Transcript Intro & Context - Oxford City Learning

Intro & Context – what were
our questions?
•With
classes that you feel are really on track, what is
still getting in the way between teaching and learning?
•Why do we still feel we’re working harder than
students?
•Why are students looking to us to assess their
work?
•Why can’t students motivate themselves to do tasks?
•These questions fitted in with our SDIP targets of
promoting independence in all learners, with a
particular focus on SEND, Pupil Premium and the
vulnerable
Evidence Collection Methods
•
Our aim was to find teaching strategies which would encourage
students to become self-regulated learners, and methods of
collecting evidence of self-regulation, which were simple but not
simplistic, and would sit alongside our current teaching practices.
•
Short tasks, activities, questionnaires, 1:1 conversations, group
discussions, transcripts from filmed evidence, and modified
resources were employed to encourage students to see themselves
as agents in their own learning and to gather evidence of
progression, ‘affective’ barriers, self-regulation, target-setting,
behaviour, engagement, attitudes, and accountability.
•
We both kept journals which documented critical events and
significant findings and used our shared knowledge to plan and
design further elements of the study.
Scope of the project
KS3 Drama - JAH
 Year 8 ‘status lessons’
 Year 9 ‘filming project’
KS4 Dance - JAH
 Year 10 Dance
 Year 11 Dance
 Year 10 Tutor Group
KS4 French - KT
Year 10 French
‘controlled assessment diaries’
Year 11 French (currently)
KS3 French - KT
Year 9 strategies in lessons
‘how do you feel about the task?
Staff – KT & JAH
Trainee Teachers and
2012 cohort of NQTs –
strategies in behaviour INSETs
Initial fact-finding - Cycle 1
Asking the question – What gets between ‘Teaching
and Learning’?
Altering our practices
Cycle 2
In this cycle the focus was to
integrate into our existing
practice, strategies designed
to improve cognitive, metacognitive and affective skills
Refining our practices
Cycle 3
Using gained knowledge and
understanding of SRL the
third cycle focused on the
employment of strategies to
help students successfully
negotiate their way through
the ‘stress points’ during the
completion of units of work
Cycle 1 – Fact-finding
By posing the question ‘What gets in the way between the smooth
flow of teaching into learning?’ lots of interesting answers and
similarities emerged across key stages of students and also in fellow
members of staff.
This established a rationale for making small changes to the way we
taught as there were clearly three types of factor interfering in the
journey of our teaching to the students’ learning. These could be
grouped as follows:
1.
Cognitive factors – students’ capacity to learn
2.
Meta-cognitive factors – students’ understanding of how to learn what
they were learning – but better!
3.
Affective factors – how the students’ feelings about themselves
impacted on their capacity for success
Cycle 2 – Modifying our
Practices
The first cycle really changed the way we thought about planning our
lessons and so, based on Claxton’s (2007) concept of ‘split-screen
thinking’ we adapted existing activities to always include an element
of self reflection or strategies which encouraged self-regulated
learning (SRL). In addition, we habitually asked students how they felt
about their learning at different points in the lesson and looked for
evidence of SRL.
By including questions like ‘how do you feel about this task?’ ‘what is
making you feel like this?’ before the tasks, we were able to discover
much more about our students and therefore guide their learning
more appropriately.
Cycle 2 - example

Inside My French Mind
I didn’t do any revision for the exam apart from what we did in lessons. I
attempted to learn my written piece but I had no way of remembering any
of it. This is because I have a bad memory for languages and I don’t think I
have the capability to do well in exams.
I used a dictionary and just improvised what wrote, I got quite far down
the list but I didn’t manage to finish it. This is because I was
improvising what I was writing and didn’t know what to write.
Cycle 2 - example

Inside My French Mind
I ran out of time at the end so I didn’t do anything to
improve my mark. This is because I spent too much time
trying to improvise what I was writing. I would’ve gone
done the list and answered the questions. If I had finished I
would’ve checked spelling.
During the test I felt panicky and just wrote whatever I could in
French in order to get a ‘decent’ mark.
Cycle 2 - example

‘Creative Risk-Taking’ in Year 8 Status lesson
Question – What do we mean by ‘risk-taking’ in drama?

Doing something different and not being afraid to be someone else...

It’s about ‘going out there’ even if you’re shy...

Makes me kind of anxious, wondering if it’s going to work or not...
Question – How has risk-taking helped you improve your work?

By taking risks we’re doing something we don’t normally do...and it’s
boosted our confidence...

We worked harder as a group – we bonded - we improvised and we knew
what we were doing...
Cycle 2 - example

Year 10 GCSE Dance – Changing the Language of Learning
A dancer with debilitating perfectionist tendencies revealed that her
ballet teacher did not allow for experimentation or failure – We had a 1:1
conversation about ‘ not being right all the time’ and ‘forgetting moves’
as essential elements of the learning journey even for professional
dancers. This resulted in this student breaking through her performance
anxiety, achieving a higher standard and opting to develop her
performance piece to include more challenging work.
The phrase ‘practising to make it good’ cut through the students
reluctance to perform ‘work-in-progress’ before receiving feedback from
peers
Students started to use the same ‘growth mindset’ language...
Overheard...”Come on...It doesn’t have to be perfect...we’re just
learning!...Let’s do it again and see what we can change”
Cycle 3 – Refining our Practices
Key Stage 4
I created diaries for the controlled assessments in
French which made students explain their thought
processes in more detail and respond to how they
were feeling about the assessment during each
preparation lesson.
The diaries allowed me to give much more
personalised interventions. I was able to target
specific thought processes, misconceptions about
how to learn and feelings that were inhibiting
learning. The final grades for this controlled
assessment were higher than the first time round.
Cycle 3: example
After my draft was complete and Miss Thirlwall graded it I
was surprised that I managed to achieve 3 grades above
my last one. The fact that I now knew I was capable of this
was a big confidence boost and actually helped me
remember the things I thought I had forgotten or couldn’t
do ( e.g.Tenses).
Knowing that I can get a GCSE in French now is very
encouraging and makes me want to work harder in lessons
and avoid distractions.
Cycle 3 – Refining our Practices
Key Stage 3
By consistently asking students how they felt about
tasks and asking them what they could do to address
those feelings, a sense of ownership increased in the
class.
Self-assessment tasks with an SRL slant were used
regularly with KS3 classes post-assessment. These
made learners much more accountable for their
progress as they were being asked about how they
approached tasks and what feelings motivated that
approach.
Cycle 3: example
FINDINGS: PROJECT OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS
 Student empowerment when ‘group-feelings’ are articulated -leading to a common consensus
 Students’ ‘language of learning’ changed
 Calmer, more purposeful classroom working environments developed
 There was a decrease in off-task behaviour in the latter stages of projects and students
resolved disputes in a more positive way
 Students reflective practice improved and they displayed less defensive attitudes when learning
tasks stalled or failed
 Increased ownership of learning and co-ownership of learning developed in group tasks

Some affective barriers to learning were diminished or removed completely and there was
increased resilience

Increasing number of student questions were asked regarding how to improve the quality and
quantity of their work
 More student accountability – both student-teacher, and student-student
FINDINGS
PROJECT OUTCOMES FOR TEACHERS
• Formal requirements, such as quality end-products and academic grades were still taken into
account, but student attitudes towards learning to action plan, reflecting and setting new selfdetermined targets, reviewing their own and other’s B4L, co-creating positive SRL learning
environments, and identifying which elements of the learning journey had resulted in success or
failure, changed considerably.
• There appeared to be a cross-curriculum link and a pastoral-curriculum link in student responses.
There is evidence of some pupils’ learning-attitudes being transferred between our subjects, and
from pastoral interventions to subjects.
• Our ‘teaching-language’ developed and we became increasingly focused on the efficacy and impact
of brief verbal interventions which encouraged students to review their emotional responses to
challenge
• Our ‘split-screen-thinking’ became more contextually linked to the learning intention/objective of
lessons and it was often re-designed in the light of teaching and learning outcomes.
• It became clear that a SRL-focused cascade of increasingly defined strategies and interventions sat
comfortably alongside the ‘curriculum-content-cascade’ and by the end of the project we both found
we were automatically planning ,and designing resources, for the promotion of SRL
• There was a very positive outcome when consideration was given to ‘affective barriers’ to stress
points such as tests, performances, and feedback sessions.
DISCUSSION
Significant changes to our ‘teaching-mindset’

The problematic nature of adding SRL elements to our existing teaching
load and the requirement to provide time and opportunity for our
students to engage meaningfully in this project led to two outcomes:
◦ Firstly, our interventions became more focused, structured, informed and curriculumcontent linked, whilst allowing opportunities for the co-creation of SRL environments
◦ Secondly, more time was released in lessons for student-determined activity

This necessitated a shift from strong content-related lessons to content
knowledge being extended within the socially constructed co-learning
mid-section of the lessons where students’ and teachers’ work could be
differentiated by outcome, need, task, and formative assessment.
DISCUSSION
Significant changes to our ‘teaching-mindset’

A continual use of the imagery of a ‘learning journey’ linked to a
‘destination’ and ‘future travel’ gave a clear indication of the following:
◦ The teacher’s inspirational expectations for the students [inspiring positive self-belief]
◦ Relevance of learning linked to ‘Skills for Life’ agenda of the school [Relevance]
◦ Student agency in the pace and type of progress achieved [Accountability]
◦ The opportunity to progress regardless of the starting point [Progress]
◦ The upward spiral of reflective learning [Building learning as a skill]
◦ The advantages of ‘planning the journey’ [Action Planning]
◦ The importance of ‘visualising the destination’ [Goal-setting]
◦ The acquisition of transferable skills [Learning skills for different contexts]
◦ The role of all participants in the teaching and learning process [Social context]
DISCUSSION
Potential Obstacles




Teachers’ understanding & knowledge of SRL
The need for epistemic change
This may affect the structure of lessons and schemes of work;
challenging content-driven teaching and developing coconstructed knowledge
There will demands on teachers’ own SRL attitudes and
beliefs
Conclusion
By developing strategies and resources within the
existing curriculum it is possible to create a ‘safety-net’
of support for students to become agents in their own
learning. The integration of SRL-focused ‘split-screenthinking’ into our lessons resulted in clear lessons
structures, high expectations, and opportunities for
students to take ownership of their learning without
the unsettling effects which might result from a ‘free-orall’ unstructured approach. Many of our students’ selfregulation had improved and they were moving towards
a position of independence by the conclusion of the
project.
References
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the Classroom; A perspective on
Assessment and Intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2005, Vol. 54
(2), pp. 199-231
Buff, A., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Pauli, C. (2011). Activating positive affective
experiences in the classroom: “Nice to have” or something more? Learning and Instruction,
Vol. 21, (2011) pp. 452-466
Claxton, G. L.(2007). Expanding Young People’s Capacity to Learn. British Journal of
Educational Studies, Vol.55, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 1-20
D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning.
Learning and Instruction, Vol. 22, (2012) pp. 145-157
Graham, S. (1991). A Review of Attribution Theory in Achievement Contexts. Educational
Psychology Review, Vol. 3, No. 1. (1991)
Nichols, J. D., & Zhang, G. (2011). Classroom environments and student empowerment: An
analysis of elementary and secondary teacher beliefs. Learning Environment Research,
Vol. 14, (2011), pp. 229-239
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical
Background, Methodological Developments, and Future Prospects: American Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, 9Mar., 2008), pp. 166-183