Gwersi Brecwast - The PLN Sessions

 

Gwersi Brecwast - The PLN Sessions

During this summer half-term, our amazing PLN embarked on a new professional learning activity to explore some of the deeper aspects of pedagogy and practice. We thought it would be a valuable and insightful experience to have one of us teach a mini lesson to others role-playing the pupils. We put aside 30 mins before the start of the day each Friday to embark on our ‘The Gwersi Brecwast The PL Sessions’. A huge diolch to all the willing members of this small group for their time and passion during the project. Roedd y brecwast yn fendigedig hefyd.

We devised a schedule and set some basic parameters for the sessions and wanted to leave some space at the end of each one for feedback and insights. We set the focus to look at specific aspects of subject content we know the pupils find difficult and explore how the mini lesson could be improved, adapted or refined to support future planning. It was also our hope that there would be some washback in the form of being in the pupils' position when dealing with subject content that may or may not be familiar. We may or may not have prior knowledge of the domain and experiencing some of the feelings, emotions, frustrations, and barriers to learning faced by our pupils on a daily basis would be beneficial to inform our thinking on sequence and differentiation. It’s really been a fascinating and insightful venture and here are the reflections of those who took part:

Teacher 1

When the idea of teaching mini lessons within our PLN was first discussed, one of the most appealing aspects for me was that the group was made up of teachers from so many different subject disciplines. More often than not, when I am discussing new ideas for pedagogical approaches or reflecting on practice, I am doing so with members of my own faculty or in subject network groups. Although there is obviously worth in this, delivering and receiving feedback from professionals, but not experts in the subject, offered further important insights. This was particularly true when those professionals were not simply observing but were being put in the place of the learner. We were not allowed to be passive observers and I think that this is what was most effective about this process. 

During the first session, maths, I was firmly transported back to the classroom. I became that student who wasn’t quite awake in the morning, the student who had forgotten information that at one time would have been easily accessible, and the student who wanted to do well but was struggling. This process was invaluable in reminding me what our students are experiencing on the other side of the desk and, as a result, made me reflect on my own practice when it comes to students in a similar situation within my own subject. After each of the sessions, it also confirmed to me that knowledge of your learner is essential in selecting which techniques from your toolkit you want to use and when you want to use them. It became obvious that the teachers were quickly assessing where their learners were and their prior knowledge and adapting their approach accordingly. This ability to adapt is something that we have gained with experience but what I found rewarding was seeing the different ways the other teachers adapted and naturally differentiated within their mini lessons. This allowed me to not only say, “Yes, I adapt as I teach” but consider the ‘how’ behind the process and whether my ‘how’ was the most effective way in different situations with different learners. 

When it came to my own session, I had to consider what aspect I wanted to deliver.  I settled on delivering a session on how to structure a response to a particular question type at GCSE. I knew that my learners in this lesson would be able to access the reading material and I knew that they would understand the question. Therefore, my main concern was ensuring that they answered the question in a specific way. I used the same techniques that I would when delivering this lesson to the pupils and, as a result, received honest and valuable feedback that allows me to consider my day to day teaching. If this type of professional learning is to work effectively, I think that it is imperative that the lessons being delivered reflect the truth of your classroom. If they do then the knowledge we gain from the dialogue after the sessions can, and will, be beneficial for us and our pupils. 

This experience wasn’t the same as a series of distinct lesson observations and I think that is what was so important about the process. It allowed for a more open and honest dialogue about pedagogy and practice. It allowed me to see techniques that I use, and just as importantly those that I don’t, and the impact of them within a lesson. It allowed me to make connections in the way we deliver our subjects. As a group, we found similar feedback points were being given at times, suggesting specific areas of improvement (particularly when considering how we respond to and build on errors made within the classroom) and, as a result, this is something that we can now, as a group, focus on improving. This process has been informative and encouraging and, where observations can feel isolated to a lesson and sometimes lack a purposeful dialogue and reflection, this hasn’t felt like that at all. 

Teacher 2 

I had the pleasure of going first, having volunteered for the honour! My first thoughts were to try and deliver the stereotypical ‘outstanding lesson’ full of laminated resources, ‘awe and wonder’ and other activities that ticked boxes (although I am sure inspection teams see through these anyway). However, I soon had a word with myself and reflected that what was actually necessary was to think about why I was doing what I was doing and then the ‘how’. I began to think about a lesson/topic I teach where I feel the pupils generally ‘get it’, but some struggle and to see if my PLN colleagues could give me the reflection that maybe I wasn't able to do myself. I decided to deliver the session as I would a lesson, with the same resources, pace, questioning and differentiating, as I go, based on the learners. 

I was fascinated in the lead up by the idea that actually what I was teaching them was of no consequence, the reflection focussing on the how not the what. Real professional learning concentrating on my routines, pedagogy and practice; a chance for me to learn from experts. However, the fact they were not experts in ‘my subject’ was also a strength of the process. How would a teacher from outside this specialism view it? How would they have approached the content delivery differently? What would have enhanced their experience? To me, all of this was the most powerful part of what we were doing. They were immersed in the learning and were not judging my teaching from a performance management, subject review or inspection perspective but from a teacher wanting to be better.

The 20 minute lesson followed and was delivered. The feedback was honest, informative and inspiring. Most importantly it was listened to and received, with a massively open mind. These are not people making things up to justify a post, these are not people ticking boxes for scrutiny, these are not people trying to find a fault and area for improvement; these are people I respect to be honest with me and who I have trusted to fulfil that role. The comments on the pedagogy, the principles from Rosenshine and other research informed practice like TLAC, the questioning techniques etc were all really useful and the way a colleague linked the way I delivered a sequence of learning to an aspect of digital learning and process was thought provoking. Suggestions for me to consider not just sharing a good example/modelling but ‘find the error’ rather than me explaining what the common errors were was so obvious, but not something I did. I have since built this into my practice!

After receiving the feedback, I also reflected on what I took from the session. For me I realised that I quickly established my ‘confident’ learners, ‘prior knowledge in place’ learners and my, ‘this is uncomfortable for me’ learners. Making these observations then allowed me to consider who and how I questioned - the continual focus on ‘assessment snapshots’ informing my pace, explanations and delivery. Who to ask, what to ask and why - always coming back to the why. 

However, delivering the lesson was the easy part, being the pupil in four further lessons was the challenge for me. What were they going to teach? How would I cope? Would I look stupid? ‘I'll be OK in that one as I’m OK with it’ etc… I kept telling myself the process and the pedagogy are the focus but it was obvious, as we all fed back, that learner apprehension is real too, despite what the teacher and your peers tell you. 

My fears were never realised as I saw skilled colleagues choose activities/tasks/questions and structures that allowed me to feel successful. I was corrected in a way that was supportive but I still knew I got it wrong. I was proud of what I achieved, even if it was not as much as others, as I was made to feel that my progress mattered. Technology was used because it helped the learning, not because it ‘ticked’ a box. Pedagogical approaches were chosen based on the topic and the learners. Adjustments made mid-lesson/activity were made because the teacher knew their learners (even in the small window we had). 

I thoroughly enjoyed the four lessons that followed and saw aspects of practice that I will transfer to mine. We gave feedback to each other and, on reflection, I think we sold ourselves short with only a 10 minute slot for feedback; we could have done 30 and still not have had enough time. Passion for what we all do was so evident as was the knowledge that we all want to get better, despite how long we have all been doing it. 

In conclusion, I have two main points - firstly, good teaching is good teaching, and the subject is irrelevant. Know your pupils, know your subject and know your toolkit. You can then mix and match these to deliver successful learning. Secondly, this is the future of lesson observations. I think that all staff observing a lesson in school should actually do the lesson. What does it feel like to be in this lesson? Can I access it? Can I be successful? There is a place for the more traditional focussed observation but for me this process has changed my view on lessons and learning. I think this process is upscalable and whole school improvement will follow. 

Teacher 3

Maths, Science, English and Welsh were on my Friday 8am timetable for the past few weeks. I also had to deliver a lesson on introducing spreadsheets - an important but often dull part of digital and ICT lessons. I revisited aspects of school that I hadn’t even thought about for 30 years and also some that (being from the other side of the bridge!) had never been taught before. Scaffolding, modelling, questioning, and lots of practice, all delivered by my trusted colleagues and friends, ensuring that I could learn something in a very short 15-20 minute lesson. This was unlike those micro-teaches that I delivered as part of my PGCE because, at that point, I was a newbie and my critique, like those of my peers, was naive - we had barely been into a classroom and certainly hadn’t been taught about learning theories and pedagogical principles.

Our PLN has evolved naturally over the past 5 years, we each come from different disciplines but all believe that good teaching is good teaching - and that our students deserve good teaching. Our informal professional learning has changed over time in terms of both structure and focus, this was the latest iteration of what has kept us all going through some difficult years and keeps us true to our own ethos - that the students deserve us to be the best we can be, and by that I don’t mean “outstanding” in inspection speak, but that we are consistently good. Curriculum for Wales enables us to think about content more than we have for a while, but the content will only be as good as the delivery and this peer critique has enabled us to get some real, honest critique.

The lesson I delivered was one that I had taught the previous week to Year 8, mixed ability, with some success. After our Gwersi Brecwast session, I delivered that lesson another 3 times, with greater success - drawing on the critique of my PLN, exploiting the areas I had been too vague with, honing my questioning and bringing it into a real life, authentic experience for the students. I gained far more from that 30 mins in terms of bringing my lesson to the students, than any formal observation has ever given me. As a student in the other 4 sessions, I experienced the other side of the desk - particularly when being the slowest to understand what to do with the fractions, feeling that everyone was better than me as they were further on with the work, being a novice at work is not something many teachers get to experience often as we are (generally) the experts in the room. To be able to share my “pupil voice” directly with the teacher after the lesson in another true and authentic way, not just a pupil voice to say we have done one, was also so important. I could then think about times in my own teaching when I have done the same “if you’ve finished then go on and do the next 10”. How were those students who hadn’t got to that part feeling at the end of my lesson? I could share similar learner experiences from the other sessions too, all of which informed my practice as much as the critique I received from my own taught lesson.

What’s next? Not sure. This type of professional learning really works, but it requires a trusting group of educators to do this, to put yourself out there. It cannot be imposed on staff with artificial groupings, but should be allowed and encouraged to develop. This links wonderfully with a coaching approach, again with the right combination of people to ensure there is trust and respect between both parties. I am looking forward to 8am next Friday that’s for sure!

Teacher 4

 

During the sessions, we decided to look at teaching a micro lesson to show how we could develop pedagogical approaches. For my session, I decided to demonstrate the movement of our faculty towards explicit teaching and direct instruction using formulas from the WJEC DA physics course. As a faculty, we have implemented several strategies to ensure that pupils can select, use and rearrange formulas. We use the FIRE acronym. 

 

F – Write out the Formulae 

I – Input the values 

R – Resolve the equation. Check that the units are correct and that the value you are calculating is on the left. 

E – Equals – Complete the calculation 

 

For my micro lesson, we used mini whiteboards, books and board markers. It was a very interactive session using the I do, we do and you do method of instruction. Although we usually include plenty of practice, we develop the concept of using equations from year 8 as we have mixed ability classes. It was encouraging to see the similarities in teaching approaches with mathematics. The feedback given was useful, and I will look at refining my teaching to include errors and being able to identify and correct them. 

 

Truthfully, by participating in the other sessions, I found that it allowed me to reflect on the other areas of pedagogy. I found there were strategies that overlapped with the ones we use in our faculty but also others that gave fresh ideas on how to develop direct instruction further. An example of this would be from the English lesson where they develop their extended answer approach with clear steps and structure against the mark-scheme. I would have only used a couple of steps to help pupils develop an extended answer, but her teaching reminded me that it is important to use good examples and get the class to suggest improvements from a generic example rather than using a class example alone. Another example would be to extend the use of flooding input for key terminology we know the pupils will find difficult or be unfamiliar with. This in turn will develop the confidence of the pupils to be able to interact with the scientific terminology using KO starter, true and false, correct the mistakes and fill in the blanks. 

 

I am grateful for the opportunity to watch and participate in these sessions as it helped me reflect on my own practice and has encouraged me to try new approaches. 

Teacher 5

My first reflection is about structure! In each session, there was a purposeful activity to start that either flooded ideas for the following work or retrieval practice on a spaced learning principle and detached from the lesson objective. In language lessons, we call these universals. What struck me is the principle of activating prior knowledge or flooding knowledge that will be required in the lesson is a key feature in effective lessons. This was achieved in a range of different approaches from quizzing, matching, big ideas, and retrieval tasks. Quick activities to prime the content. 

My second reflection was about how important comprehensible input is to establishing the learning objective and ensuring learners understand the key, usually level 3, terminology. We had aspects of the Freya model to establish clear definitions and avoid misconceptions, sheltered vocabulary, and worked examples in context across the sessions. There was space given to explore the terminology and establish the contextual meaning. This is central to the sequencing choices when planning. It was fascinating to be challenged with alternative ways to activate prior learning and ensure comprehended access to the key terminology needed. A key aspect of establishing this understanding was careful questioning, knowing your learners, and being responsive to the replies. It felt like all the teachers had anticipated the possible confusions/misunderstandings and actively prepared for these in their planning with explanations and examples at the ready.

In all the sessions, there was a variety of techniques that were repeated. Cold calling, modelling, worked examples, open and closed questioning, guided practice, Pose, Pause, Pounce and Bounce, independent practice and comprehension checks using mini whiteboards. These were all features of the lessons and the teaching craft was evident in how these were used seamlessly during the sessions to keep the engagement and the participation ratio high. This left me reflecting on how different techniques have a specific function and selecting from the range of options for a specific purpose is vital; an area I need to develop further in my own practice. This is also very important in terms of activity selection. Having the confidence to go with the flow of lessons and new input from the pupils is critical in chasing down what has been comprehended and what has not. “Formative assessment should not be anything less than every minute of every lesson” (William), springs to mind.

One of the features for further development that arose in all the sessions was the use of diagnostic tasks or activities that give the pupils the opportunity to isolate errors in an example. Debugging or problem solving was lacking and all teachers felt this was an aspect that could be further exploited following the modelling phase. Deliberate practice in proofing work is a skill to develop in our pupils and will help them to notice common errors. A critical eye on their own work where questioning micro-steps in a process are celebrated and welcome. This could be an effective approach for responding to whole-class feedback or common errors detected across the class.

I thoroughly enjoyed the sessions as they gave me vital insight into how pupils respond to different levels of challenge. Careful structuring of activities that both support and challenge pupils is not easy and there needs to be some flexibility or responsiveness to go after the lesson objective in a variety of ways, as the needs of pupils are very different. A strong feature of all the sessions was this careful development of the background knowledge and then filling any gaps to ensure all pupils are involved and given the opportunity to engage with the content. I also really enjoyed the reflective discussions after each session as these were rich in pedagogical knowledge and application in the classroom. I also feel this type of PL activity would be very helpful to teachers who want to try out new teaching and learning ideas or approaches with other teachers before introducing them into the classroom. Having the opportunity to trial, assess, and refine techniques and seek critical feedback in a supportive and knowledgeable environment is a positive addition to staying sharp at the chalk-face. I would happily take part in more sessions like this. 

Conclusion

The impact of these sessions is clear and all those taking part benefitted from engaging in the process. Professional dialogue, coaching, reflection and encouragement were all key aspects alongside developing a range of techniques and pedagogical approaches. There is power in a PLN that seeks to develop pedagogical knowledge and refine practice because very often the expertise is already in the room. We hope these thoughts and reflections strike a chord. #Ymlaen

#15MFCymru

Next Steps - The Framework for Welsh in English-medium Education

 

Guest Post - Mathias Maurer

Today, we submitted our group response to the open consultation on the draft framework for Welsh in English-medium education. Together with Barri Mock and Carys Swain, I had written and published the group response a few weeks ago, and by today we had gathered 52 supporters from across the education sector who were happy to add their names to the document. 

I also submitted a supporting paper titled ‘Next Steps’.  You can find ‘Next Steps’ below this introduction. In the hope of starting a constructive conversation about how to best follow up the consultation process, I sent  ‘First Steps’ to the following major stakeholders, with an invitation to meet and discuss the issues raised in the paper:

Jeremy Miles MS, Minister for Education and Welsh Language

Jeremy Evas, Head of Cymraeg 2050

Bethan Webb, Deputy Director, Welsh Language Division

Awen Penri, Head of the Welsh In Education Development Branch

Jane Hutt MS, Minister for Social Justice (my local MS)

I sincerely hope for an opportunity to talk to each of the above and explain in more detail the views and suggestions expressed in our group response, and in ‘Next Steps’.

 Next Steps

A statement to accompany the group response to the open consultation on the draft framework for Welsh in English-medium education.

By Mathias Maurer

Cymraeg 2050 and Welsh in English-medium education: the challenge

It is widely acknowledged that Welsh-medium education is an essential pillar of the Cymraeg 2050 one million speakers strategy: in the Cymraeg 2050 document, Welsh-medium immersion education is explicitly mentioned as the “principal method for ensuring that children can develop their Welsh language skills, and for creating new speakers.”

Far less talked about is the fact that Cymraeg 2050 also provides an ambitious target for English-medium education:

To reach a million speakers, we need to transform how we teach Welsh to learners in all other schools [non-Welsh medium schools], in order that at least half of those learners report by 2050 that they can speak Welsh by the time they leave school. (Welsh Government, 2017)

To re-phrase: It is the responsibility of the English-medium and bilingual sectors that, by 2050, half of all English-medium and bilingual education pupils describe themselves as Welsh speakers by the time they complete their GCSE.

This means that from the total of 70% Welsh speakers we want to leave education by 2050 in total, nearly half will have to come from the English-medium sector. This is the challenge.

In this paper, I will take a closer look at the current situation of Welsh in the English medium sector. In particular, I will comment on the following:

The consultation process for the new draft framework for Welsh in English-medium education that was been launched in February by Welsh Government.

The options available to Welsh Government once the consultation closes.

The consequences the government’s decisions might have for the future of Welsh in English-medium education.

 

A new framework for Welsh in English-medium education

On 14th February this year, Welsh Government launched an open consultation on a draft framework for Welsh in English medium education, and on additional supporting materials, resources and professional learning needed alongside the framework. The consultation will close on 13^th May.

I am in no doubt that the way in which Welsh Government handles the feedback from the consultation responses will have far-reaching consequences for the future of Welsh in English medium education, and, ultimately, for our nation’s effort to have one million Welsh speakers by the year 2050.

Please find in a separate document the professional group response to the draft framework that I recently published together with Barri Mock and Carys Swain, experts from the secondary and further education sectors. We invited stakeholders to put their name to it, and 52 colleagues have expressed their support: 28 English-medium primary teachers, 13 English-medium secondary teachers, 2 teachers from bilingual schools, 2 from English-medium all-through schools, 3 tutors from further education colleges, 3 from higher education institutions, and one independent commentator. Several Deputy Headteachers and Heads of Department are among the signees.

The following statement rephrases a central message of our professional group response:

The framework on its own, in its current form, will have no discernible effect in the English-medium primary sector unless a carefully designed support structure – core progression, core curriculum, core resources and professional learning specific to all of these – is put in place. Most EM primary teachers will have neither the time nor the skills required to translate the framework into meaningful, effective classroom practice. 

Controversy or collaboration – which is it going to be?

In our opinion, the open consultation offers a striking opportunity for Welsh Government to take an approach that is fundamentally different from the approach England has chosen for the teaching of Modern Foreign Languages (MFL). Recently in England, much controversy has been caused by the Ofsted 2021 Curriculum Research Review for Languages and the National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy (NCELP) approach to curriculum planning and pedagogy. A significant number of MFL practitioners and renowned academics have publicly criticised what they perceive to be the selective and misleading quoting of research, and the promotion of a pedagogical approach that is unlikely to succeed in secondary schools with an intake that is less privileged than the one in the schools that were selected for initial trials. Many stakeholders feel excluded by what they perceive is a misjudged, heavy-handed top-down approach to improving uptake and outcomes in Modern Foreign Languages.

Here in Wales, our government, too,  will soon have to make important decisions about the way stakeholders’ views are taken into account. To what degree will the public responses to the open consultation inform the planning, design and delivery of resources and professional learning to support the implementation of the non-statutory framework?

As we see it, there are two general options:

• With minimal involvement of the teaching community, we can make a number of small but ultimately cosmetic changes to the draft framework itself before its final publication, and provide a selection of well-meaning, but potentially incoherent and therefore ineffective resources and professional learning opportunities. I fear this approach could ultimately lead to a controversy similar to the current one in England regarding the Ofsted research review and NCELP’s approach to curriculum and pedagogy. More importantly, it could well mean that this historic opportunity to set Welsh in English-medium education on the right tracks for the Cymraeg 2050 goals has been squandered. In my opinion, this would be a massive strategic error.

• Alternatively, by using the consultation responses as a starting point, we can choose to sit down with specialist English-medium practitioners from all phases, and genuinely listen to their concerns and their suggestions. Much credibility and sector-wide buy-in could be gained if Welsh Government decided to use expert practitioners’ contributions to develop a coherent support structure for the delivery of the new framework. Crucially, this support structure should be based on practitioners’ practical needs in the classroom. To make it effective, it would have to include a well thought-out, coherent suite of documentation, resources and professional learning opportunities that offer the best knowledge and practice to improve outcomes genuinely and sustainably in the English-medium sector.

Reasons for optimism

Once the consultation closes, Welsh Government will have the opportunity to signal a much welcome shift in approach, away from what recently has been perceived by some English-medium practitioners as a top-down, introduce-first-and-consult afterwards approach, towards a genuine engagement with the classroom workforce. Together with many of our English-medium colleagues, we are hoping for a realistic, strategic plan to develop a core curriculum for Welsh in English-medium education. This will require the following:

• the effective integration of a coherent core language progression
• carefully sequenced resources
• a specific professional learning programme

The professional learning programme must build on the successful Welsh Sabbatical programme, but in addition, alternative effective learning opportunities need to be provided for all those practitioners who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to commit to the sabbatical programme. This is crucial.

Since taking office, Jeremy Miles, the Minister for Education and Welsh Language has made commendable and much appreciated efforts to engage with the education workforce on multiple occasions and platforms. This has not gone unnoticed, and makes one hopeful that this open and collaborative approach will extend to the follow-up process for the consultation on the draft framework for Welsh in English-medium education. If experienced specialists for the teaching of Welsh in English-medium education were invited to shape in earnest the development of supporting documentation, resources and professional learning opportunities, then there would be many winners, not the least the Welsh language itself.

 

No quick fixes, please

A word of warning: there are no quick fixes. A realistic strategy would require a dedicated team of specialists to embark on a long and challenging journey of meticulous language planning, curriculum design, resource creation and the development of specific professional learning opportunities.

Experienced, highly qualified practitioners from all EM phases, from primary over secondary all the way to further education and higher education have already expressed their interest in forming small working groups with the aim to develop sample units for their respective settings. Co-ordination and collaboration between the different working groups would ensure coherence across primary, secondary and further education sectors, while simultaneously drawing on practising teachers’ expertise to closely tailor the curriculum, resources and professional learning to the needs of their respective settings.

Demonstrating what a combination of core language progression, core curriculum, carefully sequenced resources and specific professional learning could look like for each phase, these sample units could then be presented for scrutiny to all stakeholders in the English-medium sector.

Not only would this process allow for peer-feedback and crucial adjustments to be made before embarking on the main development work, it would also be likely to contribute to crucial buy-in and support from the main audience: EM classroom practitioners, who would eventually deliver the core curriculum in their classrooms, using the core resources with the support of carefully targeted professional learning opportunities.

Four key recommendations

In summary, I believe that the following four key recommendations offer the best chance to provide the support the EM sector requires. They are taken from the group response to Welsh Government’s open consultation on the draft framework that I have recently published together with my colleagues Barri Mock and Carys Swain:

• A shared core language progression as basis for all further support. The progression needs to be sequentially and hierarchically coherent and must span all phases. 
• A shared core curriculum based on this language progression.
• High quality, sequenced teaching resources to support the delivery of this core curriculum.
• Specific professional learning that is tailored to the core language progression, to the core curriculum and to the pedagogic principles that inform the supporting resources.

Much will depend on Welsh Government’s decisions following the consultation on the draft framework. I for one would be cheering if we did not follow the top-down approach taken across the bridge, but instead found our own way to genuinely draw on the already existing expertise among colleagues across the country, to create the kind of support that helps all teachers and all pupils, not just the privileged few.

Mathias Maurer

St Athan Primary School

CSC Lead Practitioner for Primary International Languages

Co-author of the Welsh Sentence Builders book

Draft framework for Welsh in English medium education!

Draft framework for Welsh in English medium education: our group response

By Mathias Maurer, Barri Mock and Carys Swain

In February this year, Welsh Government launched a public consultation for a new draft framework for Welsh in English medium education.

We have written a group response and invite those fellow practitioners who share our views to put their name to it.

We hope that as many practitioners as possible will respond.

The framework sets out the experiences, knowledge and skills which children and young people in English medium schools, settings and streams need to progress in Welsh. It is non-statutory.

• There are two parts to the consultation:
•  Feedback on the framework itself
• Additional supporting materials, resources and professional learning needed alongside the framework

Apart from the publicly available consultation response form, there will be a series of on-line consultation workshops in March and April to capture more in-depth views on the draft guidance. All stakeholders are invited to participate in these workshops.

The consultation closes on 13^th of May.

We welcome the publication of the draft framework for consultation.

By inviting stakeholders to feed back and join consultation workshops, Welsh Government have shown a genuine commitment to engage with the profession and to tackle the challenges the EM sector faces together with the professionals in the classroom. Diolch!

As members of an established cross-phase PLN,  we feel it is our professional duty to respond to the governments’ offer to engage and collaborate. For this reason, we spent several weeks analysing the draft framework, and after a period of  professional conversations and debates, we have now formulated our group response.

We outline what we believe to be the strengths and the weaknesses of the framework, and what we suggest would be the most effective way to support its implementation.

Our response is honest, detailed and specific, but above all it is written in a constructive spirit of collaboration. It is our initial contribution to supporting the government in the important and challenging task of improving outcomes in the EM sector.

Over the past few weeks, we have held many conversations with colleagues from across the EM sector. Based on these, we believe that a significant number of EM colleagues might share the views we have expressed in our response. For this reason, we  have decided to make our response public before submitting it.

We invite you to reflect on the arguments we put forward, and, should you share our views, to put your name to the document.

We hope that as many practitioners as possible will respond.

This will help us and Welsh Government to gain a better understanding of how many colleagues share our views regarding how to best support the implementation of the framework.

To read our response, please follow this link. To add your name to the group submission of the response, please use this Form. You will be given the choice of submitting your name publicly or privately.

To read more about the consultation process  and our group response, please read on:

The framework is part of an initiative to support the EM sector, and as such, it is highly welcome by many stakeholders, not just teachers in the EM sector.

Consider the Language Commissioner’s 2020-21 Annual Report for example:

“He looks forward to the publication of the Welsh language framework to support English-medium schools and teachers so that they can contribute fully to the Welsh Government's target that 70 per cent of 15-year-olds will be able to speak Welsh by 2050.”

By referring to Cymraeg 2050, the Language Commissioner emphasises the ultimate purpose of the draft framework:

To support EM practitioners so the sector can meet its own target as part of the EM/WM combined 70% of pupils who report that they can speak Welsh when they leave school by 2050.

The EM contribution to this target requires half of all pupils leaving EM schools by 2050 to report as Welsh speaking.

Mathias Maurer has written in detail about the implications of the 2050 target for the EM sector here, and about the main obstacles for the EM primary sector here.

In order to evaluate the framework, we should therefore ask ourselves the following question:

How effective is the framework in supporting EM practitioners to improve the outcomes in the EM sector so that the 2050 target can be met?

As a group, we have undertaken two steps in response to the consultation:

1.    Together with highly experienced colleagues from the EM  secondary sector, Further Education and Higher Education, we have written a detailed, constructive group response to the framework itself, using the official consultation response form.
2. After consultation with Miller research who organise the consultation workshops on behalf of Welsh Government, we have submitted a list of EM colleagues who would be interested in forming a focus group as part of the consultation process.

Between us, we have several current and former secondary EM Heads of Departments, several highly experienced FE and HE practitioners, several primary and secondary Welsh Sabbatical alumni whose work since completing the course has been highly influential and inspiring across the EM sector, and several experienced primary subject leads.

As a group, we have experience in designing and delivering professional learning in all phases, from school and cluster level all the way to consortium level, further education and higher education.

Our group feedback to the draft framework

Welsh Government is giving the option to submit the consultation response form as a group.

After careful consultation with the colleagues in our PLN, we  have decided to publish our written feedback to the draft framework first before submitting it. This is so that stakeholders who agree with the points we make can add their names to the submission.

Our response is detailed and specific. Here are a few excerpts:

“We would like to express our gratitude that the challenge for the EM sector to implement Welsh in Curriculum for Wales has been recognised.”

“In our view, the draft framework is a first step in the process of developing the coherent combination of documentation, resources and professional learning we require to achieve the improvements we aspire to. “

“We have come to the conclusion that significant further support is required. In particular, the framework in its current form does not take into account the vast variation in Welsh language proficiency, pedagogical knowledge and curriculum planning expertise among EM primary teachers.”

“The framework on its own is not suitable as a working document for the majority of EM primary teachers for the following reasons: 

• is not specific enough. Non-specialists cannot translate the prose statements into meaningful, coherent curriculum content.
• is not coherent enough. There are numerous instances of sequential and hierarchical incoherence.
• is too large. 107 statements for PS3 alone for example are beyond what is helpful for most teachers to get a meaningful understanding of the progression it attempts to outline. 

All of these issues are conceptual and therefore difficult to solve by making isolated, discrete changes.”

“The framework can however act as a useful support tool for the development of a core language progression and a core curriculum. This is specialist work that will require careful planning and implementation.

It is absolutely vital that this work is led by EM specialists with teaching experience, who are familiar with the challenges the sector faces. They are best placed to have a good understanding of the kind of support they themselves and their non-specialist colleagues will benefit from most. “

“We have four key recommendations that we believe offer the best bets to support a successful implementation of the framework:

1. shared core language progression as basis for all further support. The progression needs to be sequentially and hierarchically coherent and must span all phases. 
2.      A shared core curriculum based on this language progression.
3.      High quality, sequenced teaching resources to support the delivery of this core curriculum.

4.   specific professional learning that is tailored to the core language progression, to the core curriculum and to the pedagogic principles that inform the supporting resources.”

To finish, we’d like to emphasise that the gratitude we express to Welsh Government for taking initial steps to support the EM sector is heartfelt and genuine. We are delighted about being consulted and the opportunity to advise on supporting materials, resources and professional learning.

Cymraeg 2050 can only succeed if all sectors are sufficiently supported to achieve their individual targets. This support needs to be specific to each sector’s challenges and obstacles.

We believe that, as a group, we have the combined experience and knowledge to make a serious contribution towards making Cymraeg 2050 a success in the EM sector.

We’d be delighted if our feedback and our offer to collaborate with WG could facilitate the implementation of a realistic and specific strategy to develop the kind of support the new framework requires, so that Welsh in the EM sector can become the success story we all want it to be.

Cymraeg 2050 - The Challenge We Are Facing (Part 2)

 

Guest Post - Mathias Maurer

Welsh in English-medium primary education:

Cymraeg 2050 - The challenge we are facing

 

Part 2: Key obstacles in the English-medium sector

 

Introduction

In Part 1 of this blog I described the challenges we face in the EM primary sector, and why we might not yet be on the right path to achieve the EM goal in the Cymraeg 2050 strategy paper. I have shown why I think the approach in the EM sector needs to be distinctly different from the approach in the WM sector and suggested that we should focus our efforts on three key issues: teacher’s Welsh language proficiency, teacher pedagogical knowledge and curriculum design. 

In Part 2 I will now look at these 3 key issues in more detail and explain why I believe they are so crucial and must be addressed urgently.

 

Welsh language proficiency of EM primary teachers

A language teacher’s proficiency in the target language is one of the key factors affecting learning outcomes. Suzanne Graham et al. (2017), for example, came to the conclusion that, together with teaching time, primary school teachers’ French proficiency had the biggest impact on pupils’ progress in grammatical and lexical knowledge.

It is reasonable to assume that, in the EM primary sector, the variation in Welsh language proficiency between different teachers and schools is significant. This is likely to have serious implications for the quality and consistency regarding the design and delivery of Welsh curricula at school level.

I believe that coherence and progression across year groups, especially in KS2, can only be achieved if support and professional learning take into account and specifically target this variation in proficiency. The aim has to be that those schools and teachers whose Welsh might not be as strong as that of their colleagues in the class below or the school down the road can still plan and deliver their Welsh lessons with confidence, at a level that ensures coherence and progression across year groups and from primary to secondary school.

Let me explain one of the ways in which, in the context of Cymraeg 2050, a lack in Welsh language proficiency can seriously impact the quality of the teaching of Welsh, even at primary level:

In a key passage regarding the contributions the EM sector will have to make to achieve the 1 million goal, Cymraeg 2050 expresses the intention

to develop a single continuum for the teaching of Welsh as a language, with an emphasis on learning Welsh predominantly as a means of communication, particularly oral communication. (Welsh Government, 2017)

The emphasis on oral communication is significant and should guide us in our efforts to reform the EM primary sector. We need to reflect on the balance between speaking and writing tasks for example, and on how our Welsh skills might affect our task choice: For a less proficient teacher with limited resources and professional training for example it might be easier and therefore appear tempting to shift focus to highly scaffolded written work in books rather than spend more time developing oral communication skills.

For learners to be able to communicate orally, it is vital they acquire meaningful high frequency language items that are relevant to their communication needs. This is a problem for less proficient schools and teachers: In the Welsh language, many of the most frequent language items that are relevant to primary pupils and which they need to communicate effectively happen to have grammatical properties, such as mutations, that go beyond the basic Welsh that is traditionally taught to beginners. Here are two examples:

             fy mrawd i; dy frawd di; Mae un brawd gyda fi

            dod o Gaerdydd; byw yng Nghaerdydd; Prif-ddinas Cymru ydy Caerdydd

Less proficient teachers might not have the knowledge and the confidence to generate these items correctly and independently for use in their own teaching. In many instances, this is likely to lead to the avoidance of such items, and as a result, pupils miss out on learning important language items they need to communicate meaningfully and naturally. In other words, a teacher’s lack of Welsh language proficiency directly impacts their ability to teach the communication skills at the heart of our Cymraeg 2050 strategy for the EM sector.

 

Pedagogical knowledge and skills of EM primary teachers

In Curriculum for Wales, the Descriptions of Learning offer guidance on how learners should progress within each statement of what matters. Expressed from the learner’s perspective as ‘I can’ statements, they provide reference points for the pace of progression and aim to help sustain learning over a prolonged time.

When designing their school-level curricula, EM primary schools and teachers will have to translate these prose statements into actual language and lesson content. This process should be informed by the Principles of Progression which are part of the curriculum guidance.

Their Welsh language proficiency will determine to which degree they are able to do so, but there are also further challenges, independent of teachers’ Welsh language proficiency:

The problem is that knowing ‘what’ to teach will still not be sufficient on its own – teachers also require the pedagogical skills and knowledge so they can make the right choices about ‘how’ to teach the language. Teachers’ pedagogical knowledge is not linked to their language proficiency – those are two separate, distinct entities. Being a fluent speaker does not automatically make you an effective teacher of Welsh, unless you also have developed a good understanding of language acquisition processes and effective pedagogy. Similarly, being a great teacher of primary maths or even English as a first language does not guarantee an ability to teach Welsh equally well without further, specific training. And here is why:

The cognitive processes that take place when we learn a new language are different from the cognitive processes that occur when we acquire new knowledge and skills in other domains. For example, one particular aspect of language acquisition which I would argue is not widely enough acknowledged in the EM primary teaching community is the role that priming plays in language acquisition.

Whereas language learning might superficially appear to merely be the process of learning new words and learning to combine them using grammatical rules, the work of Hoey (2005) and Bock and Griffin (2000) for example shows the importance of lexical and structural priming: Through repeated hearing and reading of lexical items and grammatical constructions we subconsciously take note of the combinations and grammatical forms that certain words are most likely to form, and of common sentence structures.

Crucially, this essential learning happens subconsciously, without any explicit effort to memorise. In a study involving brain-damaged learners who had no explicit memory of the sentences they were primed for, the subjects were still shown to have acquired the prime sentences, which led Ferreira et al. (2008) to the conclusion the learning must have happened implicitly.

The difference between implict and explicit learning is one of the most important reasons why effective language pedagogy is distinctly different from effective pedagogy in other domains. Unless EM primary teachers have received relevant high-quality training, they are unlikely to be able to take advantage of the most effective pedagogy for the Welsh language classroom. Indeed, I believe it is reasonable to assume that the current unsatisfactory outcomes for Welsh in KS2 as described by Estyn in the 2019-2020 Annual Report (Estyn, 2020) are in part caused by a lack of training in and knowledge of effective language teaching pedagogy across the EM primary sector. This further aggravates the problems that a lack of Welsh language proficiency can cause, but also affects those teachers who might be proficient speakers on the one hand, but lack the pedagogical knowledge to teach effectively on the other hand.

 

Knowledge, skills and capacity to develop an evidence informed Welsh language curriculum

In September 2022 Curriculum for Wales will become mandatory for all maintained primary schools in Wales. Rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, the expectation is on all stakeholders to co-construct a curriculum that enables learners to progress towards the four purposes.

In the current phase of the rollout, primary schools are developing their individual school-level curricula, based on the four purposes, the six Areas of Learning and Experiences, the Principles of Progression and the Descriptors of Learning which outline progression within the statements of what matters that underpin each AoLE.

Designing a primary school curriculum is a challenging task at the best of times, but doing so in the midst of a pandemic has put previously unimaginable strains on the sector. Priorities had to be adjusted, and it is not unreasonable to assume that many schools have been unable to take full advantage of the professional learning support in curriculum design that has been offered by the consortia and other providers.

So what constitutes an evidence-informed Welsh language curriculum? Here are some of the elements that I consider essential`:

 

Language selection

With the overall Cymraeg 2050 ‘emphasis on learning Welsh predominantly as a means of communication, particularly oral communication’, it is vital that the language we teach our learners is relevant to their communication needs. Communicative language can be categorised into communicative functions, with related sub-functions. Planning language from such communicative functions and sub-functions helps to keep the focus on communication needs and avoids the trappings of topic-based language planning, which comes with the inherent danger that a considerable proportion of the topic-based language, especially vocabulary, might be relevant within this topic, but not in any other context.

 

Language recycling

Linguists distinguish between receptive vocabulary and productive vocabulary. In mother tongue and additional languages alike, there are words we recognise and can make meaning of when we hear or read them (receptive vocabulary), but that we don’t use in our speech and writing (productive vocabulary). In order to become confident oral communicators, it is vital for our learners to develop their productive vocabulary and become increasingly fluent in using it.

Shifting vocabulary from receptive to productive knowledge is a long process that requires skilful long-term planning: Teachers need to decide what vocabulary they want their learners to be able to use actively, and then make sure their curriculum offers many processing and retrieval opportunities for this vocabulary over an extended period of time, and in a variety of contexts. The process of revisiting previously taught language is commonly referred to as ‘recycling’.  By providing ample recycling opportunities while moving along the language progression and introducing new language as well, an evidence-informed, cumulative language curriculum ensures that learners have the numerous processing and production opportunities they need to become increasingly fluent and confident in the use of the target language.

 

Task-sequencing

Evidence-informed language teaching makes use of what we know about the cognitive processes involved in language acquisition. For our learners to become confident and competent oral communicators, it is vital that we structure our teaching in a way that allows them to develop a degree of automaticity in their oral communication. The ultimate goal is listening and speaking fluency.

The cognitive process involved in developing the receptive and productive automaticity required for oral communication is different from the retrieval process we use to recall declarative knowledge in other domains.

In many subjects and contexts, explicit instruction, followed by spaced retrieval practice, is an efficient way to commit declarative knowledge to long-term memory, from where it can be retrieved when needed (I simplify!). The consequence of Hoey’s (2005), and Bock and Griffin’s (2000) findings about semantic and syntactic priming is however that effective language instruction ideally should start with a phase of receptive processing and implicit learning, giving learners multiple opportunities to process the target language through listening and reading, activating different levels of cognitive processing first.

Once listening fluency is achieved (instant recognition of the target language items), learners are then ready to move on to producing the language orally, through a series of progressively less structured tasks that allow them to eventually produce the target items in their speech, without additional support.

An evidence-informed language curriculum supports this acquisition process through a series of carefully sequenced tasks, moving from listening to speaking, and from reading to writing. Offering multiple opportunities for implicit learning through processing of the target language items in the initial stages is a key element of this approach.

 

While the three elements described above - language selection, language recycling and task sequencing - are essential for an effective language curriculum, there are others, such as effective phonic and grammar instruction, that should also be carefully woven into the teaching sequence.

I believe that designing a EM Welsh curriculum based on the principles outlined above goes well beyond the means of most EM primary schools and teachers. Crucially, I would argue that even teachers with a significant amount of pedagogical knowledge and skills require additional specialist training to design such a curriculum.

Once in place, a high-quality language curriculum facilitates impactful teaching and thus improves outcomes for all learners: It is easier to teach, not harder. Novice and less proficient teachers will benefit from the structure and resources it provides, and more experienced teachers will use it as a stepping stone to build their individual curricula that are tailored to their own skills and responsive to the needs of their learners.

My concern is that even in normal times the task of designing such an effective, evidence-based Welsh language curriculum would be too much of a challenge for many EM primary schools. Given the challenges we had to overcome and the situation in which we now find ourselves, I fear that even more EM schools will have to prioritise and, as a result, compromise on the quality of their Welsh language curriculum.

The question is, how can we use what we know about the specific challenges the sector is facing to optimise support?

How can we join up professional learning and supporting resources so we can realistically expect a positive impact across the whole sector, not just in those EM primary schools that are lucky enough to have specialist teachers of Welsh among their staff?

 

Conclusion Part 2:

In Part 2, I have explained what I believe to be the three main obstacles that hold the EM primary sector back from improving outcomes in Welsh:

· A lack of Welsh language proficiency is likely impact on a significant amount of EM schools’ and teachers’ ability to develop their pupils’ oral communication effectively

 

· Effective pedagogy requires an understanding of language acquisition theory and specialist concepts such as lexical and structural priming that goes beyond most EM primary teachers’ expertise.

 

· Key concepts of a successful language curriculum, such as language selection, language recycling and task-sequencing require specialist knowledge and skills that many EM primary schools are unlikely to have the capacity for.

In Part 3, I will suggest what I believe to be a realistic and manageable approach to tackling these challenges and set the EM primary sector on the right track for Cymraeg 2050.

Thank you for reading!

 

References:

Bock, K., and Griffin, Z. M., 2000. The persistence of structural priming: transient activation or implicit learning?. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 129(2), pp.177–192.

Estyn, 2020. The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales; available online at: https://www.estyn.gov.wales/system/files/2021-12/ESTYN%20Annual%20Report%202019-2020.pdf [last accessed on 07/01/2022].

Ferreira V. S., Bock K., Wilson M. P., Cohen N. J.,2008. Memory for syntax despite amnesia. Psychological Science, 19 (9) pp. 940-946.

Graham, S., Courtney, L., Marinis, T. and Tonkyn, A., 2017. Early language learning: The impact of teaching and teacher factors. Language Learning, 67(4), pp.922-958.

Hoey, M., 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.

Welsh Government, 2017. Cymraeg 2050: Welsh Language Strategy; available online at: https://gov.wales/cymraeg-2050-welsh-language-strategy [last accessed on 07/01/2022].