Collaboration

Collaborative learning and group work: the why and the how

Collaborative learning and group work.

Of late there appears to be a growing scepticism towards group work as an effective instruction tool. Teachers on social media explain how they were once forced to use group work during teacher training or in their schools despite their own reservations. The charges levelled against group work can generally be summed up as: the task set doesn’t necessitate group work, it can be disruptive and noisy, teachers are uncertain of their role during group work and there could be disguised inactivity with some pupils “social loafing”. While I understand the reservations raised, I’d like revisit why group work is effective when used selectively and when pupils are given explicit guidance on how to work successfully as a group.

Cooperative learning effectiveness

First, it’s worthwhile recalling that group work or “collaborative learning” tends to rank positively in terms of effect sizes. In the EEF toolkit “collaborative learning” is ranked fourth on their list providing an additional five months progress when deployed effectively.

As the EEF suggests: “The impact of collaborative approaches on learning is consistently positive.”

Although it adds the important proviso which we’ll return to:

“However, the size of impact varies, so it is important to get the detail right.”

This is supported by other studies such as Johnson and Johnson’s meta-studies and has been documented in numerous publications such as Marzanno’s “Classroom instruction that really works”.

So why the lingering suspicion towards collaborative learning methods? My experience developing Let’s Think in English suggests the majority of classes can’t automatically work effectively in groups and unless teachers are aware of how to support pupils the process breaks down causing understandable frustration. Knowing more about the theoretical underpinning behind cooperative learning methods and having strategies to develop in the classroom can avoid many of the pitfalls for group work and associated frustrations.

Cooperative Learning theory

Cooperative learning has its roots in social interdependence and is influenced by cognitive-developmental psychologists such as Piaget and Vygotsky and behavioural learning theories from Bandura and Skinner.
Cooperative learning theory has evolved since the 1930s and was influenced by John Dewey, Kurt Lewin and Morton Deutsch. Dewey advocated cooperative learning as preparing students for democratic society and stressed the active engagement individuals gained from sharing their own and being exposed to the ideas of others. Lewin emphasised the need to establish relationships between group members while Deutsch proposed the need for positive social interdependence between group members.

The theory was subsequently developed by David and Roger Johnson who undertook meta-analysis of cooperative learning:

Effects of Cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal structures on Achievement: A meta-analysis
Psychological Bulletin, 89:1, 47- 62.
(1981)

And
Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis.
(2000)

The findings of these meta-analyses were positive and suggested cooperative learning was effective.

Johnson and Johnson in An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning (2009)

outlined five variables that mediate the effectiveness of cooperation:

• Positive interdependence
• Face to face interaction
• Individual and group accountability
• Social skills
• Group processing

Interestingly there are parallels between the variables here and the key characteristics of teams in top performing organisations as identified by Daniel Coyle in his book “The Culture Code: The Secrets of Highly Successful Groups”. Coyle outlines the following key characteristics when exploring successful teams in business and beyond:

• Everyone in the group talks and listens in roughly equal measure, keeping contributions short.
• Members maintain high levels of eye contact and their contributions and gestures are energetic.
• Members communicate directly with one another, not just with the team leader.
• Members carry on back-channel or side conversations within the team.
• Members periodically break, go exploring outside the team, and bring information back to share with others.

What does this mean for the classroom?

Well first it’s important to stress that while I’m an advocate for group work, I think it should be used when appropriate. Group work is helpful when the task one sets has a desirable difficulty and when individuals might respond differently or have different solutions to a set task therefore enabling them to critically evaluate different responses. In Let’s Think in English we have group work in every lesson as texts by their nature are viewed differently, we believe different viewpoints are worth exploring and sharing of opinions is important in developing reasoning. Furthermore, we set pupils challenging questions around the text, so they have to think hard. In this situation group members can support one another to tackle the challenge by critiquing, building and responding. However, the bridging – applying knowledge and skills in new settings- that takes place after an LTE lesson may be undertaken in groups or individually and as in all lessons the teacher is best placed to judge which method to use and why.

Within Johnson and Johnson’s five variables lie strategies that teachers can deploy to ensure pupils work effectively.

Positive interdependence

Positive interdependence refers to students fully participating and being aware they are responsible for their learning and that of the group. In my experience participation drops for a range of reasons once group size is increased. Simply put the more pupils there are in a group the harder it is to have your voice heard and to listen and respond to others. Say you set a task for a group of 6 pupils and give them two minutes to complete the task. If the time is distributed equally that would provide each pupil with 20 seconds to share their thoughts, listen to others and respond. In reality only 2 or 3 more confident pupils will have the opportunity to respond. Interdependence is increased when group sizes are small, and pupils have the safety, intimacy and space to speak. listen and respond. I favour a group of 3 for this reason. A challenge with groups of 3 is taking feedback from each group but this is not usually necessary as one can establish the common position held by the class and the explore alternatives or build upon the points shared. The key point is teachers should find what works for them best.

However decreasing group size alone is unlikely to increase interdependence. Pupils need support in turn-taking. Classrooms are often hierarchical structures with some pupils being aware of their efficacy in a subject. Similarly, in some classrooms the high attainers are forthcoming and used to being invited to air their thoughts while low attainers may be less confident. This relationship is likely to continue into group work with some pupils dominating while others appearing passive. A simple means to encourage individual and group interdependence is to number the individuals in the group and for the teacher to decide who starts the talk to ensure turn taking.

If you’d like an insight into the underlying hierarchies in your classroom allow the pupils to number themselves; usually the confident and/or high attainers will choose to be number one. When commencing the group work ask the number three in the group to start and watch the incredulous look on the number ones’ faces. In some cases, the self-allocated number ones will start the talk/task regardless and will need reminding of the agreed order. With time though interdependence becomes the norm and pupils will start to adopt turn taking and encourage the involvement of others automatically.

Interestingly many teachers who we’ve trained in LTE have used these simple techniques with other classes to good effect including A’ level classes to challenge passivity.

Key take away: Keep groups small and number pupils to ensure turn taking.

Face to face interaction

Face to face interaction refers to pupils promoting each other’s success and explaining or assisting one another with explanations. In classrooms I’ve found a paradox that many classrooms environments that appear to be designed for group work often prove problematic.

Picture a typical primary classroom set up for cooperative learning. It is likely to have a number of very large tables with six pupils surrounding each table or alternatively three rectangular tables nested together with two lying perpendicular and one turned sideways at the top with a pair. The initial appearance is these are classrooms designed for cooperative learning but if the task involves discussion it proves very difficult; pupils struggle to hear each other and typically break off into pairs and speak to those immediately next to them. When a group breaks down in this way individual pupils are often cast adrift from the talk and will lose the thread of discussion and lesson.

If we return to Coyle’s characteristics of a high performing groups, he highlights:

• Members maintain high levels of eye contact and their contributions and gestures are energetic.

The closer together a group is the better. Groups should ideally be enclosed and facing inwards towards each other and pupils should be encouraged to respond through subtle gestures as their peers speak. While many might look at a classroom laid out in rows as non-conducive to group work, I’ve found them easy to navigate as you merely ask individuals to turn and form a group with peers behind them which ensures close proximity.

What is more problematic is ensuring attention when groups provide their responses to the class, but I’ll address that in a future blog on listening in the classroom.

Key take away: Ensure pupils are sitting close together when undertaking group work so they can hear and see each other. This does not mean you have to have to change your classroom layout.

Individual and group accountability

This refers to each student showing mastery of the content studied and being accountable. So how can we achieve this and avoid the “social loafers”. In Let’s Think in English we advise teachers to always select who provides feedback from the groups rather than permitting the same pupils to respond for their groups. However, it is worth noting this is different from “cold calling” where a pupil is randomly selected to answer a question. In this instance a pupil is selected to feedback what their group has been discussing so they’ve enjoyed the opportunity to clarify their own and listen to other pupils’ thoughts. Where pupils are shy or less confident one can inform them, they will be providing the feedback for their groups in advance and provide time for the group to summarise their thinking. For many pupils explaining the thought processes of their peers, enables them to better understand a standpoint than merely listen.

However, our work in Let’s Think in English has illuminated a common problem with group work in classrooms: the feedback pupils give is frequently not reflective of what the group has been discussing. When pupils are new to LTE, they will often respond to a request for their group thoughts by saying “Well I thought the character….”. This happens as while the pupil has individual accountability, they do not yet have group accountability; they do not see the value of the group discussion and feel having an answer is all that matters. Similarly, when new to cooperative learning pupils may engage in group work but when asked to respond ignore the group discussion and return to their very first thought about the text. Pupils need to be supported to actively engage with the group discussion and critically evaluate the talk that is shared by considering questions like: Do I agree with that? Can I add to that thought? Is it reasonable and can be supported with evidence?

To support pupils to be accountable to their groups in LTE we encourage pupils to start their group feedback with the expression: “We thought…” or “Our group said…”. This sentence starter focuses the pupils on providing representative feedback rather than their own individual thoughts. Furthermore, if pupils say “We thought…” but in fact represent their own thoughts only, their peers are more likely to challenge them.

It is key teachers consider their language when requesting feedback from pupils. If a teacher asks: “Jane what did you think?” when seeking group feedback it is likely Jane will merely provide her own thoughts , whereas if the teacher asks “ Jane can you share your group’s thoughts?” they are likely to receive representative feedback.

Key take away: Select which pupils provide feedback from their groups but note this is different to “cold-calling” as pupils have rehearsal time. Ensure feedback is representative of the group by encouraging pupils to use “We said…” and considering how you frame the request for feedback.

Social skills

This refers to pupils developing social skills such as: leadership, decision-making, trust-building, friendship, communication and conflict management. In the classroom this means you need to carefully consider who works together in a group but also you may need to provide individual targets, so pupils develop specific skills. Feedback from LTE teachers suggests they often spend their first lessons with a new class considering and revising their groupings. Mixed-attainment groups work best so long as the spread of attainment levels is not too wide although teachers’ perception of individual pupils’ attainment is often challenged in LTE.

Beyond pupils’ attainment levels, teachers suggest in group work they also need to consider pupils’ social skills. While some teachers have occasionally placed their dominant pupils in one group, they usually twin a confident pupil with a less confident one. However, over time it may be necessary to give targets or roles to individual pupils to ensure they develop the social skills required. For example, with a dominant pupil you might ask them to adopt the role of group facilitator while discussing a particular question to encourage their adoption of this behaviour over time.

Key take away: Consider how you group pupils carefully and intervene and set targets for individual pupils to support their development of social skills.

Group processing

This refers to reflection on individual actions and how successful the group was in achieving their goals. In my experience pupils enjoy well-structured group work as they are active in their learning and feel empowered by seeing their thoughts are valued. However, it is important they realise why and how working as a group has developed their learning. Some pupils are able to do this autonomously and will say: “I’ve changed my mind now because of what X has said… Their argument makes more sense because…” Yet other pupils will need support in tracking the flow of group responses. The teacher may highlight how an idea has developed and grown during group work and subsequent feedback by saying “So we now seem to think as a group…., although at some point we thought… this all seemed to have started from x’s idea.’ Pupils need to be aware of how cooperative learning and group work is supporting them to learn.
The suggestion of reflection lends itself well to metacognition and supporting pupils to be more consciously aware of how they are thinking and therefore able to control, monitor and evaluate their thinking better. While many of the recent publications on metacognition such as the EEF’s Guidance Report, have considered it largely as an individual development there are distinct advantages of developing metacognition together. If we see metacognitive knowledge characterised as combinations of information around three knowledge variables –self, task and strategies – that will be effective in achieving goals (Flavell 1979) then there are advantages to being exposed to the way others’ approach a task and strategy as it makes us more aware and in better position to evaluate our own approach. Group work enables pupils to plan, monitor and evaluate as a group; rehearsing a process that can be developed on an individual level.

Key take away: Support pupils to see the value of group work by tracing the development of ideas and group work can support pupils develop metacognition.

Conclusion

In summary I’m suggesting that despite negativity towards group work and cooperative learning approaches in some circles it is still a very useful instructional method as supported by the evidence. As with all instructional methods it depends on how and when you use group work and I’ve suggested the majority of pupils will benefit from explicit guidance on how to work effectively in groups. The strategies above are relatively straightforward to implement and teachers suggest that after 3 to 4 lessons working in this way pupils start to become familiar with it.

Thinking hard or Supportive Challenge

EBE Great Teaching Evidence Review

 In June 2020 Evidence Based Education published their Great Teaching Toolkit. It provided evidence-based insights and focused on areas of practice with potential to improve student learning and outcomes.

The review identified four priorities for teachers who want to help their student learn more:

  1.   Understand the content they are teaching and how it is learnt
    2. Create a supportive environment for learning
    3. Manage the classroom to maximise the opportunity to learn
    4. Present content, activities and interactions that activate their students’ thinking

We know activating students’ thinking is crucial despite the term “thinking” appearing to be purposely avoided in Ofsted’s Inspection framework while “knowledge” is mentioned eight times.  However, the EBE Great Teaching Evidence Review is unequivocal on the importance of thinking hard stating:

“In many ways, Dimension 4 represents the heart of great teaching: getting students to think hard about the material you want them to learn. It may also be the hardest part of the job to learn, …”.

 

 Bjork’s Desirable Difficulties

The need for students to think hard has become associated with the work of cognitive psychologists Elizabeth and Robert Bjork. They coined the term ‘desirable difficulties’, the concept that there are ways of learning that may feel less effective and lead to more errors during the learning process, but that lead to better performance in the long term. As they explained:

“Conditions of learning that make performance improve rapidly often fail to support long-term retention and transfer, whereas conditions that create challenges and slow the rate of apparent learning often optimize long-term retention and transfer.”  Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning.

Many aspects of the Bjorks’ work are being used in classrooms such as interleaving, spacing and retrieval practice.  etc However a less well-known aspect of their work is the generation effect. The generation effect refers to the long- term benefit of generating an answer, solution, or procedure versus being presented that answer, solution, or procedure. The Bjorks’ argue:

“Basically, any time that you, as a learner, look up an answer or have somebody tell or show you something that you could, drawing on current cues and your past knowledge, generate instead, you rob yourself of a powerful learning opportunity.”.

 

Piaget: assimilation and accommodation

 Advances in cognitive science have often been seen as challenging earlier theories of learning from Piaget and Vygotsky, yet there is greater synergy than many suggest. The Bjorks’ desirable difficulties echoes aspects of Piaget’s ideas. Piaget through his work on cognitive development introduced the idea of schema. He described schema as: “a cohesive, repeatable action sequence possessing component actions that are tightly interconnected and governed by a core meaning” (Piaget,1952, p. 7) [1]. In developing schema Piaget identified two processes: assimilation and accommodation.

Assimilation is the process by which new knowledge is placed into existing knowledge schemas. For example, pupils may expect poems to rhyme so when they encounter a rhyming poem, they assimilate it in their existing schema as it fits. Accommodation by contrast is the process when existing knowledge has to be adapted to new knowledge. For example, students meet a poem for the first time that doesn’t rhyme and have to draw upon other features to classify the text. Accommodation creates an imbalance, demanding that we think hard as new information does not seamlessly integrate with existing mental schema. As schemas are challenged students have a sense of disequilibrium before accommodation takes place and equilibrium is restored. The key is to seek productive challenges evoking a state of disequilibrium but can be reconciled and assimilated with time.

 

Vygotsky: Zone of Proximal Development and More Knowledgeable Other

 Similarly, in the Bjorks’ work we can see the trace of “zone of proximal development,” (zpd) a concept first proposed in the 1930s by the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky defined the zpd as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by individual problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86) [2]. Zones of proximal development have upper and lower boundaries. If we push students to think beyond the upper limit of their zone of proximal development, they are likely to experience frustration and disengagement. However, teach them below the lower limit and it is unlikely they will think hard. The challenge is to find the sweet spot, but this is complicated when you have a class of 30 students who may all have a different ZPD; we will return to ways of approaching this challenge later.

Learning versus performance and poor proxies for learning

In their paper “Learning versus Performance” [3], Nicholas C. Soderstrom and Robert A. Bjork clarify the distinction between the two. Performance is “what can be observed and measured during instruction or training”. Learning, by contrast, can take place after performance but also improvements in performance can fail to yield significant learning. Furthermore:

“performance is often fleeting and, consequently, a highly imperfect index of learning does not appear to be appreciated by learners or instructors who frequently misinterpret short-term performance as a guide to long-term learning.”

A high performing class may not be an environment where learning is sticking. This recalls Professor Robert Coe’s Poor Proxies for learning from his 2013 paper ‘Improving Education: A Triumph of Hope Over Experience’and how we might confuse learning with the veneer of performance:

It’s worth pointing out the above proxies may be desirable and can lead to learning. Who doesn’t want engaged, interested and motivated students? However, there is no guarantee that engaged students are learning rather than performing. We can envisage a situation where students are completing lots of written work but are not being challenged so learning doesn’t stick but is washed away.  Coe claims: “Learning happens when people have to think hard” while at the same time recognising the statement is “over-simplistic, vague…”. While Soderstrom and Bjork claim: “Conditions that induce the most errors during acquisition are often the very conditions that lead to the most learning!” One can envisage why a class displaying some of poor proxies for learning might reassure whereas a class committing errors could be misjudged in the moment.

 

CASE: long and far transfer

 If we accept the distinction between learning and performance, then Soderstrom and R Bjork claim:

“The major goal of instruction—whether in the classroom or in the field—is, or at least should be, to equip the learner with the type of knowledge or skills that are durable (i.e., capable of sustaining long periods of disuse) and flexible (i.e., capable of being applied in different contexts) “.

The need for durability recalls Sweller’s CLT and has become the bedrock of Ofsted’s Inspection Framework which claims:

“Learning can be defined as an alteration in long-term memory. If nothing has altered in long-term memory, nothing has been learned.”.

 Sonderstrom and Bjork’s goal is more subtle with the inclusion of durable and flexible skills and knowledge. What is the goal of knowledge? Knowledge can be a goal in itself, but we also need to develop a relationship with the knowledge we acquire. Can we evaluate the knowledge we have? Is it flexible and can we apply it in different moments, settings and situations? Are we willing to review and reflect upon our knowledge? Sonderstrom and Bjork seem to suggest we should seek educational programmes that are durable with results that are long lasting and flexible so they can be applied in different contexts. It just so happens that such a programme exists.

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

CASE lessons had a learning sequence called the pillars.

 

Central to the pillars was the concept of cognitive conflict. Shayer and Adey[1] defined cognitive conflict as:

“The term used to describe an event or observation which the student finds puzzling and discordant with previous experience or understanding. All perceptions are interpreted through the learners’ present conceptual framework. Where conceptualisation fails to make sense of an experience, cognitive conflict can lead to constructive mental work by students to accommodate their conceptual framework to the new type of thinking necessary.”

Conflict needed to be carefully judged by the teacher or curriculum developer to be within a context which is somewhat familiar to the student and while making a real cognitive demand on the student, not be so far ahead as to be incomprehensible.

The Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science Survey

 When considering how we support pupils to think hard we need to consider their present level of understanding of a particular topic. The Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science Project (CSMS) was established in (1974-80) and looked at the problems involved in educating the whole ability range of students in comprehensive schools.  Surveying 14000 students from 45 schools it found:

 

  • In the population as a whole, fewer than 30 percent of 16 year-olds were showing the use of early formal operations.
  • The range of thinking within any one age group was far wider than had been previously realised. The CSMS data showed that there is likely a 12 year gap between the most able and least able children in the first year of secondary education. In mixed ability schools, the most able 12 years olds were operating at the level of average 18 years olds and the least able at the level of average 6 years-olds.

In Towards a Science of Science Teaching [2],  Shayer and Adey explained the methods and results of the research programme. It gave an account of testing instruments (Science Reasoning Tasks) which teachers could use to assess the cognitive levels of their students and gave details of a curriculum analysis taxonomy for analysing the level of difficulty of any science activity. The book showed that there were significant areas of mismatch in terms of the cognitive demands of the curricula.

Towards a Science of Science Teaching highlighted the importance of identifying the emerging thinking schemas needed for successful learning, reviewing pupils understanding of the schema at different stages of development and considering how best to prepare them for new learning in the identified schemas.

 

Let’s Think in English: thinking hard with support

 

What should pupils think hard about in English?

Let’s Think in English (LTE) was closely modelled on Shayer and Adey’s Cognitive Acceleration in Science Education (CASE). The LTE lessons stimulate schemas or reasoning patterns which underpin deeper understanding of texts. LTE seeks to develop five forms of reasoning with pupils:

Classification: exploring genre, text type, character type, form.

Frames or reference: considering perspectives, contexts and re-presenting texts for different purposes.

Symbolic representation: identifying and understanding the shift from literal to figurative in texts, character, setting or considering objects that stand for more than it is.

Intentions and consequences: the methods, techniques, and choices a writer has made to achieve their intent.

Narrative sequencing: considering the chronology, pace, emphasis, narrator of a text.

In LTE we seek to develop pupils’ ability to reason in English. Reasoning is identifying patterns in new sources of information and we seek to develop pupils’ ability to apply the five schemas to texts. Over time pupils see links between texts as they become increasing aware of the structures of the text as well as the content. Once they become aware of how experts – accomplished writers – structure texts they can start to incorporate and imitate these structures into their own writing.

By identifying the underpinning schemas that support understanding of texts we can start to identify progression within them and evaluate pupils’ understanding at different stages of development. If we take narrative sequencing we would expect a year 2 pupil to be able to sequence events into a chronological order. They would have an awareness of narrative structure and expectations of a beginning, middle and end to a story. As pupils progress into upper KS2 they can order a set of events along a variety of relevant criteria including non-chronological and may question the order of events if there is inconsistency. The awareness of plot may have progressed towards understandings of models of narrative like the story mountain and they should have greater awareness of complex narrative techniques like flashbacks or foreshadowing. Whereas by KS3 they may be able to provide an account of the implicit order of the events in a text and recognise the merits of the narrative sequence selected while appreciating or evaluating alternatives.

Identifying the schemas to be developed, considering progression within them and appreciating pupils’ typical stages of development ensures pupils’ thinking is directed appropriately and teachers can design suitable challenges for their classes. The Great Teaching Toolkit recognises the importance of this under its first sub-heading:

Structuring and preparing to think hard

Structuring is an important concept when considering how we support pupils to think hard. Pupils require a platform of understanding before they can embark on a difficult challenge. In Let’s Think in English pupils develop understanding of the texts through two important stages: concrete preparation and social construction before they undertake the most challenging stage of the lesson: cognitive conflict.

One can see how this sequence prepares pupils for the demand of cognitive conflict in our KS3 lesson The Bridge. The lesson uses a short narrative to explore the characters’ moral responsibility for events, establishes the concept of a fable, before asking the students to consider the importance of characters’ motives. You can review the lesson plan at: https://www.letsthinkinenglish.org/sample-lessons/

The lesson sequence starts with concrete preparation as pupils clarify what a civil war is and who the America Civil War was between. This is not something pupils think hard about as they either know or don’t know. If a pupil knows they are invited to explain to the class, if not the teacher explains. Next pupils read the text:

When we want pupils to think hard we need clarity as the Great Teaching Toolkit highlights in the second section:

The task pupils undertake individually at the start of social construction is to rank the five characters in terms of who they think is most to least responsible for the woman’s death. This is a challenging task; teachers who undertake the same task come to different conclusions and have differing reasons for their order. To support pupils, we need to clarify information that may seem obvious but is crucial: who are the five characters in the text. If we recall the ranges of cognition the CSMS project found, then after reading this text some pupils will immediately be able to recall all five characters while others will struggle. Trying to recall the five characters is an unnecessary distraction from their thinking which can be avoided by recapping and providing them with a sheet with the characters’ listed.

 

The benefits of thinking hard together

In the social construction phase of the lesson pupils develop their understanding of the text. In this instance, they consider individually who was responsible for the woman’s death, working from most responsible to least responsible. This task requires pupils to think hard but it is a manageable difficulty as pupils have impulsive reactions to the text: “The woman is most responsible because she cheated”, “The husband is the least responsible as he wasn’t there.”

However, pupils are required to think harder when they are asked to share their responses with their peers and come to an agreed order. Now individual thoughts are exposed to scrutiny and must be justified. Pupils have to make their thinking visible and accessible to another and may have to defend their choices. Justification is best found in the text so pupils may still argue the woman is to blame because she cheated but may also identify the importance of “took a lover” as it indicates she instigated the affair. They might support their opinion the lover is responsible as “he refused” to give her the money with “refused” indicating he had the money and therefore a choice. Pupils understanding is developed further and they are provoked to re-evaluate once more as they share their agreed order with other groups in whole class feedback. Can their order stand up to the scrutiny of the whole class? Can they recognise the merits of alternative ways of considering responsibility? Is their knowledge flexible? Will they adapt based on new insights? Is it durable? Can they justify their order when faced with an alternative viewpoint?

 

Teachers’ support in focusing thinking

The teacher supports the pupils in these exchanges by highlighting important details the class might miss: “Was $100 a lot of money in the 1860s? Does that influence your order?” or challenging pupils to provide more robust reasoning: “Your group are arguing the solider is not the most responsible despite shooting the woman as his actions might be necessary. Can you explain further?”. The teacher also supports the pupils to ensure they are not distracted by unfounded speculation or misconceptions stepping in when necessary: “Is there anything in the text to suggest the husband and the solider are the same person? No? I agree so let’s stick to the text” or “Do you think it is likely that the woman would be allowed to swim across the river if she’s not allowed to cross it by foot?”. The teacher must support the pupils to keep their attention focused on aspects and enquiries regarding the text that are most fruitful without constraining their personal responses. The teacher supports pupils to think by as the Great Teaching Toolkit suggests: “using questions and dialogue to promote elaboration and connected, flexible thinking among learners.” but the teacher’s feedback also supports pupils to focus their attention on relevant details or possibilities.

Going beyond assimilation to accommodation

The social construction stage encourages pupils to think hard but the demand is typically manageable for individuals. All pupils can attempt to rank the characters although there is variance in the levels of justification. Typically, there is a convergence of thoughts with a common Year 7 order for responsibility: The woman, the soldier, the lover, the boatman and the husband. While the ranking activity in The Bridge allows for various possibilities which encourage pupils to think hard usually a class consensus is agreed after whole-class feedback.

For cognitive conflict the demand is increased as pupils must be presented with something puzzling or discordant with their initial impressions. The challenge is raised as they are asked to have empathy with the characters and consider good or acceptable reasons for the characters’ actions.  Pupils are encouraged to review their first impulsive conclusions and work through the challenge of considering the opposite standpoint. When considering why the woman might make her choices pupils start to consider the time the text is set and its relevance.

Thinking moves beyond the impulsive and passionate responses that are typical of the ranking activity to a more deliberate and difficult consideration as they seek to accommodate a new way of reviewing the characters. If individuals were asked to undertake this task it would prove too difficult for many as they struggle to reverse their initial thoughts but working in a small group their zone of proximal development expands as they hear the insights of their peers and grapple with and build upon the ideas shared. Some of the possible motivations and reasons for the woman’s behaviour are listed below and are shared with the class after whole-class feedback as a point of comparison. The list is not exhaustive and there may be other possibilities the class may offer but no one pupil would provide all the possible reasons listed below.

 

Thinking hard collectively rather than individual responses

The teacher’s role is to control the pace of learning and to support all pupils to appreciate and actively engage with the responses given. Rather than asking: “Do we agree the war might help us to understand why the woman behaved as she did?” we ask more directed questions such as “X suggested we might understand the woman’s behaviour better when we consider the impact of the war. What do you think about that idea?”. The teacher is monitoring the room looking for indications of when the ideas being shared are beyond the understanding of the majority of the class. When this happens, the teacher can invite the pupils to return to their groups to consider their peers’ thoughts and provide time for them to appreciate the points shared. The group provides a safe space when thinking is hard and allows pupils to rehearse and share ideas. When pupils are thinking hard, teachers should consider their feedback carefully including whether or not praise supports the process or not (See blog post: In praise of neutrality). The Great Teaching Toolkit highlights the importance of feedback:

The suggestion is that feedback is largely from teacher to pupil. Yet feedback between pupils is important too and should be developed and fostered slowly building pupil efficacy and interdependence rather than over-reliance on the teacher.

 

Cycles of thinking: metacognition and conscious awareness

 Let’s Think in English makes pupils consciously aware of their thought processes and supports them to critically evaluate their ideas. Developing awareness of thinking is not merely thinking hard but also reflecting upon the thoughts you have and how they were developed. Once more we can support pupils individually as suggested in the Great Teaching Toolkit:

But there is also merit in considering how as a class we arrive at interpretations and understanding. In The Bridge lesson, after considering good or acceptable reason for the characters’ actions groups are invited to discuss adaptations to the text to make it more entertaining without changing the plot. They consider back stories, narrative perspectives, dialogue etc and discuss where they might add these adaptations to the text and their impact. This is followed by metacognition as pupils reflect upon how their understanding of the text has changed throughout the lesson. Is their ranking still the same now? If so, why? If not, what has changed? When explaining how their ideas evolved, they often reference the input of another pupil as they recall their learning journey. Pupils plan for future learning as they evaluate what they have learnt during the lesson.

Learning and performance and the need for bridging

 When we ask pupils to think hard it is likely performance might diminish in the short term. Learning is a continuum and pupils need support to think hard regularly not as a one-off activity and to revisit their learning. This is implied in the fifth recommendation from the Great Teaching Toolkit:

The Let’s Think in English lessons are taught fortnightly, so pupils are regularly provided with opportunities to think hard and reflect upon their learning. Importantly after the LTE lessons pupils are given opportunities for bridging: applying their learning in another setting. This links back to the idea of durable and flexible knowledge as suggested by the Bjorks. After an LTE lesson, teachers identify opportunities for pupils to build links with their LTE lesson. Following The Bridge lesson this might be comparing the sparse description with a section of a class novel and considering the writer’s contrasting choices. It may be reminding pupils of the process they undertook when deciding who was responsible in The Bridge before they draft an argument on another topic. Thinking needs to be practised but also activated to become fluent and secure. With time, pupils bridge from LTE lessons to other lessons unprompted, suggesting links and parallels.

 

Thinking hard: Pupil and Teacher

 Philip Adey sounded a note of caution in his paper: “A model for the professional development of teachers of thinking”[1]in July 2005:

“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.”

As the Great Teaching Toolkit suggested, getting pupils to think hard “… may also be the hardest part of the job to learn.”. As I explained in the blog post: “The Mirror: Effective Professional Development” teachers need to be supported to think hard in order to support their pupils to do the same. Through a commitment to supporting teachers’ learning rather than immediate performance they can develop the knowledge, skills and expertise to support their pupils’ thinking.

References:

[1] Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International University Press.

[2] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[3] Soderstrom, Nicholas & Bjork, Robert. (2015). Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 10. 176-199. 10.1177/1745691615569000.

[4] Adey & Shayer (1994, 97, 2001) Really Raising Standards (Routledge)

[5] Towards a science of science teaching by Michael Shayer and Philip Adey. London: Heine‐mann Educational Books, 1981

[6] 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.

 

 

 

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.