Michael Walsh, Author at Let's Think in English

LTE in Lockdown

Let’s Think in English in Lockdown

By Leah Crawford

This blog grew out of a short email exchange with a very experienced KS2 English leader and teacher of Let’s Think, Tom Leigh, who works at Fryern Junior School in Hampshire.

Tom contacted me and a few other Let’s Think teachers in the Hampshire network to ask if we were teaching LTE to children in ‘bubbles’ back at school and how it was going. He admitted he was finding it just did not have the same momentum as teaching a full class who can sit in small groups and in close proximity. A few email exchanges, and a few weeks later, Tom came back having taught the lesson ‘Feathers’, to his Year 6 bubble and been deeply moved by the experience. Luckily, he had recorded and transcribed the session, so that I could in some way relive what had happened.

I could tell Tom had a deep tale to tell, so we arranged to do an informal interview on Zoom to catch up and reflect together.

We talked about a particular upper KS2 Let’s Think lesson based on the short stop-motion film ‘Feathers.’ If you don’t know it – you might wish to follow the link and watch it before reading the blog.

Link to Feathers

So Tom, you’ve been back in school since the return of year 6, teaching a bubble of between 8-10 children?

Yes, I mean, even further back, when we went into lockdown lots of us felt a kind of release of stress and workload. Someone in school told me their stress headaches had stopped, there were people saying how they’d managed to get back a work-life balance. Then by the time we could get back in school with children, there was a feeling for some that it was a nicer pace, quieter. But I found it really difficult. It didn’t feel like we were doing anything that mattered. In year 6 particularly perhaps, we were going back and consolidating skills already taught. We found they really had remembered everything. We had been really successful in consolidating the curriculum. I had been looking forward to getting back to teaching but there was no buzz, lots of task completion, but without interaction it wasn’t real learning. The children have been more pleased to see each other, rather than excited about their learning. I’ve realised how favourable a normal class size is.

Perhaps this reflects what the children had been asked to do in Lockdown, but they were happiest when they were given short inputs then asked to get on with something, rather than you as teacher leading and mediating them through a learning process.

Is this just you, Tom?

No I’ve been asking the team for reflections on being back at school and they all feel learning has become too teacher led, probably linked to the fact that there is less pupil to pupil talk. It’s not just Let’s Think, but teaching reading and the initial stages of writing when your aim is for children to generate ideas in their own mind through interactions.

So when you contacted the group you had tried how many Let’s Think lessons?

Just one, but as I say, any English lesson that relied on the generation of ideas through talk just felt flat. Responses were short and there was little exchange across the group.

So why wasn’t it working?

We rely so much on the initial sharing and drafting of ideas being in a small group. I could not sit them in small groups in close proximity – we could only try to share some ideas in pairs two metres apart. There is an anonymity in belonging to a small group compared to sharing with a whole group. The small group rehearsal and shaping of ideas builds confidence that they have something to say and something that has been tested out, built upon and is worth sharing. In the bubble, all those little, tentative conversations can be heard by everybody. They start to talk, then realise the whole group is listening in. So it ended up with me trying to tease out each child’s thinking and drive it forward when they weren’t really ready to make ideas public yet.

So if we reflect more widely about what matters in Let’s Think, it’s that space for safe oral drafting of ideas. I need to share an incomplete thought aloud to realise what I think and to shape it.

Yes – but also it not being only their thought. A collection of thinking has already happened before it goes public which makes it safer to share. In a group of 9 or 10 a thought is only what I am saying, it is my opinion and it’s more risky to share that.

I suppose what you’re saying is that the benefit of the small group is that the initial feedback comes from peers and does not have to come from the teacher.

Yes, but not just the testing of a thought but how children often only share the beginnings of a thought, which grows through their interaction. So often in Let’s Think, they are teetering on the edge of understanding what they are trying to say. That’s what’s so great when you transcribe it because you can see the cyclical way in which their thinking develops over several interactions, and they’re getting so close to what they think they mean.

I think also, my favourite thing is to do with the slow reveal of texts in Let’s Think, the gradual building of understanding, a moment of reveal and then that moment of gasps and thick silence and stillness. Then you ask a question and you hear this boom of talk and buzz.

And that really wasn’t happening. They were too tentative, too uncertain. You could see them thinking ‘Who’s listening and who can I turn to…’ – they’re set out in this grid in the classroom.

So this was the point you contacted me and a few others to see if we had any ideas on how to make the best of a situation we can’t change. What changes did you decide to make when you taught ‘Feathers’?

I thought it best just to try a few things at a time. So the first thing was to select those pupils who I knew were being most affected by the lack of a small group feedback, move towards them and act like their peer group to help them build an idea. The other thing was through the lesson to cue in those ideas I knew they had said to me, that I knew could go somewhere if the group got hold of them, but the pupil would not think to offer to the group. I normally don’t have to be so active in this process. The other change was one of the suggestions you made which was to encourage the group to consider the lines of enquiry that had emerged so far and evaluate them. Normally, this happens quite naturally, the best lines of enquiry are usually the ones that most children want to talk about, but with the smaller group it seemed like we were more easily going down a less interesting or valid path.

Yes – there was an example of them thinking the evil doctor wanted to turn her into a bird rather than to ‘cure’ her in some way.

And that made me think about Let’s Think teacher training and how important it is to have mapped out purposeful pathways in the questions, or you can get real momentum in the dialogue and interest but it’s really not a purposeful line of enquiry.

I know we had wondered together whether some written sketch notes of ideas on whiteboards might help the ‘drafting’ and I was going to try that next but wanted to resist it as much as possible, because I know once they commit and write something down it becomes harder to redraft and rethink.

That’s really helpful. So perhaps for all of us from September, when we are reconnecting groups with each other through Let’s Think, we might need to do a bit more work to scaffold the development of ideas like a peer, to cue in ideas with promise and to provide summaries as a springboard to the next phase if the group is losing the thread.

Yes, so a good example in the transcript is a student, student S who is not a high attainer, he is not confident to share ideas and can be quite poorly behaved. He asked me, it seemed to be just out of the blue ‘How old do you have to be to go on social media?’ And I could hear in that he was on to something about the girl’s age, and another boy next to him – 2 metres away from him – they started talking about being 18 and being a teenager. At that point, in their minds I’m not sure the link with the meaning of the film was clear but something important was emerging. So I could cue that in when the evil doctor theory was taking over:

Teacher:

Teacher	Ok lots of you seem to be going down this avenue of the evil doctor. S you said something earlier about, something to do with being 18.

S	What about social media?

Teacher	Teacher: When you were chatting to N

N	Wait Mr Leigh, teenager and hair goes quite well together because as you get older the more hair you grow

S	No because she’s young she doesn’t understand what she can do yet but when she’s 18 she’ll understand her true powers of what she can do she’ll be able to fly and stuff because maybe at her age now she doesn’t understand she’s just growing wings and it’s weird she doesn’t understand but something will happen when she’s older

Teacher	N does that link to what you were thinking?

N	Well as you get older, you get more hair

S	So she’ll grow into a full bird

So I cued them in to watch the rest of the film summarising what they had agreed: that the Mum seemed worried about her turning in to a bird and wanted the doctor to do something about this, and that her being a teenager might be important but we weren’t too sure why yet.

There was open jubilation when the girl spreads her wings and flies and as the film finished a beautiful collective pause for breath and silence.

I asked them to consider the final two questions:

At what point the girl is free?

and

What do you think the message of the film might be?

ES	Me? Well I don’t know I kind of think that it’s like well it’s like because like everyone saying she loves the daughter and I think that because she loves the daughter she might not want to let her free she would want to but not because she would miss the girl loads and you can see that when she made the breakfast she loves the girl so much that she wanted to make her happy so I guess it’s like I don’t know…

S	Technically, you would have to let her out either way because she can’t eat normal food and it’s her instinct to stay outside

Teacher	So her instinct is to be free but the mother maybe is resisting that, and EB was saying the message is that she had to let her go. Okay…H?

H	My own message of the film I don’t know if anyone can build onto it is that looks don’t matter, inside, your family, your family or your friends will always like you as who you are. Not your looks if that makes sense

K	Who’s heard the phrase: if you love me you have to let me go? Because it’s kind of like she loves her so she wants to keep her but actually if she really loves the girl she has to let her be free

Teacher	N?

N	I’ve seen this quote once where it says a mother holds their child’s hand for a while but their heart forever…

Teacher	Okay (choked!) how does that link?

N	Obviously, she wanted freedom so like K said she loved her so she had to let her go but still she loves her inside…

Teacher	Can I bring you back to what you said about the teenager?

N	Oh because she’s getting older

Teacher	How might your messages link to what S and N said about the teenager? Have a think

K	Well you know when you’re an adult and you start to move out around the age of 18 or 20 it’s kind of like I’m going to turn S’s “she’s ready to fly” thing into a metaphor because if you’re a teen you are ready to fly you’re ready to go out on your own you’re ready to be free but I’m sure people who have grown up children, you know how it can sometimes be. My Grannie’s told me about this, it can sometimes be almost like kind of heart-breaking because it’s like that child, that person who you’ve loved and grown up with for all of their life is just going.

Teacher	What did you say N was the saddest point?

N	Oh when she made breakfast for one

S	Yeah but then the girl actually came back

Teacher	How do you know that?

S	Because you heard beak tapping on the window

EB	Building on K’s point It’s kind of like heart-breaking because when they move out it’s kind of sad because you’ve been with them their whole life if… and it’s kind of like you have to

Teacher	So like you said, it’s going to change…. Okay… (deep breath)

You can see I could barely speak at the end, they had just stopped me in my tracks: what they were thinking and saying was so moving. This was the first time the mixed ability of pupils in the room were supporting each other. You don’t want the K’s of this world to say too much too soon – but she was picking up on S and N’s comments and taking them further.

And I realised I literally had been pretty miserable teaching in school. Then I taught Feathers and I thought this is what I’ve missed and this is why I’m a teacher at all, because, I was feeling like the children were changing and I was giving them something of value that would help them in the future. You’re creating ways of thinking that are so transferrable, not just in education but in life.

Does this mean anything needs to change next year, Tom?

Retaining the dialogic method in reading, writing, maths is going to be harder but so vital. We won’t be teaching in bubbles, but there will be restrictions on seating arrangements and on pupil movement. The pupils also will need to be supported to connect with each other and to experience again how they need each other to think more deeply. This idea of the catch-up curriculum could be reduced to prioritising a list of objectives and focusing down on those and this could lower expectations. But if I think about what we’ve been doing since the need for test preparation disappeared: the skills are all still there of clarifying, monitoring, inferring, but we’re getting much deeper inspiration from the text to think and to write. So that’s my reflection for the summer is how to keep the richness and buoyancy and teach skills through this and not go back to tick-boxing.

And I think we need to reflect on the speed in which the world was able to change itself in Lockdown. So when we know change is necessary, there’s always the cry of, ‘Oh this is just the way it is…’ Well, you can’t make that argument anymore. You’ve just got to be open minded to it. I sent out a few sort email prompts to the staff here on what it’s been like to teach English in Lockdown and it was amazing – I got pages and pages back – teachers deeply thinking about what they are doing and why. We just don’t do it enough. I want staff meetings to be about reflections.

Tom I think so many teachers in all phases will feel some resonance with what you’ve been saying here. If we don’t use a crisis to reflect and reset, then what have we gone through this for?

Some advice on teaching LTE in a COVID safe classroom

Some advice on teaching LTE in a COVID safe classroom

Below is guidance on teaching LTE in classrooms at the start of the 2020/21 academic year. Some of the solutions are supported with a video clip from a Year 6 classroom for LTE Network teachers only. This has been circulated by email. We hope the guidance offered here, while focused on Let’s Think in English lessons, is of use to colleagues interested in collaborative and dialogic classrooms in general.

Classroom Layout and Groupings

It’s worth remembering LTE has been taught in many different classroom structures with success for over a decade. LTE lessons are undertaken with pupils placed in both table groups and rows.

However, government guidance at the moment suggests all classrooms are in rows and pupils are not able to turn around and discuss. Practically this makes groups larger than 3 difficult and in all likelihood many LTE classes will use pairs

When pupils are working in pairs:

Try to ensure pupils are in mixed attainment pairs but ensure the attainment gap is not too wide e.g. avoid pairing your highest attaining pupil with your lowest.
As always consider more than attainment: confidence, turn taking etc.
Consider classroom layout and which pairs you place next to each other as they may branch out from their pairs and connect with another.

Teachers may request pairs share with each other. It is suggested the individuals closest to each other provide the feedback but there is still a deal of fluidity in responses. However, when pupils are prepared, the pair to pair feedback works well and provides an opportunity to compare and contrast.

Feedback from social construction

Usually LTE teachers circulate the classroom eavesdropping on conversations, assessing pupils’ individual and collective understanding of the question posed, text and progression in the reasoning pattern while considering how to structure whole-class feedback. With the present restrictions stating teachers should remain at the front of the classroom this is more challenging.

We know feedback is crucial for teachers in LTE. One solution is to use mini whiteboards. Mini whiteboards can be helpful in providing feedback on the key points pairs or triads reach. However, ensure that opportunities for discussion precede the summarising of main points. Pupils should continue discussion while listing their main points on the whiteboard.

Some pupils have a tendency to write long responses or full sentences/paragraphs when summarising. This is not particularly helpful in this instance, as the teacher wants a quick snapshot of the main points each group has come to before selecting the order of feedback. Encourage pupils to identify key words or phrases; this is an interesting cognitive challenge.

Teachers can request that one pupil from each pair raise their whiteboard and can scan responses.

As in all LTE lessons, it is important to select the best launch point for discussion. The teacher should select feedback from a pair that opens the discussion to all and enable other pupils to connect their key points.

There are other quick means of both receiving feedback and providing opportunities for the whole class to validate points. A show of hands is an immediate way to ensure other pupils are recognising and responding to a point shared.

Similarly, once pupils have developed a reading of the text you may wish to provide an opportunity for them to highlight key words or phrases. Once more this should only take place after initial discussion and dialogue should continue as key words or phrases to support an argument are highlighted. A highlighted sheets provide the teacher with feedback and an insight into pairs’ thinking. This enables the teacher to evaluate responses, look for consensus or different viewpoints and plot the order of whole class feedback

Another technique used in the LTE classroom that may support the pupils is to provide binary options so a simple A or B. This encourages pupils to take a standpoint and provides them with an initial stance to discuss. When pupils are working in pairs this can be helpful as it ensures both pupils will have an opinion they can seek to support. When pupils are new to LTE and developing their self-efficacy, we sometimes conduct these votes with their eyes closed, reassuring them that no-one will know how they vote. The teacher can provide whole class feedback by summarising their responses e.g. “Most of you think the skeleton was buried a long time ago. Why do you think that?”.

In the current situation, where the class is facing a teacher, it’s important our language encourages collaboration and critical evaluation. Rather than X what did you say, try to connect class responses with exploratory talk cues such as “Can anyone add onto what X said..?”.

Equality of opportunity and ensuring pupils have the time to think

A key principle of Let’s Think in English is equality of opportunity and ensuring all pupils have a time to think and share their thoughts. As in all LTE lessons the teacher must guide the lesson and participation, so equality of opportunity is possible. Perhaps when sitting in rows pupils associate the LTE more closely with a normal LTE lesson. Also, at the start of an academic year pupils need reminding of the “rules” of LTE.

Frequently pupils are very keen to share their ideas but tend to put their hands up. A good rule of thumb is for teachers to select who provides the feedback from pairs, bounces initial ideas to other pupils and once arguments are established invite further thoughts.

However, it is likely that certain pairs will not have the same processing power that a triad or group of 4 may have. Furthermore, an individual in a pair may still be developing their ability to listen and may expect their partner to respond on their behalf. Pupil efficacy is supported by inviting pupils to contribute and support them through their struggle.

While many peers are willing to contribute, a teacher may select an individual who is less forthcoming to share their thoughts. Pupils can be supported by being informed they will be providing the feedback, so they have time to rehearse their ideas. However, it is important pupils are accountable in LTE and understand they are expected to contribute, and recognise that all contributions are valued and help us to understand a text and develop our thinking.

There may be a tendency move on from pupils who are reluctant or unwilling to contribute and select another, but this should be resisted. Further time for social construction is normally sufficient and also provides time for everyone to clarify their ideas.

Often a brief 20 second opportunity to recap in pairs is sufficient for the reticent pupil to provide brief input from their discussion which their partner can build on. While feedback may be sparse at first as pupils can gain confidence or familiarity with contributing, it is an important first step.

Sometimes despite the opportunity to discuss with a partner, a pupil continues to struggle to respond. An option is to provide the pupil with a binary option. An A or B which provokes them into a response and taking a stance. Ideally one would follow up their selection by asking: “Why do you think that?”. We must also be sensitive to pupils’ feelings. A contribution no matter how brief can be a first step towards greater involvement. LTE is focused on long-term behaviours rather than short-term solutions and a spirit of collaboration and critical evaluation must be developed over time.

Whole class feedback

It is important that the feedback an individual provides is representative of the discussion pairs or triads enjoyed. When feedback reflects the group discussion only one person is speaking but all voices are heard. We usually train pupils into this habit by encouraging them to start feedback with “we said, or we discussed”. It is more difficult for the teacher to monitor this during social construction as they are unable to circulate in the room however we can listen for indicators in the feedback. Listen for cues like reference to peers, so we are reassured multiple points of view are being assimilated. You can invite partners to build or embellish ideas: “Do you have anything to add?” “Could you tell me more about …?”

LTE Lesson Structure

We know LTE lessons are designed to increase in difficulty as we move towards cognitive conflict. Usually we have the luxury of exploring first thoughts through concrete preparation and address misunderstandings or key words. Working in pairs some pupils may find initial understanding of texts more difficult. You may wish to address keywords directly and enable frequent summaries of the text and ideas shared. It’s worth remembering how important concrete preparation is in the LTE structure in preparing pupils for cognitive conflict. Pupils can’t think deeply about what they don’t understand. It may be the case that in some LTE lessons the teacher may have to provide greater input to ensure understanding.

We know classes respond differently to LTE lessons and even when trying some of the suggestions in this guidance, teaching LTE in the present climate may still prove challenging. The LTE behaviours you seek to encourage may be very different to the emphasis your colleagues may be placing in other subjects. Understandably, pupils will find shifting their behaviour between lessons tricky. Starting LTE lessons with a reminder of the ethos, behaviours and rules will help.

It maybe you spend more time on certain LTE pillars than you usually would. For example, the application stage that follows cognitive conflict can provide a more hands on activity and an opportunity to work individually. At this point pupils often consider minor edits to the text they are studying. They’ve had an opportunity to discuss possibilities before making the edits. Some pupils continue to collaborate as they edit text while others drift in and out of individual work. As always when taking feedback, emphasise the need to justify and explain choices rather than just presenting edits.

You may also wish to consider starting Bridging within the lesson. While you may wish to set a written task, frequently setting a simple comparison question between the LTE text and a text the class are already familiar with works well. Pupils could use post-it notes or a table to record their discussions before a whole class review.

The Mirror: Effective Professional Development

The argument for continuing professional development

Education Policy Institute (EPI) undertook a detailed review of the evidence on the impact of teacher professional development. The report examined 52 randomised controlled trials evaluating teacher development programmes, in order to establish their impact on pupil and teacher outcomes. Unsurprisingly, they found continuing professional development (CPD) can play a crucial role in improving teaching quality.

The report summarises the key findings of the impact on pupils as:

High-quality CPD for teachers has a significant effect on pupils’ learning outcomes. CPD programmes have the potential to close the gap between beginner and more experienced teachers: the impact of CPD on pupil outcomes (effect size 0.09) compares to the impact of having a teacher with ten years’ experience rather than a new graduate (0.11). CPD also has similar attainment effects to those generated by large, structural reforms to the school system (0.1).
Evidence suggests that quality CPD has a greater effect on pupil attainment than other interventions schools may consider, such as implementing performance-related pay for teachers or lengthening the school day.
Teacher CPD may be a cost-effective intervention for improving pupil outcomes: while there are other interventions with a larger impact on pupil attainment, such as one-to-one tutoring (0.28), these programmes are typically far more expensive.
CPD programmes generally produce positive responses from teachers, in contrast to other interventions. Large, structural changes to the school system, while as effective at improving pupil outcomes, incur substantial costs in terms of staff turnover and dissatisfaction.

They also reported positive impact on teacher retention as well as improving access to professional development for teachers.

Characteristics of effective professional development

There are a number of informative reports into effective professional development including:

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev.

Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., Saunders, L., Coe, R. Developing Great Teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust. 2015.

https://tdtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/DGT-Full-report.pdf

Cordingley, P. and Bell, M., 2012. Understanding what enables high quality professional learning: A report on the research evidence. CUREE

http://www.curee.co.uk/files/publication/%5Bsite-timestamp%5D/CUREE-Report.pdf

What emerges across the reports is a consensus on the key attributes of effective continual professional development which can be summarised as:

Collaborative involves staff working together, identifying starting points, sharing evidence about practice and trying out new approaches;
Supported by specialist expertise usually drawn from beyond the learning setting.
Focused on aspirations for students which provides the moral imperative and shared focus;
Sustained over time and rhythmic professional development sustained over weeks or months had substantially more impact on practice benefiting students than shorter engagement;
Uses models of effective practice provide teachers with a clear vision of what best practices look like.
A shared sense of purpose
Pedagogy and subject knowledge are equally important

Professional Development insights from Cognitive acceleration

The ‘Cognitive acceleration’ programmes (CA) were developed by Michael Shayer and Philip Adey at King’s College London. Cognitive acceleration would evolve over time and become known as Let’s Think www.letsthink.org.uk The aim of the CA programmes was the promotion of higher-level thinking in students. Research carried out over 25 years at King’s College London demonstrated students who experienced a (CA) programme scored higher than matched control groups:

on measures of cognitive development immediately at the end of the programme and subsequently;
in the subject matter of the programme (e.g. science, maths) up to three years after the end of the programme;
also in subjects remote from the subject context up to three years after the end of the programme. For example, students who followed Let’s Think over two years in a science context when they were 12-13 years old, went on to score significantly higher grades in an English examination taken when they were 16.

CASE has been proved to raise students’ attainment significantly in at least 20 international trials – see Let’s Think in Science (CASE) efficacy

Shayer and Adey both recognised the importance of professional development. As Adey commented in his paper: “A model for the professional development of teachers of thinking”[i] in July 2005:

“(CA)…has a theory base in cognitive psychology, well-described pedagogical features, and sets of materials, which we believe to be teacher friendly. Nevertheless, teaching for cognitive acceleration is not a straightforward process. As with any approach to the teaching of thinking, the teachers need to have an understanding of the underlying principles and almost always need to re-engineer their classroom methods. I suggest that any approach to the teaching of thinking which offers a ‘quick fix’, or a set of simple tactics that a teacher can follow from printed material alone is underestimating the subtlety of the pedagogy required to enhance students’ thinking. In common with other programmes for teaching thinking, cognitive acceleration requires teachers to inspect their own assumptions about the nature of teaching and learning, and gradually to come to terms with quite new approaches in the classroom.”

From his work introducing science curriculum and in-service education programme for science and maths teachers internationally, Adey identified three main implications from the experiences:

Changing teaching practice takes a long time. There are no short-cuts or quick fixes, real change in schools takes effort and lasts months if not years.
There is no substitute for human interaction in helping teachers to shift their attitudes and beliefs. Discussion along paths which are not pre-set by a “programmed PD” is essential.
You must get into schools, if you want to change what happens in schools. A course will have no deep effect if it is limited to sessions run in a university or professional development centre. Demonstrations and coaching in teachers’ classrooms play a critical role.

Adey identified the principles of duration, collaboration, expert support, linked to classroom practice, etc, that subsequent research would confirm. Based on this the professional development programme for CA offered from 1991 was:

Sequenced over 2 school years, in parallel with the schools introducing the CASE methods.
INSET days were scheduled to introduce the theory and activities, teachers would then try them out lessons in their schools and return to further training days to reflect on the successes and difficulties encountered.
The style of the INSET days mirrored the pedagogy of CASE itself. Teachers were provided with challenges which led to social construction as they talked and listened to each other before triggering metacognition as they reflected on how (and why) their own perspectives were changing.
Furthermore, most teachers in a department received personal coaching in their own classes, to see how the methods worked with their students.

Let’s Think in English professional development programme

Background

Let’s Think in English (LTE) was closely modelled on Shayer and Adey’s Cognitive Acceleration in Science Education (CASE). King’s College London, where CA had originated, decided to develop a programme for English like those in Science and Maths. This began in 2009 and Laurie Smith and I, supervised by Philip Adey, led the development initially focussed on Years 7 and 8. Following successful trialling of the LTE Key Stage 3 English lessons, further lessons were developed specifically for GCSE and for Key Stages 1 and 2.

Collaboration

Many of the key features of successful professional development underpinned the evolution of the LTE programme. From the early trials, collaboration between colleagues was central to its development. We never created lessons and merely published them. Instead we would draft, critique, teach and revise LTE lessons before sharing them with the pilot group of teachers. This cycle would resume as the pilot group of teachers undertook the same process providing initial feedback after sampling the lesson, returning to school to teach the lesson in their setting and sharing their thoughts at the next LTE meeting.

Sequenced training

It became clear from the pilot group’s feedback that, as Adey suggested, there were “no quick fixes” and professional development would need to be sequenced over time. We opted for an introductory programme of four training sessions in an academic year. The typical structure of introductory Let’s Think in English training remains:

Session 1: Introductory day reviewing the pedagogy and research behind the programme and a lesson taught by the LTE tutor.

Session 2: Another modelled lesson taught by the LTE tutor or observation of LTE lesson depending on the schools’ preference and a twilight on effective group work and social construction

Session 3: Observation of LTE in classes with the LTE lead and a twilight reviewing the development of higher order thinking and metacognition.
Session 4: Twilight on embedding LTE and planning your own LTE lessons.

The training was designed so the “specialist expertise” (LTE Tutor) would provide regular support but the practitioners have time to develop their own understanding and are empowered to consider how best to apply the research in their setting between sessions.

Modelled Lessons and authenticity

Laurie Smith and I agreed we would always be willing to model the LTE lessons as part of training. Teachers relished the luxury and time to observe their class being taught by someone else and discussing key moments with their colleagues. We were providing teachers with a “model of effective practice” for them to critique. The lessons were never labelled model lessons but rather example lessons designed to provoke discussion and reflection.

Another important component of professional development is authenticity. Time and again teachers would comment how refreshing it was to experience training where the trainer was willing to model the approach in the classroom. Linking with the required “sense of shared purpose” and focus on “student attainment” teachers have to believe in the individual or organisation leading the training. When teachers know you’re willing to teach their classes, that you’ve experienced the process they are embarking on and in all likelihood faced similar challenges, it develops a sense of trust and strengthens the collaboration.

Duration and accountability

Duration we know is important and the cycle of LTE training is designed so teachers have an opportunity to engage with research, apply it in their classroom and review with peers before reflecting and deciding upon next steps. However, training over time also introduces further important characteristic of continual professional development perhaps implied but not listed in the key features: accountability. I would suggest training over time makes trainers more accountable. When a trainer returns on a cycle to provide professional development, they are accepting a responsibility; a promise to return and work with the school, department or individual to overcome the challenges to successfully embed a programme. We know from Michael Fullan’s work in Leading in a Culture of Change [ii](2007):

“All successful schools experience “implementation dips” as they move forward (Fullan, 2001). The implementation dip is literally a dip in performance and confidence as one encounters an innovation that requires new skills and new understandings.”

Let’s Think in English is usually very well received by teachers with the vast majority of evaluations ranking the training as excellent. However, there is a rhythm to the training in terms of the responses it provokes in teachers. We expect an implementation dip as theory is applied in the classroom. Indeed, we purposefully make the training challenging so teachers experience the desirable difficulty they will create for their pupils. By returning and supporting colleagues with the implementation dip we are accountable but also engaging in and reinforcing “shared sense of purpose”. Modelling and observing lessons on training connects us to the pupils our work serves to help; they are no longer a mental construct or an unknown group but the very ones you taught or observed. I believe this is what Philip Adey implied when he remarked: “If you want to change what happens in schools, you must get into schools.”. It was not merely the school building he was referring to but rather the classrooms and connecting with the learning community of pupils, teachers and leaders.

Internal accountability and support

Accountability is a two-way process and the schools that embed and sustain professional development best are the ones with clarity on why they introduce training and how internally they will monitor, evaluate and build upon it. Richmond Hill Primary School in Doncaster started LTE training in September 2019. As Kelly Cousins, the Deputy Head at Richmond Hill, explains, the school saw the training as a two-way process where they would also provide internal accountability too. We can see this in Kelly’s account of the process they undertook before adopting the training:

“Upon analysing our most recent reading SATs data, it became clear that the children were struggling with the inference questions posed to them within the test. After some research and following a recommendation from a colleague, I discovered the Let’s Think in English website. The fact that the programme was steeped in 50 years’ worth of research really inspired me to look deeper into the principles of the programme. After arranging to travel down to London to see an LTE lesson in a year 6 classroom, I gained an insight into how the programme helped pupils to develop their analytical and critical thinking skills, reinforcing their inference making ability.”

Richmond Hill identified a need, undertook research into possible solutions, observed the programme in action in a classroom and discussed the impact with other schools before undertaking training. Once the training was introduced, they developed their own internal monitoring, support and evaluation process to complement the formal LTE training:

“We have been teaching LTE lessons for half a year now (prior to lockdown) and have seen the true value of the programme. In order to ensure that we have a consistent approach to the delivery of the lessons, I created a two weekly timetable whereby I perform regular drop-ins/walk throughs and ask questions to check the children’s understanding. Team teaching is a strategy that I utilise for any staff member needing a little extra support, in addition to delivering the programme to a year 6 class myself for a term, to allow other staff members to observe the sessions being taught first-hand. Following the drop in/walk throughs I usually follow up with a whole staff email in order to celebrate and share good practise, as well as any areas to focus on for next time. Additionally, having conversations with the staff and pupils provides a valuable insight into the progress that the children have made with their critical and analytical thinking skills.”

The need for accountability, coherence and collaboration both internally and externally at all levels for a successful training programme is required.

Duration: cycles not time.

Duration of professional development is often considered in terms of time but it might be more fitting to view it as a series of cycles. In LTE the first cycle of introductory training consists of four training sessions. However, it would be odd for training to reach a definitive conclusion at the same point for each individual and school. A further cycle should be planned so initiatives are sustained and successfully embedded. This can be challenging as a new initiative or priority might appear, the support of the tutor and focus of scheduled sessions fades and there can be high staff turnover.

The EEF’s guidance report: PUTTING EVIDENCE TO WORK: A SCHOOL’S GUIDE TO IMPLEMENTATION https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/31088/1/EEF-Implementation-Guidance-Report.pdf provides this helpful overview.

As the report suggests:

“There are no fixed timelines for a good implementation process; its duration will depend on the intervention itself – its complexity, adaptability, and readiness for use – and the local context into which it will be embedded. Nevertheless, it is not unusual to spend between two and four years on an implementation process for complex, whole-school initiatives.”

Upon completion of introductory LTE training, schools are invited to join our regional networks. A lead teacher for each school attends the termly network meetings. The meetings are led by LTE tutors and provide an opportunity for the attendees to receive updates and collaborate. A “sense of shared purpose” is maintained with teachers recharging and reconnecting with the LTE community. The network meetings support the lead LTE teachers to adopt the role of a coach in their setting as they provide updates and guide their colleagues. However, the lead teacher attending the network meetings are not just recipients of training but contribute and shape the direction of the programme. Teachers lead presentations on aspects of LTE, suggest ideas for lessons, provide a critical lens to the direction of the lessons and share and discuss English teaching more widely.

Why might an individual attend the same training programme for a number of years? Alex Morton, Head of English at Greycoat Hospital School and a LTE network member for 8 years explains:

“I attended my first LTE meeting, or CA in English as it was then called, in early 2012 when I was in my second year of teaching and have attended termly meetings ever since.

I didn’t know anything about it when I first turned up, but it instantly struck me as the kind of teaching and CPD I wanted to be a part of, with a really concentrated focus on theoretical pedagogy, high-quality texts, and student engagement and enjoyment.

I feel that I was very fortunate to have turned up that day as LTE has been fundamental to my development as a classroom practitioner, not really so much as the delivery of the actual suite of lessons – although I would like to think that I am quite proficient at them after so many years! – but more profoundly in terms of how my questioning and probing of students has been sharpened. I have become aware of the importance of how questions are framed as well as the value of modulating my responses to students’ ideas in order to enable the students to evaluate their ideas’ validity rather than praising the ‘right’ answer and shutting down further exploration. I tend to plan my lessons as a series of questions to ask at different points, often inadvertently following the structure of LTE lessons.

I am sure that the long-term nature of the CPD is a key reason why it has had such an impact; one-day CPD courses often tend to give you good ideas and some resources and lesson ideas to try, but tend to be more discrete and limited to the topic in question.

The sessions are interesting and it is a great way of finding out about the wider landscape in education, both in terms of new research but also the development of government and Ofsted policy. As well as this, it is nice to see friendly and familiar faces at the meetings and everyone shares ideas in a spirit of collegiality.”

Lesson Simulation: Content and Pedagogical knowledge

As reports into effective professional development suggest, ideally, we’d seek to develop pedagogical and subject knowledge together. The need for pedagogical content knowledge has been recognised in Ofsted’s frameworks, recognising effective teaching arises in a subject by matching the how to the what. One of the most effective ways to support teachers’ subject knowledge is to provide lesson simulations for teachers. An LTE lesson simulation features in every training session as the teachers adopt the role of learners and work through the lesson they will teach to their classes. By exploring the texts together teachers strengthen their understanding of the schemata underpinning texts. As they discuss the writer’s choice of text type, use of symbolism, consider how different readers might interpret the text, re-read texts considering how the writer attains their goals and explore the structural devices used, teachers are developing their subject knowledge by exchanging ideas and insights. They also become aware of the complexity of what they will teach and start to consider how will they support pupils to appreciate the text when they return to the classroom.

After working through the lesson simulations, teachers reflect upon pedagogical knowledge considering research such as effective group work, prior knowledge, metacognition, desirable difficulties etc. The lessons simulation provides an insight into what they wish to teach. However, the reflections afterwards develops pedagogical content knowledge as teachers consider how best to support pupils’ understanding when teaching the text.

Mirroring training and the pedagogy

The collaboration and guidance evoked by the lesson simulations and LTE training in general, mirrors the process teachers will replicate for their pupils in the future. Teachers work together in groups to socially construct their understanding of LTE, they work through difficulties together with the support of the tutor and there are cycles of reflection to support them. As Philip Adey suggested there must be a synergy between the style of the training and the pedagogy itself.

Lucy Timmons, Deputy Headteacher at Linton Mead School explains the significance of this mirroring between the training and pedagogy:

“Six years ago, I read ‘Learning Intelligence: Cognitive Acceleration Across the Curriculum from 5 to 15 years’ by Michael Shayer and Phillip Adey. It chimed with my educational philosophy, one of social constructivist principles with a keen desire to see dialogic teaching at the heart of every child’s learning journey, and my leadership philosophy, where teachers are agents of change and use that agency to develop and embed effective teaching and learning practice.

Once I started the LTE training, I became acutely aware of how we as teachers were being guided and developed by the very principles the training aims to embed. We were co meaning makers and treated as such. The impact was vast and rapid both on my practice and leadership and on the classes, teachers and support staff who observed my development through the training.”.

Interestingly once teachers have experienced the training, they appreciate the need to offer a similarly structured programme for their colleagues. They become aware of the limitations of quick fixes and the need to establish a community of enquiry together. As Lucy explains:

“We made a strategic decision to embed the principles of ‘Let’s Think’ across the school as part of our School Development Plan. Raising the standards of teaching and learning in English was, as ever, a priority but, more importantly, so was embedding a consistent, effective and visceral pedagogy offer across the entire school with ‘buy in’ from all staff and a sense of accountability and reflection.

Fast forward six years and the principles of Let’s Think are now an integral, published part of the school’s teaching and learning ethos. All teachers are trained in the principles and it is part of new staff induction. We are honoured to host training at the school which is key to keeping the practice focussed and in tune with the original principles. It forces us to consistently keep anchored in the absolute foundations of the principles as there is always a danger of schools transforming an idea to suit their own or government agendas at the expense of the quality and foundations of the idea in the first place. Our commitment has always been to stay true to the ‘Let’s Think’ teaching principles and to reflect constantly on our practice. This is ongoing. Our team teaches LTE lessons fortnightly and our teachers constantly observe each other and act as critical friends. Key to this is professional open dialogue, healthy challenge and an unrelenting commitment on the part of the leadership team.”

Conclusion

In 2013 – 2015, 35 secondary schools and 8 primary schools, all new to Let’s Think in English, were recruited in London and their staff trained and supervised in delivering LTE lessons fortnightly as part of London Schools Excellence Fund Trial. At the start and completion of the training, teachers undertook a self-efficacy test, reviewing their confidence in different aspects of teaching. Teachers felt they had improved in every aspect of their teaching. See: https://www.letsthinkinenglish.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/TeacherEfficacySurvey.pdf

The 5 most marked increases in individual aspects of efficacy were in teachers’ ability:

to provide appropriate challenges for the more capable students (+24.9%)
to implement alternative strategies in their classrooms (+23.7%)
to help their students think critically (+22.9%)
to provide an alternative explanation or example when students are

confused (+20.4%)

to adjust their lessons to the proper level for individual students

(+18.8%)

Undoubtedly the tutors, course materials and research into subject and pedagogical knowledge all played a part in the successful outcome. LTE and all effective training programmes provide a vehicle to monitor and evaluate teaching through professional dialogue. The PD methods must mirror the pedagogy. In the LTE classroom we seek to develop a community of enquiry through discussion that is respectful but open to critical evaluation. We encourage pupils to reflect and adapt. These are the same values the professional development seeks to nurture and provides a long-lasting legacy.

References

[i] Adey, Philip. (2006). A model for the professional development of teachers of thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 1. 49-56. 10.1016/j.tsc.2005.07.002.

[ii] Fullan, Michael. Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001. Print.

Narrative Shapes. Lesson Six: “The Maker”

From a focus on six word short stories and classification the Year 6 class moved on to narrative sequencing in a film, considering the story mountain as a model and narrative shape.

Narrative sequencing in Let’s Think in English involves:

“…the ability to sequence and re-sequence events to create narratives with different purposes and effects. It involves being able to manipulate component parts of that narrative to create additional, perhaps multiple, meanings and layers of complexity.”

Pupils study a short film called The Maker by Zealous Creative. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDXOioU_OKM

We start the lesson by interfering with text by playing the soundtrack of the opening of the film with the accompanying images hidden. Pupils are asked first to consider changes in tone and then speculate on the characters and setting before linking these speculations with evidence. It is remarkable how accurate the pupils’ speculations often are with suggestions of one character due to the lack of dialogue and suggestions of frantic action taking place indoors due to the shuffling sounds.

Once hooked in and with their own initial narrative created, pupils watched the film. There were gasps as the strange protagonist appeared. As the film reached its conclusion, pupils spontaneously broke into conversation as they discussed their understanding and established a clear narrative.

With the pupils now hooked, we explored an established narrative pattern model for the pupils to apply and review. Pupils are presented with the story mountain model for narratives earlier in their academic career, but are they provided with an opportunity to critically evaluate the model?

I began by asking the pupils to define the 5 stages in their groups: exposition, build up, problem, resolution and ending. The feedback from the groups suggests the pupils were familiar with the stages. I provided an opportunity for them to apply the stages to a narrative they are familiar with. They were studying David Almond’s “The Savage” in class and I invited them in their groups to identify the 5 stages in this narrative. Through feedback it was clear they had a shared understanding of the application of the 5 stages in “The Savage”.

I then invited them to apply the stages to a new text: “The Maker”. In their groups they discussed the possibilities, but while listening to the different groups it became clear there were differences of opinion regarding the problem and ending. In feedback I focused the discussion on this difference of opinion. We quickly established that the opening is when the rabbit first appears on the screen although a caveat is raised of how we read the opening differently when we’ve reached the end of the film. The build-up is seen as the rabbit’s attempts to bring its creation to life. The problem is viewed in different ways with some groups identifying it as how he might bring his creation to life while others argued the problem is the passing of time. I encouraged them to consider the reasoning behind the alternative positions: “Why might the other group argue that X is the problem?”. Once they considered both positions they are willing to accept both as inter-connected problems. They also discussed the ending; while they agree the film has an end point they suggest the narrative doesn’t and appeared to be repeating itself.

I drew the story mountain shape on the board and discussed why the problem is placed at the top. The pupils remarked because “it goes up”. I ask them what is “it”? The instant response was “the storyline”. I invited them to return to their groups and consider this further. Why is the problem at the top of the story mountain? And why do the lines slope? This appeared to provide a desirable difficulty; pupils were engaged but initially puzzled and they shift from thinking to reasoning.

Responses from one group explained the problem is at the top as this is often the highest point of tension and engagement and the lines and their slope reflect rising and falling tension. This appeared to be plausible to the other groups, but I felt they needed time to explore the suggested idea so I invited them to return to their groups to consider this further. As discussed before it is crucial pupils are encouraged not just to listen but to critically evaluate the ideas being shared.

I asked the class if the story mountain is the best shape for “The Maker”. Their immediate response was no. I challenged them for an alternative and again, almost immediately, a circle is suggested as it has the same start and end point. I challenged them again, to return to their groups and see if they could suggest an improvement on the circle. As expected, they swiftly found an improvement by suggesting an oval. We discussed why an oval might be an improvement and they justified the choice as it captures “the increasing tension” better than a circle.

I then set the groups the challenge to think of the most appropriate shape they can for “The Maker’s” narrative. Importantly the pupils are not set a task where the teacher is expecting a particular set response. Having designed the lesson and taught and observed it many times, I was aware of the likely possible responses but each pupil and group were given the freedom to assemble their own ideas. The images below show the range of shapes the pupils suggested for “The Maker”:

However, it is not just the idea that is important but the reasoning behind the idea and how this is evidenced with relation to the film. As mentioned in previous posts, the order of feedback is important in Let’s Think in English lessons. We attempt to take feedback in ascending order of difficulty of concept so pupils may build their understanding in stages. For example, to start with the cylinder shape would be conceptually too big a jump for some pupils as an initial point for discussion. However, all the pupils are able to consider why for example the semi-circle might be more reflective of the narrative with its sudden downturn in tension than an oval. By considering the best order of feedback all responses add value to the discussion and scaffold levels of increasing difficulty.

With the structure explored, the pupils considered the implications of the narrative and who the Maker might be. The inclusion of “might” is important as it enabled pupils to explore a range of possibilities rather than settling upon their first thoughts. Suggestions abounded with the first rabbit, the book, the violin, the music and a God-like figure all proposed. Pupils started to pose their own questions as they became submerged in the texts: Could the cycle be broken? If so, how?

Once more differing positions were adopted and reviewed. 7 LTE lessons in the class have moved beyond the desire to be right or indeed to provide a response for the teacher to approve. The pupils are now interested in enquiry and will often explain the merits of an opposing position before reaffirming their own. They no longer look at me exclusively as they speak but are starting to see their audience as the classroom community.

The lesson drew to a close with the end of the school day. 15 pupils unprompted approached me on the way out offering further thoughts and left the room discussing aspects of the film. “The Maker” and the discussions provoked continue to form and strengthen after the lesson. The pupils do not leave the room with a single nugget of knowledge or a fact to prove they’ve all understood the text, but they’ve made meaning of a text together by fusing their shared knowledge and skills and leave the classroom still making meaning.

Writing Less and Thinking More: Lesson 5: Classification

Writing Less and Thinking More: Lesson 5: Classification and Six Word short stories.

It would seem from pupils’ responses during Let’s Think in English lessons that they have previously been provided with definitions of literary terms e.g. genre, sonnet, etc, but are infrequently provided with an opportunity to apply the definition to a text and see if it fits. Pupils need an opportunity to make meaning from the knowledge previously passed to them. It’s not uncommon at the start of a LTE lesson on classification to ask pupils to define genre yet, despite recently studying a genre, they struggle for a definition and furthermore are unable to provide different types of genres, leaving the class teacher puzzled.

One of the LTE reasoning patterns is Classification, which develops:

“The ability to group or sort ideas or objects purposefully by one characteristic or variable and then being able to regroup them meaningfully using another characteristic or variable. Classifying includes the ability to rank concepts according to a particular criterion and then resolving any conflict when a different criterion is introduced.”

Within Let’s Think in English we ask pupils to classify: character types, genre, text types and grammar. The lesson I explored with the Year 6 class looked at how we might classify a short story.

I commenced the lesson by asking pupils: what are the main features of a short story? Below are examples from four groups’ initial lists:

Group A

Group B

Group C

Group D

Not much description

Not much detail

Funny openings

Funny ending

A surprise

A beginning, middle and end

Paragraphs no chapters

Not too much description

Maybe a problem at the beginning

Characters

Main Event

Solution

Sub-titles

Subject

Little detail

As in the previous post, the challenge for the LTE teacher is to scan and assimilate the different points raised so feedback can clarify misconceptions and probe the responses that offer greater depth. To assist the pupils, I used “live bridging” in the lesson, linking the classification system they created to the texts they were already studying.

For example, the class developed the idea of short stories requiring “a problem at the beginning” by explaining it had to be introduced early as the writer had to work “quickly”. This led to a further clarification feature as the pupils felt a short story would only have one problem. I asked them to compare this to the “London Eye Mystery”, their class reading book. They felt the London Eye Mystery had one main problem but also a number of minor problems that are resolved as the protagonist proceeds.

Across all the groups, pupils included in their classification of short stories the main features of all stories: characters, setting, plot, problem and themes. They felt short stories would contain the same features, but they would be different from longer texts in significant ways. In terms of characters they felt it would be more likely to focus on 2 characters and have few, if any, minor characters. Similarly, with setting, a short story would have a setting perhaps two. They felt the plot would be similar to a longer text but the time-scale would be shorter. However, the concept of themes proved confusing for many as they frequently referred to plot when trying to identify themes. Again, I returned them to the story they are studying and asked them in groups to briefly clarify the plot of “London Eye Mysteries”. Once they had established this I asked them to consider what the themes might be and this led to suggestions of hope, trust and childhood.

I hope the above example helps clarify the subtle interplay between teacher and pupil in developing skills and knowledge in a LTE lesson. A misunderstanding of our programme is the teacher just facilitates understanding and sees where the pupils get to. An important component of LTE is to allow pupils the opportunity to air their ideas and equally importantly evaluate the ideas shared. There is no need for the teacher to tell Group D short stories are unlikely to have subtitles as the other groups provide effective feedback. The class are involved in ongoing review and alter their classification list based on the feedback. However the teacher needs to appreciate when pupils are struggling with understanding and provide an effective mediation to assist them. We’re reminded of Vygotksy’s words:

“A thought can be compared to a cloud shedding a shower of words”

We can best assess pupils’ understanding and knowledge when we enable them to share a shower of words and then we can consider the best way to assist them.

Next the pupils are given an opportunity to apply their classification list. However the previous activity is still open and ongoing. They are not merely applying their classification list; they are through the act of application reviewing the very list they created. LTE lessons, we believe, are fluid with questions seeping into follow-on questions; the question posed and responded to at the start of the lesson does not end there. It is an enquiry we carry with us until the end of the lesson and beyond.

The first text the pupils were presented with is a story from: “Short! A book of Very Short Stories” by Kevin Crossley:

“Talk About Short

He was alone and in the dark; and when he reached out for the matches, the matches were put in his hand.”

Working in groups pupils attempt to apply their classification list. Their immediate thoughts are it’s not a short story as they express doubts such as “There are no characters”, “It’s too short”, “There’s too little description etc”. Yet some disagree and when feeding back from their groups argue there are characters and in fact we know there must be at least two and one is a man.

As differing points of view are exchanged in the whole class, feedback pupils evaluate not just the ideas shared but also their own thoughts. Whereas at the start of the activity in groups the vast majority felt it wasn’t a short story, by the end of the discussion half the class have changed their mind persuaded by the logic and evidence presented by others.

Pupils were then presented with an even shorter text, a six word short story credited to Ernest Hemingway:

For sale: baby shoes, never worn.

It’s interesting to observe how the introduction of the new text resets the pupils’ thoughts. Once again almost everyone claimed it is not a short story because of its brevity. However as they are provided with an opportunity in their groups to socially construct their own and a collective understanding they begin to probe and question their immediate assumption and speculate on possible character and setting. They move from expressing thoughts to reasoning.

This time the majority of pupils don’t believe it’s a short story but rather think it would be a poster advertising the shoes. One pupils’ remarks triggers the class to take a new pathway of enquiry by asking would it be different if the six words were in speech marks. The pupils grapple with what the problem of the text might be. For many it is the need to sell the shoes. Some infer the shoe might be the wrong size with one pupil suggesting it may hint at a more tragic problem. As a mediation I share with them that it is alleged to have been created by a famous writer and ask them to review the text once more.

The idea that a story can be told very concisely is well established now although how many words or how much detail is required is an enquiry. The pupils are asked to review further examples of 6 word short stories by famous writers but they must now try to identify: character, setting, problem, plot and themes. Whereas with the initial texts they struggled to identify character when they weren’t clearly stated, now the pupils are confidently inferring around the text and relating their inferences to textual evidence. This leads the pupils to another cycle of reflection upon their classification list. Are we any clearer on the features of a short story? Should we change our list? Are some factors more important than others? They seem to suggest plot is less important in short stories than other features. Could we use this list again in another context?

As the lesson draws to a close I immediately start bridging with them; providing them with an opportunity to apply the skills and knowledge acquired. The pupils are asked to compose six word short stories either as a group or individually. Interesting the majority opt to write their own; they are very keen to do so. As they place their first thoughts on paper, we invite pupils to share their first attempts and ask peers to provide feedback with responses such as “What’s the problem though?”, “We need to know more about who is saying that?”. They are now using the classification list to create and evaluate their own text. I emphasis to them that when hearing an example we should be able to identify the key features and the writer should be able to explain them if called upon.

We end the lesson by inviting pupils to share their examples if they wish. Every pupil is keen to share and we use and review the classification list once more. The class teacher suggests they can return to this in the afternoon to redraft their examples although we emphasise the need to keep their first drafts and to write an accompanying explanation identifying the features. It seems by saying more and writing less the pupils are moving forward in their understanding of the features of stories and in their ability to classify.

Below are examples from the class for you to review:

Creating challenge through ranking: Lesson Four “Terrible Things”

Let’s Think in English uses low floor and high ceiling activities that help to develop reasoning. One such task is central to the fourth lesson I explored with the Pakeman Year 6 class: ranking.

Pupils studied Eve Bunting’s “Terrible Things” which is an allegory of the Holocaust. However, we make one key intervention to the text before presenting it to the pupils, removing Eve Bunting’s introductory explanation of the message and context of the story.

In concrete preparation, pupils are provided with the text from the opening page but not the accompanying illustrations and asked to consider what type of text this might be. The opening paragraph is:

“The clearing in the woods was home to the small forest creatures. The birds and squirrels shared the trees. The rabbits and the porcupines shared the shade beneath the trees and the frogs and fish shared the cool brown waters of the forest pond. They were content.”

The Pakeman class quickly established it was likely to be fictional as animals were “sharing” and “content”. Some speculated that it could be a fairy tale recognising the “woods” and “animals” as conventions. A pupil shared the idea it was likely these animals would speak in the story as they already showed some human qualities like “sharing” and therefore this would not be unusual. Another group made the distinction, it could be “realistic fiction” suggesting that the animals could represent people in some way as they are showing human emotions. The language of logical deduction is emerging in the class as opinions are supported with textual evidence and this in turn leads to more developed deductions.

Following the concrete preparation, we read the complete story with accompanying illustrations. Then pupils were set a ranking activity to place the characters in order in terms of who is most to least to blame for what happens. Pupils were provided with the names of the characters on separate strips of paper and lay them out in terms of blame.

The pupils were highly engaged in the task and it’s becoming clear five lessons into the programme that their focus and motivation is moving away from trying to provide the teacher with an answer into one of intellectual enquiry. The groups are more inclusive and collaborative. In lesson one there tended to be an individual who would make the key decisions whereas now there is more of an attempt to pool and synthesise ideas. The volume and tone of their talk is more focused; they are listening attentively rather than being silent. There are non-verbal clues too: more eye contact, pupils are physically closer together and their facial expressions show interest. The individuals who were reluctant to voice opinions in lesson one are now engaged and immersed. More importantly these pupils appear happier.

Reasoning can be stimulated in many different ways in a classroom but asking pupils to rank a range of factors provides needed constraint, decision making and agency to return to the text. Typically, Year 6 pupils when ranking the characters from this story tend to place them in the following order:

Terrible Things (they are the ones who take the creatures)
Big Rabbit (he encourages the other characters to ignore what is happening and appears self-interested).
The other animals in descending order depending on when they were taken so the Birds who are taken first are seen as the least to blame.
Little Rabbit (is typically seen as innocent and warns the others)

However invariably some groups and individuals see the ranking differently. Pupils are presented with the first stage of conflict: to reconcile differences in their group. Again, differing opinions drive the pupils back to the text as they fine-comb for evidence to support their stance. In LTE it is not merely enough to have an opinion but it is important we critically evaluate the opinions shared, probing them and ensuring they stand up to scrutiny.

When scanning the different groups’ ranking before feedback, it was interesting to see how their orders varied. An advantage of asking pupils to visually rank in this way is it provides the teacher with a clear insight into the groups’ thought processes before taking feedback and they may consider the best order for feedback from groups. Most groups placed the creatures in a descending order as below:

Others opted for a different arrangement such as:

Taking feedback it makes sense to explore the common position of the majority of groups and establish the reasoning behind their choices before asking them the class to consider alternatives.

During visual ranking, the teacher can notice evolutions in reasoning as the order changes and can draw upon this in feedback e.g. “I noticed you had Little Rabbit at the bottom of your list to begin with but moved him up. What made you change your mind?” Teachers can also identify more subtle changes in thought processes and draw their attention to this to assist with metacognition. For example, drawing pupils’ awareness to the subtle change they make in their ranking below by adding a start and end point and asking them to consider why they made the change and how effective it is.

The pupils partook in a passionate and thoughtful debate and during the exchange of ideas Little Rabbit’s possible culpability became more evident. Through the ranking activity pupils were understanding and exploring Eve Bunting’s question: “If everyone had stood together at the first sign of evil would this have happened?” Pupils left the room considering this question in the light of the Holocaust but also considering its relevance to their world today.