Responsive Teaching in LTE: The Black Hole Lesson 3
This blog post looks at the ongoing development of cognition in a Year 6 class. This third post is an exploration of “responsive” teaching in LTE with a particular focus on when to provide opportunities for social construction and group size.
Responsive Teaching: Lesson Three: The Black Hole.
LTE offers cycles of social construction for pupils in groups to form ideas and develop their thinking together before the teacher mediates and helps to construct feedback and deepen understanding. In this third lesson, there are 5 prescribed moments when the teacher asks pupils to work in groups:
During Concrete Preparation: when pupils consider what a black hole is and what they might infer about the film from the title credits.
Social construction 1: when the pupils read closely the opening 23 seconds and consider what we learn about the man, followed by watching the film in its entirety and tracking how their feelings towards the man changes and why.
Cognitive conflict: when they consider: who is to blame and at what point is the man trapped.
Social construction 2: when pupils ponder the message of the film.
Metacognition: when pupils reflect upon and evaluate their thinking, knowledge gained and consider how they might apply this in the future.
However, a LTE teacher seeks to be responsive to pupils’ needs and will identify when they need to return to their groups to further their understanding, consider thinking that appears to be beyond the reach of the majority of the class, summarise the dialogue, correct misconceptions and consider alternatives to name but a few. Asking pupils to work in groups is not just prescribed; it is a flexible tool that is deployed as and when it is needed.
As an example, in this lesson, when feeding back in Social Construction 1, a line of enquiry emerged regarding what time of day it was in the film. A pupil argued it was morning, while a number of others felt it was night. The discussion could have taken place between just those who were ready to respond and had picked up on this detail, but this would have divorced the discussion from the majority who hadn’t considered the time of day and certainly hadn’t considered whether or not it was significant. I invited the pupils to return to their groups to consider this point while watching the opening of the film again.
Pupils were, in effect, critically evaluating two ideas that had been suggested and also seeing if they could find further support for either stance. Returning to their groups involved all pupils rather than those who were immediately ready to respond. In feedback, pupils were able to provide further evidence that it would appear to be night time: the empty office, lighting, the dishevelled appearance and attire of the man, the time on the clock and were able to use this to consider its significance.
Once teachers realise the importance of providing pupils with opportunities to construct meaning for themselves in groups, they begin to consider the practical implications. When training teachers we are often asked:
How do you decide upon the groups?
How many in a group?
We see these as line of enquiries for teachers and will ask them to consider this for themselves in their early explorations with LTE and feedback on our second visit. It is important in training programmes that we provide scaffolds for teachers, for example, carefully constructed lesson plans, while also enabling teachers to explore pedagogical issues. Thoughtful pupils will evolve from thoughtful teachers. It is also important to stress we are not seeking a homogenous approach to teaching but rather teachers who are making the best choice in their settings to develop their pupils’ thinking.
For the first two lessons at Pakeman, pupils worked in mixed ability groups of 6. This was the group size they usually worked in and one I tend to favour as it tends to provide a sufficient range of ideas and also makes it easier to plot possible sequences for group feedback. In the first two lessons, I made one alteration to the groups. The groups were spread across 3 tables likes so:
This seems a common layout for group work in classrooms. However, it would seem from the layout the groupwork pupils are engaged in would involve writing with the emphasis on space between pupils and a space to work. LTE requires pupils to discuss and collaborate and has no or little writing. I prefer the pupils to be physically close together and the group enclosed. Therefore, I changed the layout so pupils were grouped around one table making it easier to converse and listen to one another.
However, recently I revisited the British International School in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, where LTE is thriving to provide a second wave of training. They tended to group their pupils in threes or fours and I was impressed with the active learning of all pupils in their groups. I decided to try a hybrid of the 2 in the latest lesson in Pakeman, sitting pupils in groups of three. However, by pushing the tables together they could be quickly combined into a group of six:
The 2 teachers observing felt it had a significant impact on the engagement of all pupils. The initial grouping of three ensured all pupils were heard and involved especially as I would select who would start their group talk. However, the close proximity to another group of three provided the flexibility to place them into a six to interrogate differing ideas or for more extended periods of analysis and enquiry. Indeed, pupils seemed to intuitively bridge out to a bigger group when they felt they had resolution on an initial idea and would like to air it with a new audience.
So three lessons in we’re moving towards a more responsive classroom. One shaped by the thoughts of pupils with the teacher mediating in subtle and explicit ways but always seeking to be responsive.
Ripples of reading in LTE: Voices Lesson Two
This blog post looks at the ongoing development of cognition in a Year 6 class in their second LTE lesson of the year and the impact of multiple rereading of a text.
Let’s Think in English Lesson 2: Voices in the Park
You’ll recall from the previous blog post I had started teaching fortnightly LTE lessons to a Year 6 class at Pakeman School in Islington. Their first lesson was “Voices in the Park”, an oddity for LTE as it’s a two-part lesson. In lesson one, pupils developed their understanding of the four voices by studying one voice in their group and then seeking to clarify the relationship between the voices.
The second part of the lesson starts with a recap. I asked the two teachers (Rebecca, the class teacher and Harry the parallel class teacher) to read the voices to the class. I asked Harry to read the male voices: Charlie and Smudge’s Dad and Rebecca to read the female voices Smudge and Charlie’s Mum. This was a deliberate mediation as I thought it would assist pupils in identifying one of the main markers of the characters: gender.
You may recall from the previous blog post, the pupils’ understanding of character took time to form in the last lesson as they shifted between voices and characters. One might fear that starting again, two weeks later, pupils may have forgotten previous characteristics. However after each reading the groups were given approximately. one minute to discuss what they learnt about the characters. Their responses were succinct and thoughtful. Gone was the confusion of the previous lesson, instead they recalled their previous expositions and added to them.
This was in part a result of greater attentiveness to their own group discussions, giving them all an opportunity to clarify misconceptions. I had begun the lesson asking them: “When you talk, who are you talking to?” Hands shot up and their immediate response was to me. When I challenged them on this, they made the distinction they were talking to each other in the group but to me when feeding back. At this point, I suggested to them this was only part true; their audience included me but primarily was their peers.
In the concrete preparation stage of the lesson, I had purposely selected reluctant contributors from the previous lesson, as I wanted to include them as early as possible in the learning and felt this early recap would be the best time for them to contribute with some confidence. Again, I had emphasised the expectation that any individual in a group could be expected to provide feedback from their group. However, I think we also underestimate the cognitive challenge of summarising a group discussion. It is a worthwhile activity in itself. Encouragingly, the pupils who were reluctant to contribute last time were more forthcoming this lesson. Some of their responses were simplistic: often focusing on only one characteristic. However, it was encouraging to have this contribution and invite others within the group to build upon it.
Next came a surprise. Up to this point the pupils had only dealt with the text. As we concluded concrete preparation, I shared the image of the four characters on the board and asked the pupils to identify them. Immediately, the energy within the room surged and the pupils broke into the busy chatter and gesticulation of high engagement. Again, I requested they lower their hands during feedback and listen to the points being raised. Pupils intuitively referenced the text as they identified the character. Not just that, they could link the image with moments in the plot. For example, in the image below of Smudge on the see-saw, they identified the textual reference:
“We played on the see-saw, he didn’t say much, but later on he was a bit more friendly”.
The actual illustration had included Charles on the see-saw too but it had been cropped just to show Smudge. The pupils, without prompting, explained Charles would be at the other end of the see-saw and explained he would be looking shy. They were visualising the omission in the illustration. The illustrations’ role was to trigger rereadings of the text cementing pupils’ understanding of the story and characterisation.
Next came the cognitive challenge, I explained to the pupils that Anthony Browne, when publishing the book had selected a particular order for the voices and we agreed this was unlikely to be by chance. I asked the pupils to consider in their groups: Which voice did they think would be the best one to end the story with?
In the lesson plan we designed, the actual cognitive challenge is set out as below:
“Does it matter what order the voices are revealed within the story?
What order do you think the voices should appear in the story?
Which voice would you choose to end with and why?”
I’m a great believer that if you ask the right question, it requires learners to ask many other questions for themselves; like Matroyshka dolls the right conceptual question contains many smaller questions. From posing one question: “Which voice would be the best to end with?”, the pupils explored the other unmentioned questions too as they decided on the order of all four voices and discussed why they should be in such an order.
When taking feedback, however, I kept the spotlight on which voice would make the best ending as it kept discussions focused and afforded an opportunity for critical evaluation. Three groups had opted for Smudge to end the story (Browne’s choice) while two groups opted for Smudge’s Dad. I decided to take feedback from the groups who opted for Smudge Dad’s first as listening to their group discussion, their argument seemed less convincing but their reasons need airing. The main thrust of the groups’ arguments was the Dad’s account implied they made it home and therefore brings a finality to the text: “Then it was time to go. Smudge cheered me up. She chatted happily to me all the way home”.
The argument for Smudge’s account was more wide-ranging. Firstly, groups argued Smudge’s account was the only one that referred to all 4 characters and would therefore help readers to draw events together. Other groups argued Smudge’s account was more “complete” as it included what happened after they returned home as she made her Dad a cup of tea. However, one pupil’s response inspired a thoughtful exchange on the significance of ending the account with Smudge placing Charlie’s flower in water rather than the tea. The reference to the significance of the flower rang true to the class and they began to explore why the flowers were important. This led quickly to a reference it “represents” the friendship between the characters and overall the class unanimously came to the decision this was the best ending.
As we drew to the close of over 2 hours of discussion, co-construction and analysis, the pupils read the text as intended by Browne with picture and text. They were truly excited to see the text in its entirety, spontaneously breaking into conversation and frequently identified the symbolic quality of the illustrations. As Smudge’s account ended the story there were clinch fists of self-congratulations as many realised their prediction proved true.
I ended the lesson by posing an unscripted question: “Which account do you think is most important and why?” and gave pupils a flexible minute to consider this alone. Before taking feedback I asked for a show of hands so pupils were committed to their argument and not initially swayed by others. There were a range of responses with different pupils able to make a coherent argument for each character. The lesson concluded with pupils having a shared understanding of the text yet able to hold differing opinions.
There is much to consider over the two lessons regarding the pupils’ development but one thought occurred regarding the power of rereading and slow reveal. Pupils’ reading of the text is staggered throughout the lessons as more and more of the whole text is revealed in stages. The reading sequence is:
Pupils in groups read one voice.
Pupils listen to the teacher re-reading the voice they studied and read the other 3 voices for the first time.
Pupils read (or skim) the four voices to consider who is happiest.
Lesson 2 starts with re-reading of the four voices.
Pupils read (or skim) text to decide which voice would make the best ending.
Pupils read text with illustrations (watch animation).
So in total 6 directed readings but this doesn’t include individual pupil readings as they dipped in and out of the text constructing and following arguments. While such slow reveal readings would not be possible or desirable always they certainly add an in-depth study and it was noticeable how pupils’ engagement with the text increased as the number of readings increased. The slow reveal of the text seems to give pupils’ cognition a chance to keep apace of the reading and their understanding. It also makes them more aware of writer choices, as they consider choices such as portrayal of character and ordering of the text. I’ll return to both re-reading and slow reveal in coming blogs.
Next lesson we’re changing focus to a LTE lesson on the FutureShort Film “The Black Hole”. I’m counting down the days already.
Voices in the Park: Starting a year of LTE teaching and reflection
Voices in the Park: Starting a year of LTE teaching and reflection
Lesson One: Voices in the Park
NB: There are online versions of the story for those who are unfamiliar with the text. However, in the first LTE lesson the pupils are presented with the text only (in four separate voices and not the accompanying images)
Laurie and I have always felt we should teach all the lessons we’ve designed and be willing to model them. In fact, it is an offer we make to all new schools to model a lesson with their pupils for review. We taught all the lessons in their early drafts and have taught some of the lessons many, many times.
However, I haven’t been in a position to teach the lessons to a class on a fortnightly basis and see how the pupils’ cognition develops over time. Therefore, I volunteered to teach a Year 6 class at Pakeman Primary School, in Islington on a fortnightly basis for the 2017/18 academic year. I’ve worked with Pakeman staff previously to share the pedagogy and principles of LTE but they’ve only sampled occasional lessons. We agreed to film the LTE lessons so we could analyse individual lessons but also look to track the impact of LTE over time.
The first question I faced was where to start? As you may know, we don’t have a recommended sequence of lessons for LTE (although in primary they are split into 2 Year groups e.g. Year 5/6) preferring to entrust schools and departments to decide what works best for them. I was tempted to start with What has happened to Lulu a lesson I often model on visits to schools, but instead opted for Voices in the Park as it is the first lesson listed on our Year 5/6 and therefore many teachers may start with this. The “Voices” lesson is different to the majority of the others as it is a two-part lesson and scheduled to take place over a minimum of 2 hours.
The first Voices lesson is focused on the LTE reasoning pattern: “Frames of Reference” with pupils exploring the relationship between the four voices. Groups are initially provided with one voice only and try to establish what they can deduce about the narrator. Subsequently pupils are provided with all four voices and consider how this develops their understanding of the character. Once their understanding of the characters is established, another re-reading of the text is triggered through the cognitive conflict task: “Rank the characters in terms of who you thought was happiest and explain why”. Metacognition opportunities should be recognised and explored throughout the lesson.
Before starting the lesson, we altered the layout of the room. The class was grouped in sixes (my preferred group size for LTE) but they sat spread across 3 tables with two pairs facing each other and another pair facing inwards at the end. We have found in LTE lessons that the pair that sits facing in and distanced by a sideways table can often struggle to maintain their participation in group work while the four directly facing each other tend to work better. I placed the groups of 6 around one table only so they were close together, would be able to hear each other and also were enclosed. We also agreed the TA would film a group (on a IPad for now, the school is awaiting IRIS), and the class teacher and other Year 6 teacher would observe and feedback after the lesson.
So, some thoughts from the first lesson:
Voices is a challenging lesson in terms of assimilating four texts at once. In KS3 and KS4 lessons it is unusual for students to work through four texts at once. Usually the focus is on one or two texts. All the LTE lessons are designed to be challenging with the cognitive conflict pitched to be initially outside the grasp of the majority of the class so it forces them to struggle and think anew. It left me wondering if there should be a designated first lesson for each Year Group in the same way most KS3 classes start with The Bridge. Would the pupils have benefitted from an easier introduction to LTE?
Learning in LTE lessons can be erratic and not immediately visible. The pupils in their groups, were able to deduce and infer key features of the single voice they were presented with. Pupils had heard the other voices’ accounts being read and their peers analysis of them, but when at first they were presented with all four and asked to assimilate them, it appeared overwhelming. During their group work, socially constructing the relationship between the four characters and in their initial feedback, I feared they might not be able to identify the relationship. I had to restrain my impulse to start questioning too early as they struggled with misconceptions and misunderstanding. Yet, slowly they began to pull together the relationship as they critiqued one another’s responses. Towards the end of their whole class feedback, under their guidance, I sought to sketch on the board the relationships they had identified which looked like this:
Victoria (dog) Albert (dog)
Mum/Charles Dad/Smudge
Park
If I’d questioned them earlier, would they have placed the 2 dogs at the top of this relationship? Of course, they were recognising that the dogs were symbolic and reflective of their owners and the children; Albert the rough friendly dog that sniffs bums (never fails to raise a laugh) and Victoria the pedigree Labrador. If the aim of the lesson was simply to understand the plot then we could have reached such conclusions very quickly but we were working on Frames of Reference and their ability to assimilate information together. Time spent struggling now, will help them in the future.
However the greatest challenge for most of the pupils was not assimilating the texts but being able to represent their groups’ point of view at any moment or critique another pupils’ ideas. When asking for feedback on group discussions, some pupils were unable to respond, while others in the group automatically started to respond for them. In LTE we believe any pupil should be able to report back from their group and summarise, as well as they can, the thoughts that were shared. Unsurprisingly, pupils were taken by surprise, that they were expected to comment upon a peer’s ideas and evaluate them. Typically, in classrooms, pupils expect the teacher to provide feedback and it takes time for them to adjust to providing feedback for one another. We’ll start the next lesson with an explicit focus on this and how we might improve it.
Finally, practitioners explain LTE demands more of them than typical English lessons. In LTE, teachers must listen attentively, trying to understand not just what pupils are saying but what they are trying to say, while forming responsive questions and considering the best order of feedback. The lesson reminded me of the demands it places on pupils too. Thinking for an hour is demanding and the pupils need time to develop stamina too. LTE is a programme teachers and pupils alike grow into. We can’t expect all pupils starting the programme to recognise or evaluate its benefits in the way pupils like the one below from ICS Zurich was able to do after a year of the programme:
“I think that L.T.E. is the lesson that stretched my thinking the most because the teacher asks everybody from every table to share their ideas. If you answer a question, then the teacher would want you to think more deeply and say something like “Where’s your evidence? Why do you think that”?. Another thing that I like is that one person in a group can’t answer every single question, every single person in the table has to have an idea. So overall I love L.T.E!!!
My favourite lesson was Voices in the Park because we reviewed it many times so each time we saw it again we would look at the story from different perspectives. We had a lot of thinking which gave us many ideas to figure out how the characters feel.”
ICS Zurich, Year 6 pupil
After the lesson, I sat with the class teacher and her colleague and they provided feedback on how different pupils responded and discussed tweaks we might make to the groupings. I sat and reflected on the video footage as the charming Year 6 class walked past on their way to lunch, warmly greeting me 15 minutes after I left the room, as if they had known me for years and hadn’t seen me in ages. I’m looking forward to Part 2 and seeing how the pupils’ thinking develops and reflecting upon how I can best support them.
Let’s Think in English: A House of Possibility
In this month’s blog post, Leah Crawford, LTE Associate Tutor and Hampshire Network Lead, shares her experiences with LTE and its impact upon the teachers she’s trained. Leah explores how LTE supports teachers development of subject knowledge, reasoning, self-efficacy and self-regulation.
Leah Crawford LTE Associate Tutor & Hampshire Network Lead
I came across the Let’s Think in English programme in the Autumn of 2012. I was then a local authority adviser, acutely aware that the revised National Curriculum, and attendant GCSE specifications and SATs were deliberately and openly more cognitively demanding. I needed to lead schools to dig deeper, beyond what seemed like a national obsession with boosting students over a threshold measure of Level 4 or Grade C.
Late one night, in the glow of the screen and a dim angle-poise lamp, I came across the LTE sub-section of the King’s College website. The references to the original CASE research and programme piqued my curiosity. I had often encountered the compelling effect of CA interventions in my professional reading but always come to a halt knowing that the very core of CA is to develop subject specific reasoning patterns in a subject context. And yet here was CA for English. My heart made a somersault. The email was written there and then and within 24 hours Laurie Smith had replied inviting me to attend a taster day of training at King’s.
By the end of the taster day, I was determined to secure a KS3 LTE pilot and by July of 2013, Laurie was leading the launch training for a cluster of 13 schools in the county council offices.
You can read the impact of this initial programme on the LTE website – notable particularly for the accelerated progress of previously lower attaining students in years 8 and 9. Since then, two further groups of teachers have completed the initial year of training at secondary, Michael Walsh led our first primary cluster from January 2015 to July 2016 and I launched a second primary cluster January 2017, in conjunction with the Winchester Teaching School Alliance. In all, I have shadowed and supported 95 teachers across around 50 schools to adopt Let’s Think. Nearly all schools still attend local network meetings now that their initial programme is complete, which is testament to the nature of LTE teacher development. First encounters suggest it is a programme of intensive and engaging intervention lessons; what lies beneath reconfigures teachers’ beliefs about learning. They get hooked on diving deep.
Sarah Cunningham’s previous blog offers a passionate and intuitive reflection on becoming a Let’s Think teacher. What I would like to explore here, is what I have gained and what it has helped me to learn about teacher learning.
Stepping back from the close-up detail and the individual narratives, 3 main themes emerge in terms of the impact that LTE programmes have on teachers:
Teachers develop deeper subject knowledge nested in subject specific pedagogy. The LTE reasoning patterns are rooted in the belief that text meanings are constructed between writers and readers. The very nature of a construct is that it is relative: open to a process of doubt and refinement. Nurturing reasoning that is at once rigorous and evidenced-based, yet remains open to doubt is a skilled pedagogical stance. LTE teachers begin to live a three-way split-screen existence in the classroom. They teach in the moment, are authentic in the interest and attention they show to student responses yet they also have an eye on the shape of the emerging discourse, where it has been, where it might lead, if the ensuing argument is well-constructed and indeed, if it would benefit from some further conflict. A third eye is alert to the social dynamics of the group, balancing cognitive purpose with democratic involvement.
Let’s Think lessons are a privilege to teach. The structure of the lesson is very different to other English lessons and the children, particularly those a little nervous about writing, thrive in the ‘no answer is wrong’ philosophy. Already it is clear to see that children are more open to suggestions from others and they are happier to change their ideas and thoughts following discussions. The children are better at providing evidence for their answers and this was also evident in their end of year reading assessments. Rebecca Hewitt: Year 5/6 teacher and English Leader at Compton All Saints Primary, Winchester
Teachers’ social and ethical frames of reference become at once more open and more analytical. When teachers return to a professional development session to reflect on the first 3 or 4 lessons, for example, often there has already been a degree of recalibration in the contributions made by individuals and the ways that contributions are received by the class and the teacher. This might initially be an observation that students who rarely speak seem more willing to do so – or that dominant students have begun to acknowledge the contributions of others. It is not unusual for teachers – and students – to revise their view of the capability and capacity of students with SEN. LTE teachers develop a respect for students’ own routes to higher-order thinking, dependent on their starting points and prior-experiences. There is an increased belief that learning is a collaborative endeavour – reasoning together develops the teacher’s as much as students’ thinking.
Let’s Think has been a brilliant vehicle for raising standards of comprehension, inference and deduction in the school, which is why we embarked on the project in the first place. But I would say that the main benefits of Let’s Think go far beyond this: the fantastic learning opportunities that it provides that enable you to explore spirituality, morality, and social and cultural values and conventions are beautiful to behold. Veronica Stoodley: Headteacher of Four Marks Primary School, Hampshire
Teachers develop improved self-efficacy and self-regulation. LTE teachers become more confident in the face of student difficulty and reflect on their teaching with a determined modality. Hearing understandings that are different to or in conflict with their own become fascinating opportunities not frustrating disappointments. Not all lessons work equally well for all teachers or with all groups. Progress and struggle are both matters for focused reflection. Over time, it’s not so much ‘That was a great lesson, I’ll do that again!’ as much as, ‘That seemed to be much more effective …. What factors led to that? If I taught the same lesson again, what would I be mindful of? Did I prompt the students themselves to reflect on what made the difference in this lesson?’
As a teacher, the impact has been great, due to the rich content of the course and the further knowledge it has provided me in understanding metacognition and how thinking develops for a range of ages and abilities. Being able to discuss this with my colleagues on the course and how their own classes have responded too, as a comparison, has been insightful and extremely beneficial to my practice. Rosie Earle: Deputy Headteacher and year 5 teacher, Netley Abbey Junior, Southampton
It has been a privilege and a personal struggle (with moments of epiphany) to observe, support and participate in this depth of professional learning. What I have learnt about teacher learning aligned with my existing philosophy but took me much deeper in its enactment.
Crucially, it would be impossible to support the development of LTE teachers without teaching lessons and knowing the materials well yourself. This is not to be the sage in the room – but only when you have built contingent algorithms of how a lesson has and might pan out (mental representations), are you able to contribute to rigour in thinking, to better guide the group to construct their own understanding and to respect the diversity of teachers’ own stances and approaches.
Secondly, LTE development can’t be rushed. It needs the same spiral movement through structured challenge that students experience through the lessons. This is only of benefit if teachers are taken through cognitive conflict themselves and reflect on this. Rich contexts for conflict and metacognition on the course have sprung from:
teaching lessons a second time to a different group.
observing a recently taught lesson with post lesson discussion
having one lesson take off one week, only for the next to be disappointingly flat.
transcribing a whole group section of a lesson (SC or CC) and looking at the impact of teacher contributions
collaborative planning of a lesson using a shared resource, keeping the reasoning focused to one reasoning pattern (I’m still working through conflict with many half-planned lessons…)
Teachers – and tutors – who stay with Let’s Think rediscover the pleasure in and the fruits of working through collaborative, purposeful struggle. A house of possibility.
A teacher’s reflection on LTE
As promised, this is the first of our teachers’ accounts of their experiences with Let’s Think in English. Sarah Cunningham is a Year 6 teacher in Berrywood Primary School, Hampshire. She attended a 6 days training course led by Leah Crawford (Hampshire LTE Tutor) and me over 2 years and is leading her school in developing the approach this year.
— Michael Walsh
Sarah Cunningham Berrywood Primary School
Having recently graduated from the two-year Let’s Think in English training programme, I have been astounded by the change in learning characteristics displayed by the pupils I have taught. I have noticed a shift from reserved children to children confident to make a contribution; from one-word answers to developed, well-reasoned responses; from accepting the first answer given as the ‘right one’ to challenging each other’s thinking; from teacher led discussions to child initiated talk; from passive learners to creative and critical thinkers who willingly want to make a contribution.
This is the power of Let’s Think in English.
My LTE journey started just over two years ago. At the time, I wondered what I was about to be part of. My colleague and I had been sent the course outline and I couldn’t help but notice a section titled, “What happened to Lulu?” We looked at each other in a puzzled manner. She was a 60’s popstar who went on to compete in Strictly Come Dancing, wasn’t she? Nevertheless we had been persuaded by our Headteacher that this course was a game-changer in education and that we were about to become part of something special. We brushed our thoughts of Lulu’s career aside and attended the launch day.
Led by the inspiring Michael Walsh and Leah Crawford, at the launch day we were presented with the research base behind LTE and shown the statistics demonstrating the significant impact on results in classes and schools where LTE had been implemented. The different aspects of the lessons were explained to us and we were given the opportunity to be involved in a couple of simulated lessons for us to then take back to our classes to trial. By the end of the day, I was excited. Not only had we discussed what really might have happened to Lulu, (from the Charles Causley poem,) but most importantly I had been exposed to a way of educating children that made sense to me.
As a child, I was always the one questioning “Why?” when introduced to new concepts. At the time, it was a case of learning by rote and therefore, on reflection, I spent much of my own education as a passive learner, who lacked a depth of understanding and just plugged through a list of maths equations and learnt the annotations of my poetry anthology and ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ off by heart. I remember being highly frustrated by this. It didn’t mean anything to me. When I embarked on my teaching career, much of my time at university was spent having lightbulb moments as I made connections with concepts I had been exposed to, but didn’t understand, as a child. Having experienced Philosophy for Children in the school where I volunteered in my gap year, I became passionate about how it promoted the development of children’s higher-order thinking skills.
Since then I have relished the opportunity to ensure the children who I teach do not feel like passive learners and I feel very fortunate to have embarked on my LTE journey from my NQT year. LTE has been central to my development as a teacher as it encompasses many of the aspects of P4C and encourages the children to find and formulate their own voice and ideas.
One of the greatest impacts of LTE has been the development of critical and creative thinkers in my classroom. Children in each of the three classes I have taught over the past two and half years have developed their ability to formulate their ideas at a small group level and then been able to present their contribution to the whole class. What was perhaps most encouraging was the children’s interest and desire to listen to each other’s contributions. Even if they disagreed, they could refer to comments made several minutes before. Pupils become confident to respectfully and critically evaluate each other’s and their own contributions and over time, they begin to reflect on what caused the change in their thinking. Class discussions that were previously led and perhaps shut down by more confident children have been replaced with rich dialogue involving each class member and led by the children.
It has also been interesting to note the children who make the contributions and to analyse what the children say in their responses. Quite surprisingly I found that many of my more vulnerable pupils, including children on the SEN register, were becoming highly involved in the discussions and providing well thought-through and linguistically developed ideas. Complex grammar develops through talk before it emerges in writing.
At this point it is perhaps important for me to say that in our school we do not set or group the children by ability. The children sit in groups of 4-6 of mixed ability. I strongly believe that the exposure of children who would previously have been considered ‘lower ability’ to the high quality, rich texts and stimulus used in the LTE sessions has meant that they have made significant progress, especially within their analysis and responses to texts in reading sessions. LTE encourages struggle and challenge and the children rise to it.
I recognise that being the cup-half-full-girl that I am, I have so far presented a very sunny picture of LTE. I am inspired by it and in awe of the impact it has had on many children’s education because of its underlying pedagogies. But it doesn’t mean that I haven’t experienced my own struggle along the way. I have referred to my LTE experience as a journey, which is exactly what it has been. I started it as a very new teacher and on a surface level learnt useful tips such as not choosing your most confident child to begin the discussion as it will then shut the rest of the dialogue down. I found it very difficult not to positively reinforce contributions and respond with a ‘well done’ and an excitable dance at the front of my classroom when the child I least expected shared a thought-provoking idea that changed the thinking of the class. Mastering the art of a poker-face has taken time.
Equally, so has not leading the children in a certain direction. It’s very tempting from having simulated many of the lessons on the course to want to steer the children in a certain direction or to expect them to reach a certain point. On some occasions, I have had to learn to accept children not getting to where I was expecting them to get to or to accept that they have taken the course of discussion down a different route. Two years on, I’m now excited to see how the children steer the discussion and where they take it. As teachers we are so driven and pressured by feeling like we have to get the children to a certain point of understanding by a certain time that it is refreshing to adopt this approach. It has however, taken time to know when to draw the children back to the question and knowing when to intervene, when to probe and when to encourage generalisation.
When I began teaching my first series of LTE sessions, my colleague and I were observed by the rest of our LTE cluster group. I was amazed by the quality of the dialogue and on this occasion, spent approximately half an hour on the social construction aspect of the lesson. It’s easy to get caught up by the quality of children’s responses and forget you are the guardian of the lesson shape. I often ran short of time for the meaty part of the lessons: cognitive conflict and metacognition. This was a learning curve for me.
There are countless points that I could list detailing how LTE has impacted on my teaching practice. Most importantly, my style of questioning has changed – my favourite question now being, “What led you to think that?” As a result of LTE, I have thought more carefully about how my questions can facilitate an open discussion, ensuring I am not leading, but encouraging speculation and challenge from the children.
Soon after beginning the LTE course, it was apparent how many aspects, especially the cognitive conflict, could be applied to other areas of the curriculum. In maths we often begin the lesson with a reasoning starter. I approach this as I would LTE by giving the children time talk in their group to respond to the starter before opening it up into a class dialogue. I facilitate the discussion exactly as I would a LTE lesson. This leads to a range of responses and the children evaluating which answer is more likely and providing evidence to justify why. As well as this, I have planned English units in which I have used a LTE style lesson to present the text to the children. This worked effectively with the book ‘Window’ by Jeannie Baker and caused lots of rich discussion and ultimately resulted in some really high quality writing.
One of the biggest changes we have made, only recently and as a result of LTE, is to the teaching of reading. We now expose the children to the text, or part of the text in the first session, depending on how we have planned the structure of the questioning that follows. We then facilitate a LTE style session to develop children’s responses to the text and gain a deeper understanding and allow children to bring their own experiences to the discussion. The natural way LTE supports children to infer from the text and refer to the text in their responses to justify their contribution has been central to developing their ability to respond to high quality texts. Following this, in the third session, the children write a written response to the questions discussed on the previous day. Since starting this way of teaching reading in September, children are writing developed, well-evidenced and reasoned answers. They are confident to explain why they have chosen to include a certain quote to support their response and are answering the questions more thoroughly and accurately than we have ever experienced before.
It is only right to include the response of the children:
“Let’s Think has helped me expand my imagination, made think outside the box and when I am editing pieces of work.”
“Let’s Think has helped me feel more confident in showing and giving my ideas.”
“It’s helped me listen.”
“The Let’s Think lessons have helped me to read through the text more carefully and look for clues in words I wouldn’t normally look at. Although sometimes I don’t want to answer the question, it has boosted my confidence to try.”
“Let’s think has helped me think more deeply and try to find hidden meaning through texts. I say my answers in better ways and have more confidence to disagree with others opinions if my own are different.”
“Let’s Think has helped me be more confident in giving thorough answers. It’s helped my memory and listening skills.”
“Let’s Think has helped me to read in-between the lines and listen and concentrate better.”
“I am confident with Let’s Think. It has helped me think more deeply about things and it gives me a better memory.”
“Let’s Think helps me in my reading because it is making my writing more mature and it helps me to retrieve evidence from the text.”
“I feel different since October but I still need to improve.”
“Let’s Think has helped me with my inference skills and my skills for backing up my opinion. I have also learnt how to link other ideas to the conversation and plan out what to say before saying it.”
It is exciting and rewarding to read these comments, knowing it has had a huge impact on the children’s learning; LTE goes far beyond delivering curriculum content. It has the power to engage learners, make them passionate about what they are discussing and be creative and critical when responding to both a stimulus and each other.
As Nelson Mandela so famously said, “Education is the most powerful weapon we have to change the world.” LTE empowers children to engage in their learning critically and creatively, children become passionate about the contributions they and their classmates make and be actively involved in leading their learning. At a time when teachers are hounded by pressures of ensuring each child makes enough progress, delivering a significantly more challenging curriculum and mounting paperwork pressures, there is potential to lose the sole purpose of education and to end up creating learners taught by numbers in a robotic fashion.
LTE can be the difference.
It supports the move from reserved children to children confident to make a contribution; from one-word answers to developed, well-reasoned responses; from accepting the first answer given as the ‘right one’ to challenging each other’s thinking; from teacher led discussions to child-initiated talk; from teacher to facilitator; from passive learners to creative and critical thinkers who willingly want to make a contribution.
Sarah Cunningham
Year 6 teacher
Berrywood Primary School
Hampshire
Brave New Blog
Laurie and I have considered the role and purpose of the LTE blog over the last year. There are many excellent education blogs where an individual shares their thoughts and experiences however an LTE blog seems to require a different structure and many different voices.
Laurie and I developed LTE together and have led the subsequent training but the programme, from the very beginning, was informed by a network of teachers. While working on the early development of the KS3 lessons, we were supported by teachers who attended our meetings at King’s. They would trial lessons and provide feedback, offer ideas for exploration and share their practice through lesson observations, transcripts and videos. In LTE we emphasise Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory and the role community plays in “making meaning”; our LTE community of teachers have supported us in “making meaning”.
Teacher input still underpins the programme today with our LTE Networks at King’s and other geographical hubs still guiding and shaping the programme. It is one of the testimonies of the LTE programme that once teachers and schools have completed their initial training programme they opt to join the Networks seeing not just the need for ongoing professional development but also a supportive community of teachers. LTE training doesn’t offer quick wins but rather a process through which teachers, together, develop their understanding of teaching and learning through the prism of developing their students’ reasoning. At present we have: 121 schools in our Networks.
As such, we felt the blog should reflect the experiences of our teachers. Going forward the blog will share articles by LTE teachers in different settings with different levels of experiences sharing their thoughts upon the programme. We hope the blog will serve as a testimony to both the programme and the teachers who make the programme a success.
