teacher instruction and what pupils learn a fluctuating and unpredictable process. Teachers can spend hours refining methods of instruction and creating environments that promote learning but we have to accept the harsh reality that pupils may not necessarily learn what had been intended. This is where the role of checking for understanding throughout the learning process can help teachers to determine whether the intended instruction has had the desired effect. In doing so, we are assessing what learning has taken place, therefore determining our next step for responding. But the process of assessing learning doesn’t just fall on the teacher, as indicated by the work of Cowie and Bell:

“The process used by teachers and students to recognise and respond to student learning to enhance that learning, during the learning” (Cowie & Bell, 1999, p. 32)

Dylan Wiliam’s work around formative assessment builds on and supports this definition, emphasising the role the learner plays in the learning process. This is where the five key strategies of formative assessment were created by Wiliam and Leahy. 

The part that I want to focus on is the strategy of, ‘clarifying, sharing and understanding learning intentions and success criteria.’ For students to be ‘owners’ of their learning, they need to be clear about what it is they are learning, the goal you want them to achieve and how they can get there through the success criteria. 

This is where we have been using our learning journeys to narrate the curriculum with our students at the beginning of each lesson. Below is an example of one of these learning journeys for year 8, focusing on the theme of a dangerous world:

At the beginning of each lesson, we will clarify and share the learning intentions for the upcoming lesson and link it to the previous lesson(s), all the time discussing how each component links together to form the bigger picture. In many cases, this opens up an opportunity to link the current curriculum focuses to previous units of study through our synoptic links. Teachers do this every lesson, clarifying the learning intention and reviewing previously taught knowledge to demonstrate the links. What we have found is, as a result, students can articulate what they are learning, allowing them to understand the bigger picture and not see each lesson as a standalone. Alongside this, it has prompted greater curriculum conversations amongst colleagues about what our intentions are for each part of the unit and the most effective way to approach teaching each component. In my experience, traditional medium-term curriculum plans are compiled using a rigid school template and get filed away never to be looked at again during the academic year. By taking this approach instead, it has created clarity for both teachers and students.

Throughout the unit, we get students to engage with the learning journey outside of lessons as part of our homework strategy through our adaptive revision guides. Here’s an example from the same year 8 unit:

Each one of these chunked knowledge organisers links to the component from the curriculum road map with clear guidance for students written at the top and what will be on the next one. For homework, students will complete several retrieval activities and these will be reviewed at the beginning of the next lesson. The knowledge organisers help to clarify what students are expected to know and will also be referred to in lessons when introducing or asking students to use key terminology.

At the end of the learning cycle, students will use the learning journey to review the core knowledge that they are expected to know and practice retrieving knowledge from memory. An example is shown below:

Let’s go back to my thoughts at the beginning of this blog: Are curriculum roadmaps a waste of time or not? If there is a clear rationale and well-thought-out implementation, learning journeys can be a tool to support students with their understanding of what they are learning.

Over the last couple of academic years, I’ve been reflecting on the role feedback plays in our classrooms. Feedback is a pivotal part of the teaching process. Whether it be verbal or written, we are immersed in the act of giving and receiving some form of feedback every lesson, every day. In my experience, when we give pupils feedback, the aim is to shine a light on their performance and provide guidance on whether they need to re-tune or restructure information that has been stored in their memory. And yet for many years I’ve never felt that my investment in giving feedback had an impact on learning. The amount of time we invest in giving feedback doesn’t necessarily equate to improving learning. All too often the quantity of feedback is confused with the quality.

Hattie and Timperley’s definition of the purpose of feedback provides a useful starting point for how we can apply a more effective approach in our classrooms:

‘To reduce discrepancies between current understandings/performance and a desired goal.’ (Hattie and Timperley, 2009)

For this blog, I’m referring to reducing this discrepancy as ‘the middle step’ in the teaching process. Ultimately, this is what we are aiming to do as teachers. We have an end in mind through our curriculum stories and we use feedback to bridge the gap between what we have taught and what gaps might be missing from the original intended goal. So, how can we reduce this discrepancy between pupils’ current understanding and the desired goal? Hattie and Timperley indicated that we could do this in two ways: looking at it from the perspective of us as teachers, as well as the pupils themselves.

We want to reduce the discrepancy as much as possible when setting up a task for pupils to complete so that the middle step between their performance and the desired goal is as little as possible. This is because when the middle step is deemed too difficult to achieve, we get pupils pushing back against our feedback. I’ve learnt this the hard way in the past. I used to believe giving pupils extensive feedback that detailed numerous next steps was the gold standard. Falsely supported by the more written feedback teachers provided, the more praise this received when it came to a ‘book look’. However, this glossed over the purpose of giving feedback. If we want pupils to feedforward and action the feedback we give them, it needs to be seen as attainable. The more we give feedback to ‘look good’ the more we divert away from the purpose. This is something I have previously expressed:

‘The continued reliance on the use of marking as a proxy for teacher performance leads to questionable impacts on learning. The more teachers come to resent the process of marking, the greater the variability in its effectiveness, reducing it further when it already has a low overall effect size.’

When it comes to our role as teachers in initiating effective feedback, the first step is all about how as a teacher we set up the task that we want pupils to complete to demonstrate they have understood/ performed as we had intended. In my classroom, this is all about sharing the success criteria and being explicit about what I want them to do. For example, if I want them to explain the processes that occur at plate boundaries, my success criteria will indicate the following:

SC1. Direction of plate movement

SC2. Processes causing plate movement

SC3. Processes that cause specific hazards to happen

SC4. Location detail

Sharing this success criteria and being explicit about what success looks like is a crucial step because we want pupils to know the ingredients and have in mind what the concept of quality will look like. Alongside knowing what success will look like for the work that you want them to complete, they also need to know the disciplinary traits for what success will look like in the subject. Prior to completing the task, I will explain what success looks like by modelling this with my pupils. In the example of explaining the processes that occur at plate boundaries, I will have already taught pupils the processes that take place at the different boundaries so that when I model this success I will model this on a different plate boundary to the one that the pupils will write about.

Once pupils have completed their response following the movement from guided to independent practice, I will share my feedback through a whole-class feedback template like the one below. The initial focus here is on how they performed based on the initial success criteria.

When I give pupils this feedback, I will go through what I’d seen from their responses and discuss the misconceptions. I will often have a further model based on the question I wanted them to answer for reflection as they look at the next steps to feedforward. The improvement statements will be written on their work so that they know what the next steps are with this piece of work. Thinking back to a ‘less is more’ approach, I give fewer concise targets for the next steps. I will then give pupils time to reflect on their individual next steps.

The power of feedback is determined by the power of the follow-up. So, the next stage is about feeding forward and not merely looking to improve this piece of work. Instead of improving that piece of work and moving on, I will get pupils to write an answer using the same success criteria but in another context. In this example, it would be another plate boundary.

It’s now the 13^th day of remote teaching. The concept of self-regulated learning, particularly during this time of lockdown, will probably be a significant cog in the extent of the knowledge gap pupils may have on return to the classroom. In my reflections over the Easter holidays, I wonder how many school leaders and teachers have invested time with their pupils to support and embed strategies to make them more effective self-regulated (reflective) learners. And to what extent will this have an influence on the potential knowledge gaps. I believe the distance learning provision can be adapted to enable learning and minimise the knowledge gaps.

The combined research on self-regulated learning and cognitive load theory have culminated in the following working definition:

‘Self-regulated learning is an active and constructive process in which a learner plans, monitors, and exerts control over his or her own learning process.’ – Kostons, Van Gog, & Paas, 2012.

For me, the key takeaway here, is how can we as teachers support pupils in planning, monitoring and exerting control over their own learning? How can we provide a provision where most pupils are accessing tasks to activate some form of learning?

In Rosenshine’s Principle of Instructions, one of the key factors highlighted that the ‘most effective’ teachers presented new materials to pupils in small steps so as not to overload their working memory and regularly check for understanding before moving on. As pupils begin to master these small steps, teachers can then increase the cognitive demand by building on the complexity of knowledge to expand their schema. At this present time, this is more challenging! The idiosyncrasies of the classroom environment and the ability to be responsive is somewhat different when teaching remotely. However, we should not lose sight of our understanding of how we learn and adapt this to the current situation to support pupils’ learning.

In the most recent report by the EEF on the assessment of distance learning, one key point sticks out to me in their key findings – ‘teaching quality is more important than how lessons are delivered.’ The report goes on to highlight that pupils ‘can’ learn through remote teaching and that teachers should focus on the key elements of teaching that run through Rosenshine’s Principles: expert explanations, appropriate scaffolding, and regular feedback. How this is delivered, whether that be through synchronous teaching via online platforms like Zoom or asynchronous teaching through activities presented via Google Classroom or BBC Bitesize, provided no evidence of having a clear difference on pupils’ learning.

If pupils are going to be more effective self-regulated learners, the quality of the teaching and materials provided should be the focus. There should be careful consideration of the amount and complexity of ‘new’ knowledge that teachers expect pupils to engage with remotely. Koston 2012, highlighted that self-regulated learning can be adaptive so long as the tasks that were provided matched the learner’s needs. Vygotsky 1978, also indicated tasks should be within the learner’s ‘zone of proximal development’; not too easy or too challenging. This brings me back to the first key finding from the EEF report that the ‘teaching quality’ is more important. If teachers create online learning tasks that are too difficult and require greater cognitive demand for pupils to process in their working memory, this will lead to reduced engagement and learning. An 80/20 approach to remote learning provision may provide the right conditions to enable pupils to fall within their zone of proximal development. Providing pupils with learning tasks that build on previous knowledge taught before the lockdown mixed with the introduction of new concept and processes that are interlinked may be more beneficial.

In the first instance, prepare pupils for their remote learning. What I mean by this is to provide pupils with an outline plan for the week ahead. This will give them a heads up on what their learning task will entail for your subject for that week, reducing the anxiety of not knowing what to expect. Provide a checklist for pupils to track their completion of assignments.

Secondly, a possible approach to structure remote learning tasks is to have opportunities for pupils to REVIEW, INPUT, APPLY, REVIEW.

• REVIEW – The starting point of a remote learning assignment could be to reflect on previously learnt knowledge through a recall exercise, allowing pupils to bring knowledge back to their working memory.
• INPUT – In the second stage of the assignment, teachers create tasks that enable pupils to review concepts or processes within their subject that will be needed to complete the application part. The important part here, as indicated by the EEF report, is not ‘how’ this is presented but the ‘quality’ of the explanation. Present this is in small steps to not cause cognitive overload.
• APPLY – This is the part where pupils can practise applying the new knowledge to a task to demonstrate their understanding.
• REVIEW – In the last part of the assignment a final opportunity for pupils to check their understanding.

 

My day typically begins at 7am, I like to be in school early to be prepared for the day. I find this time is usually the best to beat the photocopying rush and gives me the opportunity to reflect on what I’m teaching for the day ahead. I don’t write ‘lesson plans’ but I have a notebook with a brief outline of my intentions for the knowledge I want students to gain. It’s then time to support colleagues by checking in for the day and ensuring they are prepared.

1. Meet and greet

I am a firm believer that the beginning of a lesson is crucial in setting the standards and building relationships with students. It gives you the opportunity to gauge each student’s emotional state before they enter the room, as well as welcoming them into the lesson. This is my territory and I expect students to meet the high standards that I set every lesson. I greet students every lesson, giving a warm welcome and checking their uniform, whilst at the same time providing a presence on the corridor to ensure a smooth transition between lessons and support for other teachers in the department. This has led to a calm and purposeful beginning to lessons with fewer incidences of off-task behaviour. A study was conducted by Allday and Pakurar in 2007 to measure the effects of teacher greetings on students’ on-task behaviour. The study involved teachers greeting students at the door with their name and a brief positive interaction. The results of the study found that teacher greetings increased on-task behaviour during the first 10 minutes of the lesson.

2. Reflection

The first ten minutes of the lesson for me is crucial and is dedicated to time for students to reflect on their learning from previous lessons, or for me to assess their understanding of the core concepts and processes we will be exploring in the lesson. I want to know their starting point and any prior knowledge they already have, or misconceptions. This is where retrieval practice is a powerful teaching tool to support knowledge recall, which I blogged about with some of the strategies I use here. I insist that the retrieval of knowledge is done independently and silently. I have explicitly explained to students the reasons why this part of the lesson is important and the power of retrieval in building their schema. I firmly believe we must share the science of learning with students so that they appreciate how these strategies will support them in achieving or exceeding their potential. As a department, we have asked students about the beginning of the lesson and this has been received positively as expressed by one of our year 10 students, ‘I believe that having a quiz at the start of a lesson allows me to recap knowledge. They allow me to challenge my memory from past lessons and boost my overall knowledge of key information and facts. Without these short quizzes, I don’t think I would remember as many facts.’ The research around knowledge retrieval provides strong evidence to support the effectiveness of this strategy in enhancing learning. When students are asked to engage in the process of retrieval it produces direct effects on learning because every time, we retrieve knowledge, that knowledge is altered, and the ability to reconstruct that knowledge again in the future is enhanced. The study by (Roediger and Karpicke 2006) illustrated by the graph below, produced results to support the use of retrieval. Where the participants merely repeatedly studied items, it produced no effect on retention, compared to the other participants who used repeated retrieval. In the study conducted, the repeated retrieval produced a 150% improvement in long term retention. This is further supported by Barek Rosenhine’s Principles of Instruction, where the use of daily review to improve fluency in knowledge recall was used by the most effective teachers.

3. Knowledge Input

After spending some time on recapping, the next step is to share the learning intentions with students. I certainly don’t get them to write these down, this is white noise and a waste of time. I usually start with something like the following,

“Do you remember the last lesson when we…?”

“Well, today we are going to build on that knowledge to…”

“By gaining an understanding of… we will be able to…”

I want students to be immersed in their learning journey and know how the different threads of their curriculum tapestry are weaved together. With that in mind, I don’t differentiate learning objectives, every student, every lesson is aiming towards the same outstanding outcome. Too often, teachers are encouraged to differentiate learning objectives, with learning ladders on opening PPT slides paraded as good practice. Geoff Petty defines differentiation as follows: ‘the process by which differences between learners are accommodated so that all students in a group have the best possible chance of learning’. I believe if teachers set the high challenge and allow students to enter the ‘struggle zone’, then with appropriate support, we see students thrive. This was excellently explained by Andy Tharby and Shaun Allison in Make Every Lesson Count.

It’s now time to provide the input, the knowledge that I want students to know. For many years, educationalists advocated that teachers became facilitators of learning, which meant less teacher talk and more discovery learning. All too often this led to knowledge gaps developing and misconceptions. Fast forward to today in G007, I spend more time talking and explicitly explaining concepts and processes. I have an ‘explanation spot’, which is my whiteboard and I use this space to present new knowledge. I present this new knowledge in small chunks, expecting all students to actively listen with all eyes on me and no distractions. I blogged before about my belief on the four cogs to expert explanation, which summarised here:

Cog 1 – Passion

It occurred to me a few years ago, when watching Hans Rosling deliver his presentations on our ever-evolving world, there was something about his delivery that left me waiting on his every word, his passion for the subject. He would suddenly change the pitch and speed of his voice, emphasising certain words, as he would build the anticipation of the explanation before revealing the answer. This delivery kept me captivated and wanting to know more, which I believe is important when instilling rich knowledge to students. In the classroom, this comes through our ability as teachers to tell stories and use concrete examples to allow students to relate to difficult concepts and processes.

Cog 2 – Precision

When we are delivering an expert explanation to our students, we need to know the mechanics of our subject, we need to be the experts. Therefore, the delivery of knowledge to the students in front of us should be done with precision, reducing the extraneous load by removing unnecessary information and ‘sticking to the point’.

Cog 3 – Rehearse

I believe it is important that we plan and craft out the delivery of our explanation. After all, if we can deliver an explanation with passion and precision, we have a greater chance of captivating our students. I remember a few years ago sitting through a workshop with Chris Moyse @ChrisMoyse and he said something that has remained with me ever since, ‘do the same thing, but better’. I often use a blank piece of paper when planning my explanation and use CPD time with the department to practise the delivery of our explanations, especially with concepts that students struggle to understand. The more we rehearse our explanations the more captivating they will be.

Cog 4 – Delivery

This for me is the most fundamental cog in expert explanation, the delivery, which is why rehearsing is crucial. The research on our working memory is important to consider when delivering an explanation because even with a passionate and precision pitch, we can quickly cause cognitive overload. This is where Barak Rosenshine’s Principle of Instructions is key to smooth delivery. Rosenshine’s study outlines the importance of delivering explanations step by step, each one building on the next, ‘the most successful teachers did not overwhelm their students by presenting too much new material at one time, and they taught in such a way that each point was mastered before the next point was introduced.’ Therefore, our explanations should be chapters of knowledge that are presented overtime to ensure that students are guided through difficult concepts and processes.

 

 

4. Practice

After explaining new concepts and processes, I model what excellence looks like and ask lots of questions to check for understanding before students begin to independently practice. I often use the I, we, you modelling approach to support this practice to ensure students are ready to embark on applying the knowledge acquired. This element of a lesson is important and as outlined in Rosenshine’s paper, without this guided practice, students will struggle when asked to independently apply the knowledge discussed.

‘Teachers who spent more time in guided practice and had higher success rates also had students who were more engaged during individual work at their desks. This finding suggests that, when teachers provided sufficient instruction during guided practice, the students were better prepared for independent practice, but when the guided practice was too short, the students were not prepared for the seatwork and made more errors during independent practice.’

Once students are independently practising, I will expect this to be done silently to ensure they are focused. I will then circulate the room the provide further guidance by asking and answering questions and giving live feedback.

To finish the lesson, I will reflect on the knowledge we have covered and encourage students to share their answers to the application tasks. It’s then about joining the dots and reinforcing where the thread of knowledge fits in their curriculum tapestry.

The final part is an orderly dismissal from my classroom once students are standing behind their desks in silence.

I’m now in my 11^th year of teaching and I regularly reflect on my ‘pedagogy toolkit’ during the early stages of my career where it was all about discovery-based learning. I remember on several occasions being observed as a ‘facilitator’ in the room, with students working together to understand the processes that occurred at the different tectonic plate margins. You know what’s coming next, it was judged to be an outstanding lesson! For a few years, this approach to teaching and learning would continue and I was often confused when I’d set up this whiz-bang lesson, judged as outstanding, weeks later it was as if the lesson hadn’t taken place. I had provided the means for them to acquire knowledge, but they hadn’t retained the knowledge or even understood it, therefore they hadn’t learnt it.

The workaround cognitive load theory explains the reasons why teachers were struggling to understand why students were often forgetting what they had been taught the previous week:

‘Learning is defined as an alteration in long-term memory. If nothing has been altered in long-term memory, nothing has been learned.’ – Pass & Sweller (2014), Cognitive Load Theory.

Fast forward to today, my ‘pedagogy toolkit’ is very different from research-based evidence significantly influencing the way I approach lessons. Retrieval practice is one strategy that has transformed my approach to teaching. In the past, teaching was all about giving students knowledge in the hope that it would ‘stick’. The research on the forgetting curve, indicates the limitations of this approach, with the findings highlighting that if knowledge isn’t revisited, it can be completely lost from memory within a week. The art of retrieving previous knowledge regularly supports long term retention, aiding easier recall:

‘The critical mechanism for promoting retention of information is the successful retrieval of that information.’ – Andrew C Butler & Henry L Roediger (2008), Memory & Recognition.

The studies conducted by Karpicke and Roediger on studying and retrieving knowledge, which you can read here –  Karpicke & Roediger Study, demonstrated the power of retrieval in promoting meaningful learning.

Over the past few years, I have embedded retrieval practice in my teaching, and sharing the importance of this with my students, so that they understand the benefit and reduce their anxiety around ‘knowing stuff’. So, what does retrieval practice look like in my classroom? Here are four strategies that I have embedded, which are having a positive impact on improving student learning and long-term retention.

 

1. Low-stake quizzing

At the start of the lesson, students are provided with six low-stake questions where they are actively recalling information from memory, without any aid from previous notes. The questions are spaced based on knowledge over time. I provide instant feedback following the short quiz and use the evidence to inform my planning in the coming weeks, or explicitly re-teach a concept or process at that point before moving on.

I asked several students their thoughts of retrieving knowledge from memory using this type of quiz.

‘I believe that having a quiz at the start of a lesson allows me to recap knowledge. They allow me to challenge my memory from past lessons and boost my overall knowledge of key information and facts. Without these short quizzes, I don’t think I would remember as many facts.’ – Emily, a Year 10 student.

‘In my opinion, having an opportunity to recall knowledge leads you to memorise and understand subjects/ topics a lot more because you are constantly recapping your knowledge. For example, at the beginning of year 7 I got confused by the different processes of erosion. I can now remember what they are and what they mean. I believe that they are very effective.’ Eva, a Year 9 student.

 

2. Memory dump

This is an opportunity for students to recall knowledge about a concept or process using a blank sheet of A4 paper. For example, giving students 5 minutes to recall the physical and human causes of river flooding. This is again done from memory without any notes. Once the time is up, instant feedback is provided through a peer discussion around what they have managed to recall. Then using a knowledge organiser, they can identify the gaps in knowledge, and this becomes a focus for their homework during that week, or again if there is a concept or process that needs explicitly re-teaching, I do this before moving on.

 

3. Memory draw

There are numerous studies that provide evidence for the benefits of drawing to aid learning. I regularly get students to recall a previously studied concept or process by drawing it from memory. For example, when looking at the processes of erosion, students draw the process before writing their understanding of it.

 

4. Image recall

The use of images in Geography is a powerful strategy in supporting knowledge recall and retention, which can be done in several ways to support learning. For example, using images of river and coastal landforms to recall the sequence of formation from memory. Providing students with the diagram and asking them to annotate the diagram to recall the sequence.

How many times as a teacher have you received feedback like the following?

“You need to have more clarity in how you explain ideas to students.”

“You need to work on improving your presence in the classroom.”

“You need to question students more.”

Do you remember how frustrating it was to receive such feedback after you thought the lesson had gone well, leaving you wondering: what does ‘more clarity’ actually mean when explaining? What does ‘having more presence’ look like in the classroom? Why do I need to question students more? How do I question students more? This type of feedback can leave you feeling disheartened and not ‘good enough’ by not providing specific support in what to do next.

All too often the feedback and advice given to teachers lack precise meaning that cannot be actioned, leading to limited improvement in teacher practice and ultimately student outcomes. In a recent poll, I asked the value of observations to the Twitter community. The view was clear: observations in many schools are providing limited support towards improving teachers’ professional development.

 

This is where instructional coaching has provided evidence for school leaders to move away from traditional observations and use coaching to contribute to improving teacher’s professional development. In 2018, Sam Sim went as far as saying instructional coaching is currently the best-evidenced form of CPD. Sim defines instructional coaching as follows:

‘Instructional coaching involves an expert teacher working with a novice in an individualised, classroom-based, observation-feedback-practice cycle.’

One of the examples of several pieces of evidence that supports his claim is a randomised controlled trial from the My Teaching Partner (MTP) intervention, which demonstrated improved secondary school results in the state of Virginia by an effect size of 0.22, where students were taught by teachers who had made the greatest amount of progress from their coaching sessions. This was further supported by a replicated experiment in 2015 where similar positive results were recorded. Sim goes on to provide further evidence of research that supports the positive effect of using coaching to support teacher professional development and the impact this has on student outcomes. The article can be read here – https://samsims.education/research/.

In Get Better Faster, Paul Bambrick-Santoyo outlines a 6-step instructional coaching model (shown below) that focuses on getting ‘granular’ by breaking down the feedback teachers receive into one clear highest leverage action step. Just like a football coach might focus on practising one technique, like short passes, in this model the teaching coach focuses on working with that teacher on one skill at a time. For example, it might be that the coach identifies the overall aim for the teacher observed is to develop the culture of learning in their classroom. Firstly, the coach would break this down into smaller bite-sized action steps so that the teacher can master one skill at a time. In order to master this skill, the coach would provide time for the teacher to practise this skill before delivering it to students in a lesson. After all, teaching is a performance and like any West End actor, practice is crucial. At this stage, the coach may use video of the teacher to help support development. The Centre for Education Policy Research at Harvard University provides a fantastic video observation toolkit to support its use in schools. The toolkit can be found here – Video Observation Toolkit. The coach would then follow up on the implementation of the bite-sized action step with the teacher. In this scenario, the coach may spend several weeks or a half term with the teacher supporting them in mastering each skill that ultimately aims to improve the culture of learning in the classroom.

 

Whilst the evidence for instructional coaching is positive, the implementation of it by school leaders is crucial to ensure it helps teachers to grow. This is outlined by Lucy Steiner and Julie Kowal from the Centre for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. “For an instructional coaching program to be effective, school leaders need to play an active role in selecting trained coaches, developing a targeted coaching strategy, and evaluating whether coaches are having the desired impact on teaching and learning.”

 

Consequently, there needs to be a clear vision for a school’s instructional coaching program, with skilful coaches who work with individual teachers over a period of time, and their impact on teacher professional development monitored. When this is done successfully, it removes the lack of clarity in feedback given to teachers and provides greater collaboration amongst colleagues that ultimately will bring out improvements in teacher practice and student outcomes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During my early teaching career, the PowerPoint presentation was a security blanket for delivering lessons. It got to a point that if I didn’t have a PowerPoint presentation ready, then I hadn’t planned my lesson and therefore I wouldn’t be able to deliver the intended outcome. Silly right? Fast forward to the here and now as I write this blog, I would say to every new and established teacher, PowerPoint presentations can become an unnecessary distraction that can remove a cog from the mechanics of your intended expert explanation. When I think back to my geography lessons, I don’t picture an expertly executed presentation, I picture quite the opposite, that of Mr Byrne sharing his expert knowledge of the world with passion and precision. This to me is the first cog in the mechanics of expert explanation, that all teachers possess, passion for their subject.

Cog 1 – Passion

It occurred to me a few years ago, when watching Hans Rosling deliver his presentations on our ever-evolving world, there was something about his delivery that left me waiting on his every word, his passion for the subject. He would suddenly change the pitch and speed of his voice, emphasising certain words, as he would build the anticipation of the explanation before revealing the answer. This delivery kept me captivated and wanting to know more, which I believe is important when instilling rich knowledge to students. In the classroom, this comes through our ability as teachers to tell stories and use concrete examples to allow students to relate to difficult concepts and processes.

Cog 2 – Precision

The dreaded MOT test, an annual uncertainty as to whether we have successfully ensured our vehicle is roadworthy. We want to know the answer to the ultimate question, has it passed? If not, we expect that the mechanic will be able to diagnose the problem and sort it, using their expertise. When we are delivering an expert explanation to our students, we need to know the mechanics of our subject, we need to be the experts. Therefore, the delivery of knowledge to the students in front of us should be done with precision, reducing the extraneous load by removing unnecessary information and ‘sticking to the point’.

Cog 3 – Rehearse

n the early stages of my career lesson planning involved lengthy 2-3 pages of a step by step script of what would happen in the lesson. I remember the more experienced teachers looking in bemusement, referring to the more orthodox phrase of ‘fag packet planning’. It was of no surprise after several years that I realised a 2-3-page lesson plan was not a productive use of my time and the outcomes I was expecting from students ended up being very much the opposite. I’m not saying that teachers shouldn’t be planning lessons, instead I believe it is important that we plan and craft out the delivery of our explanation. After all, if we can deliver an explanation with passion and precision, we have a greater chance of captivating our students. I remember a few years ago sitting through a workshop with Chris Moyse @ChrisMoyse and he said something that has remained with me ever since, ‘do the same thing, but better’. I often use a blank piece of paper when planning my explanation and use CPD time with the department to practise the delivery of our explanations, especially with concepts that students struggle to understand. The more we rehearse our explanations the more captivating they will be.

Cog 4 – Delivery

This for me is the most fundamental cog in expert explanation, the delivery, which is why rehearsing is crucial. The research on our working memory is important to consider when delivering an explanation because even with a passionate and precision pitch, we can quickly cause cognitive overload. This is where Barak Rosenshine’s Principle of Instructions is key to smooth delivery. Rosenshine’s study outlines the importance of delivering explanations step by step, each one building on the next, ‘the most successful teachers did not overwhelm their students by presenting too much new material at one time, and they taught in such a way that each point was mastered before the next point was introduced.’ Therefore, our explanations should be seen as chapters of knowledge that should be presented over time to ensure that students are guided through difficult concepts and processes.