Morgs Edu

Featured

Task Design Series

‘How are you going to challenge the highers?’

The title of this blog is a question I heard often as a novice teacher and still hear being asked today, years later.

I find this question problematic – mostly for these two reasons:

First of all, I take issue with the lack of clarity surrounding challenge.

What exactly constitutes a challenging task?

The amount of time we give for the task? The number of steps involved? The complexity of knowledge required to attempt the task? All of the above?

Without a clear idea of what made a task challenging, it was difficult for me as a novice to provide appropriate challenge for my students.

An issue I still see today when I visit classrooms, where teachers struggle to provide meaningful challenge, not for want of trying.

The solution, of course, can be found in better defining what we believe challenge to be.

While it is relative to both the content being taught and the learner, simplifying challenge into a single sentence could be defined as when prior knowledge meets unfamiliar context.

The second issue I took with the ‘pushing the highers’ question was the underlying assumption that only high-prior attainers should be challenged.

This notion disregards the need for all pupils to think hard in the classroom.

Focusing solely on challenging high prior attainers neglects the potential of other students who will also benefit from such academic rigour.

By exclusively targeting high prior attainers for challenging tasks, we risk perpetuating the inequality that exists between pupils.

So what?

1. As a profession, we need to better define what ‘challenging’ learning is.

2. We should ensure all pupils are challenged, all pupils think hard and all pupils are subject to our unapologetically high expectations (that are specific to the individual child).

Task Design Perspective: Beyond Poor Proxies into Working Memory Failures

I’ve written and spoken extensively on task design over the years. In that time, I have argued that the task design process must factor the actual implementation of the task into our thinking.

Specifically, the information gathered from classroom implementation of a task should factor into future design processes to prevent repeated issues. We need to know if a task has been successful or not – this means looking for evidence in the moment.

You may likely be familiar with Coe’s Poor Proxies for Learning (pictured above) – indicators that do not accurately represent learning.

Though not in direct contradiction to learning, these indicators are insufficient in identifying whether learning is indeed happening or not.

If nothing else, the Poor Proxies are a warning against the superficial and easily observable measures of engagement.

I imagine Coe’s intention in sharing this list was for teachers to dig deeper and try to uncover when learning is actually happening in their classroom.

His list serves as a reminder that we should question our assumptions about whether learning is happening – and it is this sentiment that got me thinking…

Should we perhaps instead look at what evidence there is to suggest that learning isn’t happening?

The work of Gathercole and Alloway (2004) on working memory failures immediately came to mind – they suggest 4 things we can look for to identify if pupils are struggling with learning:

Incomplete recall
Failing to follow instructions
Place-keeping errors
Task abandonment

Let’s explore each of these in further depth.

Incomplete recall

For example, this could present itself as pupils forgetting some or all of the words in a sentence, or of a sequence of words.

Working memory is responsible for temporarily holding and manipulating information. In cases of incomplete recall, it may suggest a challenge in maintaining and retrieving the necessary information during a task.

Failing to follow instructions

This may present itself as remembering only the part of a sequence of instructions or forgetting the content of an instruction (for example, the pupil remembers that they need their ruler but they can’t remember what for).

Working memory is crucial for holding and processing sequential information. Difficulties in following instructions may indicate challenges in holding the sequence of tasks or retaining the necessary details while executing them.

Place-keeping errors

This could perhaps mean repeating or missing out entire parts of a task.

Working memory aids in maintaining focus and attention during tasks. Place-keeping errors may suggest a struggle in sustaining attention and keeping track of the current position or step within a task.

Task abandonment

When the pupil gives up on a task entirely.

Working memory is essential for task initiation and execution. Task abandonment may signal difficulties in holding and managing the information necessary to complete a task, leading to frustration or disengagement.

The cautionary work of Coe, Gathercole and Alloway provides us with guidance with which to observe tasks during their classroom implementation. In particular, the ‘working memory failures’ prompt thoughtful reflection on the challenges pupils face in summoning, maintaining and manipulating information in working memory during the tasks we provide for them.

Be it Poor Proxies or Working Memory Failures, responsive teaching demands of us that we keep these assumptions in mind to identify whether pupils are in fact learning or not.

In defence of ‘teaching techniques’

There is ongoing edutwitter discourse surrounding teaching techniques – a recurring critique appears to centre on the perceived infringement upon teacher autonomy.

I think it is a valid point, but I believe the opposite to be true.

I respect the view that prescribing techniques may relegate teachers to mere implementers, stifling their responsiveness and undermining their professional judgement. But, standardising these techniques, in my opinion, only serves to develop teacher autonomy.

It offers up scaffolds upon which teachers can build their instructional arsenal. Such techniques are powerful tools, rather than constraints.

A well-grounded understanding of these pedagogical techniques enhances a teacher’s capacity to make informed decisions and deliver responsive teaching more easily and to a higher standard.

Building a repertoire of techniques ensures that teacher autonomy can be exercised within a guiding framework that is effective.

Scepticism of these techniques is fair – education is an evolving landscape and CPD continues to seemingly promote new techniques all the time.

These techniques can act as a roadmap for CPD and continuous improvement – it certainly feels like this is the case with instructional coaching as the current coaching method of choice, where a granular aspect of practice is homed in on, practised and embedded over time.

After all, one thing that differentiates experts from novices is an extensive knowledge base of both techniques and situations in which these techniques are applicable (be that knowledge tacit or otherwise).

What these techniques do not provide is a one-size-fits-all approach. Of course, there is much more to it. That being said, those armed with a repertoire of techniques are better placed to judiciously select them and adapt teaching for their pupils.

How do we foster teacher autonomy with techniques then?

Autonomy is intertwined with reflection. Awareness of techniques and the situations they are useful in can be built into the reflection process.

e.g. ‘That part of the lesson didn’t go as I intended. What could I do next time to ensure it does?‘

Another approach is to provide professional development pathways – allow more experienced teachers to pursue different elements of practice that they want to improve upon.

e.g. ‘I want to improve questioning to ensure I check for the understanding of all pupils. What techniques should I use to achieve this?’

While it can be argued that an emphasis on teaching techniques can curtail teacher autonomy, I’m convinced it’s a lot more nuanced than that.

These strategies, if developed and used appropriately, can enhance teacher independence and autonomy in the classroom.

Ultimately, they are a foundation upon which teachers can build their expertise and can provide direction when seeking to develop professionally.

Task Design Perspective: Rows vs Groups

The rows vs groups debate is a passionate but necessary one, given the impact of seating arrangements on learning.

The simple answer is that teachers should employ what works best for their pedagogical style, especially as many of the issues mentioned in this blog can be remedied by effective teaching.

However, which is best from a task design perspective?

How do rows benefit tasks?

Perhaps the most stark benefit is that there is generally less distraction for learners sat in rows than there is for those sat in groups.

Seating in rows dictates a forward orientation, ensuring pupils face the teacher/the board. This encourages pupils to direct their attention towards the learning, rather than out a window or to a peer sitting directly across from them.

Not sitting face-to-face means less off-topic chatter. That is not to say that group tables always leads to talking – just that it has a higher likelihood of it occurring (in my experience).

An overlooked advantage of rows is that it gives a clearer sense of structure and order in the classroom – learners will perceive seating in rows as an indication that they need to face forwards and direct attention to the teacher.

The row formation makes it easier for the teacher to not only identify those off-task or in need of support, but, in my experience, makes it much easier to navigate the classroom in order to get to those pupils quicker. Indeed, we may only be talking the difference of mere seconds here, but over the course of a lesson, term or year, those precious seconds add up.

How do rows hinder tasks?

The obvious point here is how rows can restrict the potential for collaboration and stifle group work.

There are occasions where a task needs more than two children working as partners. The easiest solution is to ask two pupils to turn their chairs around to work with the two pupils behind them. Like anything, pupils need to have this explicitly modelled for them.

This means that teachers can reap the benefits of rows for the majority of time but access the benefits of group work quite simply when necessary.

Another argument is that rows result in ‘passive learning’. The idea being that the physical separation from their peers leads to some sort of detachment from the learning process and that learning for these pupils becomes information absorption rather than active participation.

Passive learning is not determined by seating arrangement alone. Instead, it hinges largely on how the teacher chooses to facilitate the learning process (e.g. checking for the understanding of all pupils). Effective teaching can turn row seating into an engaging learning environment.

How does group seating benefit tasks?

The obvious benefit is that the seating arrangement allows for greater collaboration between peers. For those who seek an environment where pupils are both cognitively and behaviourally active, group tables more readily satisfy their requirements.

Unlike row seating, which limits face-to-face contact and discourages wider interaction, group tables create a natural environment for students to share ideas and engage in group activities effectively. This setup is conducive to collaborative projects, discussions and group problem-solving.

One major advantage of this is that it can bring students with varying opinions and knowledge together, which could facilitate a broader exchange of ideas and more critical thinking as students encounter different viewpoints from their own.

An assumed by-product of this approach is that pupils’ communication and interpersonal skills improve because they have to articulate their ideas and listen to their peers more. Often tied to this particular argument is how this can prepare pupils for life after school – i.e. in the workplace.

How does group seating hinder tasks?

Group seating can lead to more distractions, as learners may chat or interact with one another when they should be focused on the task at hand.

Group seating can often lead to group tasks, which in and of themselves can be effective. However, without careful seating arrangements, some pupils may dominate discussions/tasks, while others might contribute less, leading to inequitable participation.

In this situation, the task will have been ineffective as we don’t have the entire class thinking about what we want them to be thinking about.

Classroom management can be more difficult with group seating. Maintaining discipline and focus during a task can be more challenging, as students are not as clearly visible, and it’s therefore easier for off-task behaviour to go unnoticed.

*****

The answer, of course, is to utilise a balance. Personally, I would advocate for rows as the default seating arrangement with spacing available to breakout into groups with peers sat behind them. This allows teachers to reap the benefits of rows, while still being able to take advantage of group tasks when desired.

6 benefits of using the same task for ALL pupils

For some, differentiation is in the rear-view mirror. They are cruising onto pastures new.

Those pastures being ‘teaching to the top’ – the idea that all pupils are taught to achieve the highest outcomes.

Naturally, this means we must provide struggling learners with the necessary support they need to do this. This is often referred to as ‘scaffolding down’.

Of course, such an approach requires careful curriculum design and instructional strategies, but this blog refers to how a single task fits into the picture.

NB: there are occasions where a single task is not appropriate (e.g. a mixed-age classroom) – a single task will not work in every classroom all the time.

So, what are the benefits of using a single task for all pupils?

Promoting equity – a single task ensures that every pupil is held to the same standard and given an equal opportunity to succeed. This contributes to the idea that the classroom is inclusive.
A clear standard – a single task provides a clear standard against which all pupils will be assessed. This standard serves as a reference point for both pupils and the teacher to gauge performance of the task. It helps establish clear expectations and makes a single model useful.
Accountability to the standard – when all pupils are given the same task, it becomes easier to hold them accountable for their performance against the standard. Teachers can more accurately assess whether pupils are meeting the established standard and take appropriate steps to provide support when needed (i.e. responsive teaching).
Greater consistency in assessment – using one task for all ensures greater consistency in assessment. It helps the teacher to make valid comparisons between pupils and track their progress effectively (e.g. No More Marking’s termly writing tasks). Using one task for all pupils makes it simpler for teachers to assess whether the class has achieved mastery of a particular concept or skill. This information can inform instructional decisions and help the teacher adjust their future teaching as needed.
High expectations – this one speaks for itself. However, by using a task with a specific standard, teachers set higher expectations for all pupils. This can motivate pupils to strive for excellence and reach their full potential. Conversely, when the standards are set at a lower threshold, there exists no incentive for pupils to surpass those benchmarks.
Providing support – while the task may be the same for all pupils, teachers can still provide differentiation in terms of support, resources, and guidance. By employing a single task, it means we can allocate more time to individualising support where necessary. This increases our pedagogical attentiveness, facilitating a deeper and more nuanced engagement with the specific learning needs each pupil.

In summary, a single task represents a shift away from the differentiation approach evident in recent years. Instead of spending time considering how to create four different tasks, the time can be spent considering how to make a single task accessible for all learners. This can be a more productive use of time in developing a teacher’s ability to support their pupils.

How schemes of work actually foster teacher autonomy

I read an article recently, which stated that schemes hinder novice teachers’ autonomy because they adhere too closely to them.

While I agree that schemes can have such pedagogical implications, I believe they actually foster autonomy in the long-term. Schemes provide a framework and starting point for teachers, especially novices, to develop their instructional practices.

New teachers face many challenges: workload, subject knowledge, behaviour management, to name a few.

Using a well-designed scheme frees up time/working memory for novices to focus on developing their teaching skills.

The novice’s limited knowledge base impacts their ability to:

– interpret domain-specific problems

– self-regulate well

– ignore surface-level features

– recognise common patterns/make connections

Time ≠ expertise

Novices not only need time, they need practice. Lots of it.

Using a scheme early on provides more time to focus on critical aspects of teaching, developing competence, confidence, and motivation.

Excessive planning early on can have a negative impact, causing increased workload, stress, and poor work/life balance. We’ve all been there.

A scheme is a starting point and never the end. Expert teachers can go beyond the suggested content, leveraging their deep understanding of pedagogy, subject knowledge, and student needs.

While schemes provide a framework, good instruction comes from the teacher’s ability to bring the intended curriculum to life in the classroom.

Novices benefit from adhering to schemes to build a solid foundation and gain confidence.

Schemes foster autonomy by providing structure and support while allowing teachers to develop their unique teaching approaches.

Opportunity Cost When Selecting Tasks

Opportunity cost is a trade-off that is involved in any decision. It refers to the benefits you miss out on when choosing one option over another.

It is essential for decision-making, time allocation and understanding the trade-offs that are inherent to the choice of task.

Imagine you have 5 minutes of spare time at the end of a lesson.

Do you use that time to revisit material or explore something new?

If you choose to revisit material, it will give pupils the chance to better encode what they have learnt and for you to check for understanding.

If you choose to explore new material, you provide the opportunity to develop pupil understanding further, demonstrating how it links with prior knowledge.

Opportunity cost dictates that whichever path you choose, you miss out on the benefits of the path that you did not choose.

If I choose X, they miss out on Y.

If I choose Y, they miss out on X.

What makes this particularly difficult in education is that often there is more than one task that can achieve the same objective. For example, in a previous blog, I spoke about how vocabulary acquisition could occur through a vocabulary task or through reading.

Considering this cost is important. It informs us on which task to choose, so that we can focus learning and have a greater impact on outcomes. Concomitantly, of course, it helps us to avoid ineffective tasks that have less educational value.

So, how do we consider opportunity cost during the task design process? Through a cost-benefit analysis.

This is the process of weighing up the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives, providing us with the necessary information (i.e. inherent trade-offs) on which option to choose.

Here is a basic thought process behind a cost-benefit analysis:

Identify the costs involved with each task (e.g. time, effort, physical resources).
Identify the educational value of each task (e.g. chance to revisit prior knowledge, opportunity to challenge learners).

It is important to consider short vs long-term benefits. Some tasks may improve performance immediately, while others may contribute more significantly to learning over time (i.e. performance vs learning).

Compare the alternative tasks and choose one.
Revisit this after task implementation to consider if the right option was chosen and why.

Whether you do this process mentally or written down, it should be guided throughout by these two questions:

What happens if I choose this option?
What happens if I don’t?

When we prioritise one task over another, it is because we believe it will have a more significant impact.

Knowing the implications of choosing a particular task is helpful, as you can potentially mitigate anything that may cause an issue. However, being unaware of these implications could lead to issues during classroom implementation.

For example, a particular task may be challenging and therefore require more modelling from the teacher. The amount of time dedicated to this is something you would have to factor into your instruction, as it may take longer than usual and lesson time is finite.

Single-Definition Vocabulary Tasks

The central point of this blog centres around the frequency with which single-definition tasks are used, rather than their efficacy.

Single-definition vocab tasks present pupils with a single, concise definition of a word which they either have to apply to a given context (e.g. gap fill tasks) or create their own sentence for.

We know that learning words takes significant time and that after one instance of hearing or reading a word, it is unlikely for it to be committed to long-term memory (in part due to many words being polysemous – ‘polysemous’ meaning multiple definitions).

This makes vocabulary acquisition hard to quantify. Can we truly say a child has learnt X words in a day? No. However, with single-definition vocabulary tasks, we may succumb to the illusion that we can.

Let’s take a seemingly easy word such as ‘set’ to demonstrate this:

A group or collection of things that belong together – e.g. a set of cards.

A group of people who work together for a common purpose – e.g. a film set.

A part of a match consisting of several games – e.g. a tennis set.

To put something in a particular position – e.g. he set the flowers down on the table.

To establish something – e.g. to set a precedent.

To adjust or configure something – e.g. to set the clock.

To arrange something – e.g. set a meeting.

To become solid – e.g. she set the cement.

To direct attention on something – e.g. they set their eyes on the prize.

While not exhaustive, and some definitions may overlap, this example demonstrates the nuance of learning word definitions.

In a single-definition vocab task we typically see in classrooms, it is unlikely that the multiple meanings of ‘set’ would be conveyed to a learner. Therefore, after such a task, can we be sure a pupil has learnt the word ‘set’? Of course not.

So then, should we provide multiple single-definitions tasks that go through every definition of ‘set’? No. This would be incredibly time-consuming and simply impossible to achieve, given the sheer number of words and their multiplicity of meanings.

What tasks do we need then?

Reading. It always comes back to reading.

In everyday speech, we use a limited amount of words. In text, both the amount, complexity and variety of words is drastically increased (for example, consider formal language not used in everyday speech).

With the amount of words increased, so too are the contexts in which they are used, exposing pupils to the multitude of a word’s meanings (this, in part, is why vocabulary acquisition can be slow).

It is context which is key here as E.D. Hirsch explains:

“We do not learn so many discrete words a day. Rather, we are learning small, incremental aspects of hundreds of words in a day…as we understand whole utterances in context.”

Consider the sentence below:

‘The bat flew over the baseball field’.

Bat could mean the nocturnal animal or a baseball bat in this sentence. It is only through context that the pupil could discern which meaning is being applied.

Consider our youngest pupils who cannot yet read. How will they learn multiple definitions? By listening to an adult read, hearing the word pop up in multiple contexts and through other spoken interactions across the curriculum. Over time, this would help them to independently understand the bat example above.

Variety of context is something single-definition vocabulary tasks lack.

Through repeated (i.e. spaced) and varied exposure to multiple definitions, pupils’ understanding of a word builds over time. This achieves vocabulary acquisition far more effectively than single-definition vocab tasks ever could.

This is not to say that single-definition tasks are entirely redundant; they can serve as useful building blocks at the start of vocabulary acquisition, such as in the early stages of language learning or for introducing new words. However, if they take up the majority of instructional time for word definitions, there is a case to argue the time could be better spent.

I asked reading expert, Chris Such, for his thoughts on this blog as he is far more knowledgeable than me on this subject. He emphasised that the implicit learning of vocabulary through extensive reading and spoken interactions across the curriculum should be accompanied by explicit instruction. He also encouraged that these things are considered when using any vocabulary tasks:

– Pupil-friendly definitions with examples/non-examples

– Actively use the word in some form

– Prioritise words that are most likely to be valuable for explicit instruction while leaving everything else up to implicit learning from spoken interactions and reading

You can buy Chris’ book, The Art and Science of Teaching Primary Reading, here. All royalties go to the Malaria Consortium.

How can we gradually increase the difficulty of retrieval practice?

Let’s take a look at:

Recognition tests
Cued recall
Free recall

Recognition tests = present pupils with options and ask them to identify the correct answer among them.

This method is typically easier than other forms of retrieval because the correct answer is presented – pupils simply need to recognise it.

Example of a recognition test:

What is it called when water falls from clouds back to Earth?

– Vapour

– Condensation

– Evaporation

– Precipitation

Recognition tests are useful for initial assessment of learning.

Benefits:

– low-stakes

– support the encoding process (testing as a learning tool, not just assessment)

– builds confidence

These tests should use plausible distractors to ensure pupils still have to think hard.

Cued recall = pupils retrieve from their memory with the aid of specific cues.

There is a gradual increase in difficulty as the pupil now has to rely on a single cue, rather than identifying from a specific set of options which one is correct.

Instead of providing multiple options to pick from, teachers can offer cues that trigger pupils’ memory about the correct response.

Example:

Who painted this?

By using cued recall, teachers increase the difficulty compared to recognition tests because pupils need to actively retrieve information from memory using partial cues.

Think carefully about which cues you use.

We want to encourage pupils to engage in more effortful retrieval, strengthening their memory.

Free recall = pupils are asked to retrieve information from memory without any specific cues or hints.

They have to recall the information independently. Therefore, this is the most difficult form of retrieval.

Example of free recall:

What were the causes of WWI?

NB: the lines blur between cued/free recall. Some argue certain free recall tasks, like the one above, are actually cued recall. A general rule to work by is whether there is a specific cue that prompts a certain memory. If not, I would argue the task is more likely free recall.

To stick with this same example, a task that would be more in line with cued recall may be:

We can acronymise the 5 causes of WWI with MANIA. What word does each letter represent?

(There is a more specific cue here that prompts a particular memory)

Teachers can employ free recall as a more difficult form of assessment, following recognition tests and cued recall.

Free recall encourages deeper processing and retrieval practice, leading to enhanced long-term retention.

By gradually increasing the difficulty of retrieval through the process of recognition tests, cued recall, and free recall, teachers provide pupils with opportunities to strengthen their memory.

Greater Depth Standard – KS2 Moderation

Worried about greater depth writing for KS2 moderation?

Here’s some advice on the statements, independent writing, what can prevent achieving the GD standard, and what to look for when assessing writing at that level.

Before we start, here are the criteria for working at a greater depth level. I find it best to think of them all as connected.

Statement 1:

Does the writing achieve what it sets out to do and does it do it consistently throughout?
Is there autonomy from the pupil? Have they used stuff they have been taught and from their own reading?
The writing should be convincing from start to finish, whatever the intention.

Be careful not to overscaffold – their writing must always be independent.

Keep these criteria in mind:

Statement 2:

Language choice is dictated by the purpose and audience they are writing for.
Which tone/register is appropriate for this?
‘Speech and writing’ – it doesn’t mean always using speech, just that they know the difference.

Statements 2 & 3 are linked. Hard to achieve one without the other:

Formality is a continuum – very formal to very informal. Control of it comes from linking it to purpose/audience (statement 1).
Statement 3 refers to ‘shift’ – pupils must evidence how to write in both formal and informal contexts, as well as contexts that lie between them on the continuum.

Statement 4:

How does their use of punctuation help them achieve statement 1?
Punctuation should provide clarity for the reader and prevent ambiguity.

Certain things can prevent a pupil from achieving GD:
– Errors/omissions (i.e. using a piece of punctuation incorrectly a few times)

– Repetitive vocabulary (not for effect)

– Mismatched language and context (e.g. using slang in a formal letter of complaint)

– Weakness in tense/verb form

– Commas affecting clarity

– Repetitive/predictable clause structure

This is not an exhaustive list.

Lastly, when assessing their writing, consider these two questions:

Consider this when assessing:

– Is writing accurate? (e.g. language choice for context, use of punctuation)

– Does the pupil use complex language/sentence structure? (varies structure, uses different verb forms appropriate to style of writing)

STA talk about whether something *undermines* the overall impact of their writing. Keep that in mind when assessing – that’s where your feedback needs to lie.