The Pedagogical Anatomy of a lesson.

I've recently done a demonstration lesson in a school that I support, the purpose of which was to show strategies to engage and stretch the most able. as this was in a different school , with students I've met briefly I needed a strong lesson structure both in terms of practical organisation ( which love it or hate it PowerPoint facilitates this, it also allowed me to reflect on each part of the lesson planning) but also in terms of pedagogy. The lesson is planned using the TEEP learning cycle. This piece aims to explore the structures and the reasoning behind each strategy. The reasons have been italicised.

The opening slide was a starter activity, students here practice something they had done in a previous lesson and connect to a concrete fact that the lesson was aiming to explain. This helps prepare the student to learn and (using Hatties words) "build commitment and engagement. Challenge is added here by getting the students to establish the FACT, and by using technical words like correlate c.f. whats the pattern?

Next the studenst completed a ranking activity as to the likelihood of these statements being correct, this is primarily an teaching input, but trying to get the students to speculate whats really going on justifying their position. This is a higher order thinking skill and thereby increasing challenge. The questions quickly establish alternative conceptions of the ideas about to be learned. This student to teacher feedback information can then be acted upon. These also provide a focus for the incipient teacher input.
Since the students have been processing on their own so far, it is important to review not only the content but also the meta cognitive processes. Again this is structured so that they workout the facts for themselves. Question 3 is a "seed" question? I sell it as the question you can use to demonstrate mastery? It is given as soon as possible, to allow time for the students to think about it.

The learning intentions are planned using SOLO taxonomy, meaning that from the top the learning intentions are simple recalling of factsand this progresses to extended abstract demanding the students to make inferences based upon abstract ideas and prediction about hitherto unknown substances. The unistructural intentions are in fact essential learnings that the rest of the learning is built upon. This is not done by accident but through careful thinking about the pedagogical content knowledge of this topic, allowng specific intentions to be defined. John Hattie describes the use of SOLO as being "most valuable both in developing models of teaching and learning and also in our understanding of assessment". I have to humbly agree.

This then leads into a brief teacher input. The input has been delayed until this point to allow the teacher access to information available on student thinking on this subject. This allows accurate decisions to be made about pace and pitch, again this allows differentiation to take place. The input is carefully plotted to give a step by step method to perform the task and to emphasise the key and new language. This is brief around 6-7 minutes to allow maximum time for students to create meaning for themselves, thereby taking into account the age old saying - "it doesn't mean I said that they have learned it." It also allows the teacher to model the kinds of thinking and the connections that are necessary to fully understand the topic. This teacher input can be justified by the following quote from John Hattie " sometimes the deeper concepts need more specific and direct teaching". Infact the structure of the lesson is built around the notion of effective direct teaching employing the TEEP learning cycle

At this point a quick review is used to clarify the thinking, after the input. These questions were considered difficult ten minutes ago, but now the answers are obvious to the students. I was using a random name generator to select students ensuring that all are paying attention and that I don't focus the questioning on the 25% of students with their hands up! Since I did not know these students, I colour coded their names by their target grades, so that I could phrase the question in appropriate manner (differentiation): An "A" grade student would get something like so what's your opinion on these statements now?- While a "C" grade would get the more structured " So why do you now think that statement 2 is hogwash?". Research shows that a ration of 10 minutes teaching should have 2 minutes worth of review.

The students are then given a choice of which level they want to tackle. The colour coding seen above was not revealed in to the students, and is added for the benefit of showing planning progression and a confidence building trick. During the lesson the students are given the choice of easy, hard and"uber"-difficult. In reality this is not the case, as can be seen above with the order of difficulty going from yellow, orange, red, blue then purple. This was designed into the lesson in full knowledge that the purpose of this exercise was to allow the students to assimilate and practice the previous teaching, and allow the teacher to gain useful information on the alternative conceptions, sticking points and confidence levels within the classroom.Hattie describes this part of the lesson as "independent practice" but i would go further as this is THE opportunity for the teacher to personalise the experience for each student by providing support and challenge as appropriate.

It was hoped that the students would gain confidence by completing an easy one and the take the bait of a (unreal) difficult one. This gets the students to think that they can do this task. I like to make full use of the saying "whether you think you can or whether you think you can't = you're probably right!"

Since the demonstration nature of this lesson was stretching the most able, the above task was designed to give the same information in different ways, and introduce new language to the students. For example the inclusion of Sodium oxide is there to challenge the idea that covalent compounds are solely made from non metals, some have names and not formulae and vice versa. The most difficult one actually requires modification of the model provided during this lesson. Anyway enough Science.

Again since 15 minutes has past by the students are encouraged to review their learning. This activity actually serves two purposes with the second being to demonstrate their new learning. The task has been phrased to encourage generalisation of the key learning points. This is to help the students reach the highest levels of SOLO taxonomy as per the learning intentions. Reviewing should refer back to these to demonstrate progress, and this will allow student to self report this.

This is the point in the lesson that could involve a change of direction, I call this the " What if? " point, as in if what do I do if thye do not get i! This activity remained unused as the information in the classroom suggested that the students had progressed. This activity was designed to go back over the basics from a slightly different angle/ starting position, with a little more structure. It was then planned for the students to re attempt the previous activity.

This task is tantamount to another teacher input albeit a connecting one. The task is an activity called " X" marks the vowel, a task I invented to encourage students to interact with text. For a detailed write up of this teaching strategy please visit the wonderful ww.peelweb.org. The challenge in this activity is three fold. Firstly, the students are not being told the content being learned but are encouraged (and structured) to work it out for themselves. Secondly, the text needs to interpreted from having X's in place of the vowels, whxch xs stxll xxsy tx rxxd xf yxx cxncxntrxtx! And finally the questions the have to answer move from comprehension to comparasion and finally to inference. The final question is the third time the students have come across the notion of the boiling point of waterand relating it to its structure. Graham Nuthall's inspiring research tells us that students learn when they have three or four exposures to an idea in different ways. This is also a reason for the design of the What if activity.
By answering these questions the students also begin to demonstrate new learning. As a teacher I am less interested in the comprehension question and more interested in the questions where they have to apply new knowledge.

A major "content" plenary is then planned using a rather natty animation from the BBC. A task of listing seven key points, based on the brain based research that we find it easier to remember 5, 7, 9 items rather than say 10. This summary also enable the students to come across the information needed in another (different) way. This also allows for the uniqueness of student learning to be seen by the teacher. Graham Nuthall's research shows that student learner is fairly unique with up to 80% of the items learned being learned by only one or two students. This information is vital for a teacher to see, as this will give a crude measure of what has worked and not in the lesson and for future planning and differentiation.

Penultimately, and importantly the students are asked to speculate, which is a high order thinking skill, as part of a preview of next lesson. This activity allows students to meet one of the learning intentions and also provides a learning bridge to the next set of related content.

The final act brings closure to the lesson.The students then mark their progress against the SOLO learning intentions this is essential not only for motivation and the creation of a sense of pride but also in consolidating the important points within the lesson. John Hattie makes clear the effectiveness of self reporting grade as it helps build up an accurate picture that will inform their "prior" achievement.

Graham Nuthall's research can be found in his book "The Hidden Lives of Learners"

John Hatties meta analysis of achievement outcomes can be found in his book "Visible Learning"

Metacognitive Musings

While my class worked away on a research task today, as part of an enquiry style project. I pondered on how they were setting about the task, having been, if not clear fairly insistent that they read and then use a thinking tool to record their research notes. I have spent an inordinate amount of time asking the same inane questions "Why are you using PowerPoint?" and "When did I ask you to Present your findings"

Here lies my problem with ICT, it is a huge distraction to the thinking students need to do to learn. The metaphor "the tails wagging the dog again" is a regular battle cry in my room, and is the the reason for me insisting on the students using a thinking tool to process the information found.

So despite my class looking very busy i was curious.

Having read a very interesting article by Paul Pintrich, in Theory Into Practice.http://tinyurl.com/lxfl7y , which subdivides the strategies used to learn into three parts, Rehearsing, Elaborating and Organising together with metacognitive strategies (about the strategies used) and strategic problem solving. I simplified these and hope their do not loose to much of their meaning in the translation.



I drafted up a table to help them reflect on the processes they were using and armed them with a post it note. Asked them to write what strategies they had used so far and classify them against this grid. In other words what did they think the strategy helped them do with the information?







So here are the responses summarised. I have categorised them as either a strategy or not using smileys. I then discussed the original responses with the class, and hopefully the influence of this meta cognition can be clearly seen.

So, what do I think it tells me.

Firstly by the end of the session the students are commenting on more process at the expense of content with five less responses. Indicating at least some understanding that the process is important.

Secondly that the idea of research can be a noun, they can produce it by using a variety of processes. Although I don't think they are yet sophisticated enough to be specific in describing how, they have identified research as an actual strategy to research with less! Hoorah!

Thirdly, despite only getting one more strategy in the second half of the lesson, I was particularly pleased by the improvement in quality. For example students realising that they had to plan research, that they should consider what they and they peers already know. These are mainly meta cognitive strategies which did not appear at all in the first reflection. This is exciting.

So not bad for an hour. I think this simple strategy has raised the issue of meta cognition and pedagogical purposes for these students, a first step maybe but one that had to be taken.

Why share Pedagogical Purposes? Part 1

I have recently stumbled across a few ideas that I think make clear why I think the sharing of pedagogical purposes works. I will admit that I am no expert in these matters but I am interested in tuning them into useful classroom tools.

I have recently recieved a copy of John Hatties Visible Learning book, and like all good books poses far more questions than it gives answers. The first thing it made me think about was when a teachers pedagogical knowledge becomes most useful. So in no particular order

1. when a learner does not comprehend and discerning why



2. when a learner has made a mistake and discerning why.



3. when progress is being made by a student and discerning why



4. when to intervene with a student and when not



5. when to utilise alternative ways of teaching/ learning.



6. when dealing with alternative conceptions that students arrive with.

All useful thoughts but ones that require solid evidence from students to help make a decision. Soemtimes a gut feeling is just not enough.

The final one fits very well with the idea of the learning --> unlearning--> over learning sequence. Which appeals immensely, but, in which position do I leave my learners?

Again, the very idea of students arriving with preconceived ideas about their world, is another good reason to have activities that illicit these so that teacher and student can explore and change them. Ian Mitchell of the PEEL project corrected me once as I used the term misconceptions, insisting, correctly, that they are alternative conceptions as they work in their current state of learning. All the more reason to ensure students are involved fully in the process.

The next thing in John Hatties Visible Learning I stumbled into was Poppers three worlds of learning of surface, mental and ideas which led me to Blooms taxonomy. Now, I thought I knew this ( and the revised one with Anderson et al) but somehow the educational world I've existed in seems to have missed the Four Dimensions of Knowledge. Many ideas in similar areas but nothings as resplendent as this. Once,I saw these I got the feeling that these will prove much more use to me and my students in the years to come. They also indicated to me that the sharing of pedagogical purposes are a route worth pursuing.

These are given as

1. Factual knowledge



2. Conceptual Knowledge



3. Procedural knowledge



4. 
   
   Meta cognitive knowledge

What strikes me is the simplicity, balance and usefulness of these. They shout teach me. They are very much what should be taught as opposed to how we should teach. Part of the criticism in Visible Learning is that teachers/ education is too often aimed solely at Factual knowledge.
I've had a go at reviewing a science enquiry I have written and we are about to use with around 400 year 8 students in Science. This should produce some interesting data to reflect upon over the summer.

http://tinyurl.com/ngcr7p Available here for closer scrutiny.

Essentially the ABC's are learning outcomes (statements currently) which have been plotted across the Four dimensions and up through Blooms taxonomy. The words in italics are the science specific thinking skills I am trying to develop in the students . I will blog about these when I'm finished creating the assessment hierarchies that go with them.

Now what this review shows me is that in fact the lesson plan actually does TEACH in the four dimensions. I will admit that this was done by accident but is satisfying non the less(if it works!). But what really excites me is the only reason it does this is that each task the students will do has a distinct, planned and assessable procedure that goes with it. For example when searching for relevant factors that would influence the outcome, the lesson flows as follows. Everything in blue is a way of sharing the pedagogical purpose with students. It is clear the emphasis that this requires, although it is not necessarily a time consuming thing.

1. Teacher states why we are going to use Debonos Green thinking hat



2. Use hat to generate many possibilities.
   


3. Debrief the use and the benefits of the hat.
   


4. Introduce filter map, say why its being used
   


5. Use filter map



6. Debrief use of the filter map



7. Summarise the factors that will be controlled.

I am hoping that in subsequent enquiry lessons the students will not require me to prompt and debrief as often, as they take over the decision making process of choosing which tool and when to employ it.

A final thought about this new grid was that the top four are all factual, and I have no planned "activities" directed towards them. I then realised that in fact they are not that important in this lesson, and that the students are quite likely to pick them up as they go along as this is what they will be thinking about. It then struck me that most of my teaching experiences have been directed toward this factual realm with an assumption that the "rest" will follow. In reality more teaching needs to directed towards the "rest" and the facts will follow.

Things you can find out about your class and teaching if you don't mark books

This is a post script to the alphabet analyser article.

I have crunched some numbers for one of the classes that used the alphabet analyser, which has allowed me to ponder the following things.
1. How effective is the Alphabet analyser as an assessment tool. Is it relaible?
2. How effective the lesson was
3. Are both of the above the same across all ability ranges.
4. How to move students forward.
All done within the time I would have been marking their books. Remember I assessed at the begining of the lesson and at the end, solely using the grid that is based around the national curriulum. Obviously professional judgement is a large part of this.

A note: I have split each SAT level into three, A, B and C. With A as a "ready to move onto the next level", B "comfortable" at this level and C as a "just scraped in." We use a similar system at school. I have compared these levels to level I have reported to parents this year.

So here is some data.58% of the end of lesson levels match their reported level.21% of the begining of lesson levels match their reported levels.21% of the levels at the begining of the AA are an over estimate of their "actual" level.So, it looks like this tool could be useful. It seems obvious as a class activity students have been helping each other, but maybe the sharing the fact that I wanted to use this as an assessment tool has been heeded. This could also explain the overestimated scores. A change in my classroom practice will resolve this and i will base the number I assign not just on this piece of paper but with a conversation to verify student understanding. I also have a list of who i overestimated, so i target these first.They should not be copying!

I must point out that the above thoughts and next steps would not occurred to me if I had just marked their books. I would not have had time.

I next pondered was it as accurate across ability levels or was it just the bright motivated students.A breakdown of students just scraping into level 5 showed that 33% match the target at the beginning of the lesson and 66% at the end. The students working at level 6 and above had a 13% match at the begining a 62% at the end and a 25% no match . I think all this says is that the end levels are better quality assessment of students of all ability. I must also point of that my two weakest students in this group both match their target at the beginning of the lesson. What does this show? Motivation? That the longer tests are a burden on them and therefore underestimate their performance? Random error?It certainly making me think about these students in a detailed way. Their levels are low and the alphabet analyser certainly confirms the lack of vocabulary these students have. This something I can do something about.

I'll not bore you ( if i have not already) with the scoring system I have used to make checking the progress made during this lesson. On average the students progressed by a whole SAT level. One student made no progress. Again the reason for this is not obvious but it has certainly drawn my eye to a quiet student who does not appear to be progressing in my class. I know numbers are a bit arbitary but they do reveal things gut feelings would miss. Only 3 students made the minimum of 1/3rd of a level, two of which I can explain by general attitude and performance levels, and the fact that they used to sit next to each other if you know what I mean. I will show them the boring numbers to show them why they will not be in the same group. The other is more of a mystery. This student works well during lessons, but does get a little confused from time to time. Again it is easy to target this student for a little one to one during each lesson.

Five students made more than two levels of progress. These were distributed across all ability levels, indicating the "pitch" of the lesson reach all. I will share the data with them as a way of giving concrete praise for making real progress, i think this is especially important as all abilities are represented here, so it not just my bright motivated students get pats on the back again.

So they you have it, an hour thinking rather than ticking, i know my students better and have clear targets for students in the next level. It has targetted knowledge, students ability to learn and classroom management. So from a lesson that my gut told me went very well, I have found some real room for improvement.

Pedagogical Purposes - An example- The Alphabet Analyser

On the surface this procedure appears simple, but it is designed to allow the teacher to see the current understanding and vocabulary of the student. i.e. the activity is an assessment for learning activity and not a “busy” or processing one. Since it has this pedagogical purpose it is best to share this with our students. This will change the quality of what your students are aware that they are being assessed. Students are fascinated and motivated to be involved in "secret teacher business".

The alphabet analyser activity at the start of the lesson will instantly show two interesting facets of student learning

1. what language do the students already have, an indicator of prior knowledge
2. what links are they making- an indicator of understanding

A teacher can record this information so that they can make some of the following decisions.a) Do all the students need to follow the lesson plan? ( I have highlighted "all" because a teacher can assess the whole class in a matter of minutes.


Teachers may even use a sampling strategy before they make a decision that would affect the whole class (this has to be better than using solely a gut feeling). Teachers can then catch up with all as the lesson progresses, or maybe using this as a start point to discuss individual learning. You could ask a student to add a few extra ones in front of you to check the validity of their entries.b) Are there parts of the content you would expect the students to know and they don't? So, do you need to recap?c) What parts of the content needs to be expanded upon?d) Are your students working towards targeted levels? Do you need to emphasise some of the thinking required ( as opposed to content knowledge) to move them forward?


I think this is really rather useful "stuff", what Assessment for Learning should look like, not hours of marking for little impact and influence on the next teaching step. Its quick, obvious, can be acted upon and if the purpose of the procedure is shared is empowering to the student.For each analyser a simple assessment hierarchy can be constructed with examples of the kind of terminology and thinking a teacher wants and expects their students to learn. it proves very useful in helping make these decisions. EVEN something as arbitrary as the national curriculum could be helpful in the development of student thinking in this context. Another way could be the linking of the repsonses to Anderson revised taxonomy.
Obviously by repeating the process at the end of the lesson the student and teacher can see progress. I always emphasise this as an opportunity to be proud of the progress they will make and I request that they use a different coloured pen, thereby making the new learning clearly visible to all. This is a major motivating tool.
This student from their first attempt would be operating around about a level 5, heading towards 6. The number of relevant words being the limiting factor. At the end of the task, she is clearly level 6 with the possibility of a level 7. It is very interesting to note that this matches her exact summative assessments this year! How long have i spent marking exams and coursework to get the same number from a single 10 minute activity. I have also checked a few others and it does seem to be consistent across all abilities. I will crunch some numbers to verify this.


As an assessment tool or as I would prefer an assessment procedure it becomes more powerful if the students begin to use this themselves the table above providing guidance so students can assess their own level. Words that do not appear in the table can be assigned through discussion.I also mentioned PEEL as an influence in my thinking behind this. Anyone interested The is http://www.peelweb.org/ a gold mine of similar procedures. Each one explained and linked to classroom examples. It really does it well and takes class room activities and turns them into learning processes, so teachers are not just entertaining young people for the duration of a lesson but helping them learn and become better learners.