Curriculum For Wales

 This is a GUEST POST by Mr James Wise

 

“And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that.”

Donald Trump, April 2020

 

Perhaps one thing the above quote illustrates is that the quality of our thought is dependent on the quality and quantity of what we know. If we know lots about a certain topic, then we are more able to think about that topic in a sophisticated way. We are more able to analyse, critique and problem solve if we have a breadth and depth of understanding of what it is we are analysing, critiquing or attempting to solve. On the other hand, if we know very little about a topic then, well, we may end up suggesting people drink bleach.

As we plan a curriculum driven by the Four Purposes, the question of knowledge and understanding is central. The more pupils know, the more informed they become. The extent to which pupils become capable, ethical, creative or healthy largely depends on the application of what they know and understand. Indeed, Curriculum for Wales guidance emphasises how the realisation of the Four Purposes will be supported by “specific experiences, knowledge and skills”, with knowledge being defined as an “understanding of a discipline”, skills as the “application of knowledge” and experiences as “the combination of knowledge and skills”.

In other words, the extent to which the pupils pursue the purposes largely depends on their acquisition and application of knowledge, which would mean that the commonly held interpretation of Curriculum for Wales as a ‘skills based’ curriculum, is very much a misunderstanding (as this helpful blog from Welsh Gov points out). Certainly, the very notion that skills can sit outside of a knowledge base, that they can be cultivated in one area, say maths, and then extracted and utilised elsewhere, say in French, is highly questionable. As Dylan Wiliam argues here, and Prof Donaldson himself states here, the skill doesn’t exist without the contextual knowledge. The skill of solving a mathematical problem relies on knowledge of mathematics. That skill cannot be readily transferred to another context in order to solve a problem, for example, translating a text from French into English, as that would clearly require the application of a different knowledge base. In essence, the skill cannot be separated from the knowledge underpinning it. To draw on the thoughts of Michael Fordham, that would be like trying to separate the cake from the ingredients.

Could we make a similar point about the Four Purposes? Can a pupil’s creativity, capability or confidence be transferred from one context to a completely different one? Does capability in Maths mean capability in French? Does confidence in PE mean confidence in Art? Does creativity in Music mean creativity in English?

Clearly, just like skills, the Four Purposes are very much context dependent. If we want a pupil to be a confident mathematician then knowing a lot of maths is key. If I want a pupil to become a capable historian, then knowing a lot about history – substantive and disciplinary – is key. Therefore, as we design our curricula within the Curriculum For Wales framework, with the purposes acting as our beacon, the question of knowledge, and how pupils’ interact with and experience that knowledge has to be central. The pursuit of the purposes is dependent on it.

But what knowledge? Whose knowledge? Is all knowledge of equal value? Are some things just more important and more valuable to understand than others?

What is certain is that curriculum time is strictly finite. We can’t teach everything. In deciding to devote learning time to one thing, we are simultaneously taking learning time away from something else. We have to make decisions, and they can’t be arbitrary. We should be able to justify those decisions. Why ‘this’ and not ‘that’? Why teach this ‘now’ and not ‘then’? But how are we going to arrive at those decisions? And who should actually be deciding this?

Help is at hand, to an extent. The statements of What Matters are there to “guide the development of curriculum content” and descriptions of learning, arranged in progression steps, give teachers “scope to…select content”. But the specifics of that content, of what pupils actually learn, largely remain decisions we need to make. Ironically, there’s a danger that if we rigidly follow the What Matters statements and descriptions of learning as a way of selecting content then we could end up designing a curriculum that is somewhat ‘tick-box’, criteria-led, lacking coherence, with an inevitable focus on accountability (“Where’s your lesson on ‘How we engage with social influences shapes who we are and affects our well-being’”?)  The very things we are trying to move away from.

Perhaps keeping the purposes as our end goal, and building our curriculum around the knowledge and skill we feel is of most value and most importance is our best bet. We can then use What Matters statements and descriptions of learning as guides that we check-in with to ensure we’re on the right path, rather than as the drivers themselves.

But that still leaves the question of what exactly to teach. If the extent to which pupils realise the Four Purposes depends on the quality and quantity of the knowledge and skill they acquire, we need to ensure that what we teach is valuable and plentiful. So, where can we find seams of valuable, useful and important knowledge? Perhaps the subjects, the “tools teachers have for helping pupils make the step from experience to higher forms of thoughts” (Michael Young) is where to start. This is where the fruit of human thought and toil has accrued.

But haven’t we moved beyond subjects to Areas of Learning and Experience? What about the “integrated approach” and “meaningful links across different disciplines” that Curriculum for Wales seemingly champions? Certainly, the appreciation and understanding of links across or between ‘learning’ is certainly a sign of wisdom, depth and flexibility of thought, and is something to aspire to for all of our pupils. But are those connections where we should begin? Can we understand the link between A and B until we have a decent understudying of what A and B actually are? Or, will an increased understanding of A and of B to begin with lead to a greater, more meaningful understanding of that connection later on? To echo the thoughts of Martin Robinson, perhaps the way forward is to begin within the borders of subject disciplines, building understanding, and then to look-out and link across, in a more authentic manner. 

Unfashionable as it may seem, maybe subject disciplines, and the knowledge contained within them could be the places to start. Again though, the question of what knowledge and whose knowledge still stands. Which books to study in English? Whose interpretation of history? Which scientific discoveries or mathematical concepts? Add to this the question of how much of this valuable knowledge we have time to actually teach, and then how to begin to connect it in a meaningful way, and it can start to feel like the sort of ‘mad riddle’ that would exasperate regal Cockney hardman Danny Dyer.

I’ll keep this post short, with a view to exploring a possible way forward in the future, but perhaps some simple curriculum design principles could help us help us with these decision;

Breadth; a broad range of subjects, a breadth of concepts and content within those subjects as well as a breadth of voices and perspectives.

Value; concepts and content that are of most importance, most use and of most value to our pupils, not just academically but culturally too.

Coherence; sequenced and taught in a way that allows pupils to make meaningful connections between their learning, not just within a subject but across subjects and AOLEs.

I’ll attempt to explore and elaborate on these principles (and how they complement the Curriculum for Wales guidance) in another post soon. But for now, please feel free to share your thoughts, challenges and questions. The more we push each other, the better we can make this.

Diolch

James Wise

@MrWiseCHS

Great Teaching Toolkit: Evidence Review

Guest Post

**Sgroliwch i lawr am yr erthygl yn Gymraeg! 

A Perspective from Wales – Rob Davies, Oct 2020

It was in the autumn of 2014, and I was working for Estyn when Sutton Trust released its What Makes Great Teaching report.  After reading the report, I remember thinking that the messages were a vital dose of common sense to a system that, in my view, was losing the plot, somewhat.  

At the time, education in Wales was suffering from the twin pressures of over-the-top accountability and a desire to see independent or active learning in almost every lesson.  On inspection, I frequently saw teaching approaches, which, I thought, promoted style over substance.  I believe this is now referred to as performance over learning.   

One such style-over-substance lesson had a teacher deploying a market-style activity.  It involved groups of pupils moving around the classroom and explaining different aspects of the work to each other.  After about 25 minutes of busy activity, the teacher questioned the class to see how much the pupils had learnt.  Despite the preceding hive of activity and much to the teacher’s frustration, the pupils appeared to have learnt little.  Increasingly exasperated, the teacher asked the pupils to stand in different areas of the classroom to express their opinions on the topic at hand.  After a few minutes, the bemused pupils, unsure where to stand, nearly all, huddled together in one corner of the room.  The, by now, distraught teacher, tried to convince the pupils to spread out across the classroom to represent a range of opinions.  However, even under duress, the pupils resisted moving.  The lesson concluded with the teacher asking each pupil to justify why they had chosen to stand where they were.  As most pupils were in the same corner of the room, nearly every pupil reiterated a similar response to the one before.  Needless to say, the responses were lacking in substance, and the dismissal was painfully slow!

Circa 2004, when teaching in Neath, I remember an INSET day that focussed on active learning.  One of the professional-learning activities involved around eight members of staff interlocking their arms to form a circle that would represent an egg in a Fallopian tube.  Three other members of staff were asked to take the role of sperms.  Their specific job was the enzymatic penetration of the egg's arm-locked membrane to fertilize the egg.   As you can imagine, a great deal of hilarity ensued!  Afterwards, I was left puzzling whether this approach could work with a class of self-conscious teenagers.

With a range of similar experiences etched into my mind over nearly twenty-five years’ worth of working in education, it was with great relief to read the Sutton Trust’s What Makes Great Teaching report.  It succinctly identified the factors that had the greatest impact of improving pupils’ outcomes.  These factors were the strength of teachers’ subject knowledge, the quality of their instruction and classroom and resource management.  The report also noted that ensuring pupils were “always active” had no empirical basis.  At last, I thought, some common sense – no need for pupils, or teachers for that matter, to pretend to be sperms and eggs!

In 2017, I left Estyn and took up a new role with Swansea Council.  I was determined to promote evidence-informed approaches, such as those highlighted in What Makes Great Teaching and, also, The Deans for Impact, The Science of Learning – which provides a helpful summary of the findings from cognitive science.  With the backing of Swansea’s Director of Education, I was tasked with leading this area of the Council’s work.  

I had been impressed with the work of Evidenced Based Education, and I had noticed that Professor Rob Coe, the lead author of What Makes Great Teaching, was part of their team.  I contacted Professor Stuart Kime, EBE’s Director of Education.  Stuart, along with CJ Rauch, agreed to deliver Science of Learning sessions to our headteachers and secondary senior leaders; both sessions were extremely well received and have provided a platform to drive evidence-based approaches through our networks and general work with schools.  

Stuart also noted that the Evidence Based Education team were working on a follow-up report to What Makes Great Teaching, which would be called The Great Teaching Toolkit: Evidence Review. He invited me to comment on a draft. How could I refuse – being asked was a privilege, personally, and, indeed, for Swansea Council.

On reading the draft report, I could see the Great Teaching Toolkit: Evidence Review would be another step up on What Makes Great Teaching. The underlying research had been updated, and, importantly, the evidence review was more teacher-friendly and readable than its forerunner. It also provided greater detail on evidenced-based teaching and learning strategies, and the related underpinning research.

The published report succinctly condenses a wide array of research into four priorities that are intended to help teachers to maximise pupils’ learning.  

These are:

1. Understand the content they are teaching and how it is learnt 

2. Create a supportive environment for learning 

3. Manage the classroom to maximise the opportunity to learn 

4. Present content, activities and interactions that activate their students’ thinking

The four priorities are broken down into 17 elements, which can be thought of as the “best bets” for teachers to focus on to improve teaching and learning.  

The 17 elements are:

1. Understand the content they are teaching and how it is learnt 

• Having deep and fluent knowledge and flexible understanding of the content you are teaching

• Knowledge of the requirements of curriculum sequencing and dependencies in relation to the content and ideas you are teaching

• Knowledge of relevant curriculum tasks, assessments and activities, their diagnostic and didactic potential; being able to generate varied explanations and multiple representations/analogies/ examples for the ideas you are teaching

• Knowledge of common student strategies, misconceptions, and sticking points in relation to the content you are teaching

2. Create a supportive environment for learning 

• Promoting interactions and relationships with all students that are based on mutual respect, care, empathy and warmth; avoiding negative emotions in interactions with students; being sensitive to the individual needs, emotions, culture and beliefs of students

• Promoting a positive climate of student-student relationships, characterised by respect, trust, cooperation and care

• Promoting learner motivation through feelings of competence, autonomy and relatedness

• Creating a climate of high expectations, with high challenge and high trust, so learners feel it is okay to have a go; encouraging learners to attribute their success or failure to things they can change

3. Manage the classroom to maximise the opportunity to learn 

• Managing time and resources efficiently in the classroom to maximise productivity and minimise wasted time (e.g., starts, transitions); giving clear instructions so students understand what they should be doing; using (and explicitly teaching) routines to make transitions smooth

• Ensuring that rules, expectations and consequences for behaviour are explicit, clear and consistently applied

• Preventing, anticipating & responding to potentially disruptive incidents; reinforcing positive student behaviours; signalling awareness of what is happening in the classroom and responding appropriately

4. Present content, activities and interactions that activate their students’ thinking

• Structuring: giving students an appropriate sequence of learning tasks; signalling learning objectives, rationale, overview, key ideas and stages of progress; matching tasks to learners’ needs and readiness; scaffolding and supporting to make tasks accessible to all, but gradually removed so that all students succeed at the required level

• Explaining: presenting and communicating new ideas clearly, with concise, appropriate, engaging explanations; connecting new ideas to what has previously been learnt (and re-activating/checking that prior knowledge); using examples (and non-examples) appropriately to help learners understand and build connections; modelling/ demonstrating new skills or procedures with appropriate scaffolding and challenge; using worked/part-worked examples

• Questioning: using questions and dialogue to promote elaboration and connected, flexible thinking among learners (e.g., ‘Why?’, ‘Compare’, etc.); using questions to elicit student thinking; getting responses from all students; using high-quality assessment to evidence learning; interpreting, communicating and responding to assessment evidence appropriately

• Interacting: responding appropriately to feedback from students about their thinking/ knowledge/understanding; giving students actionable feedback to guide their learning

• Embedding: giving students tasks that embed and reinforce learning; requiring them to practise until learning is fluent and secure; ensuring that once-learnt material is reviewed/revisited to prevent forgetting

• Activating: helping students to plan, regulate and monitor their own learning; progressing appropriately from structured to more independent learning as students develop knowledge and expertise

The publication of the evidence review could not be timelier for Wales as we endeavour to support the Welsh Government’s educational reform agenda.  The review’s guiding “best bets” provide schools with a strong platform for improving teaching and learning and assisting with curriculum reform, as well as helping schools to develop as learning organisations.  

As I look forward to a fourth decade in teaching, it is easy to look back and laugh at all the silly fads and gimmicks that have permeated, entertained, and muddled the education landscape.  However, despite the hilarity and inherent nonsense of approaches such as brain gym, VAK, thinking hats and lollipop sticks, too often we have let pupils down; particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.  

And that is no laughing matter.  

It is time to stop the nonsense.  

We need to take advantage of the best research evidence, develop robust approaches to teaching and learning and curriculum design, and ensure we provide pupils across Wales with the education they deserve.  

With that in mind, the Great Teaching Toolkit: Evidence Review is a great place to start.

References

The Great Teaching Toolkit: Evidence Review, Evidenced Based Education, June 2020

The Science of Learning, Deans for Impact, Austin, TX: Deans for Impact, 2015

What makes great teaching?, Rob Coe et al, Oct 2014

Remote Learning - Lessons From Lockdown

Without any shadow of doubt, this whole situation surrounding the closing of schools and developing remote learning has been a very steep learning curve and a roller coaster of emotions, problem solving, upskilling, panic, trial and error and on the spot reflections to try and make sense of it all and make the best of a crisis situation.

During the past week, we have all had an opportunity for some check-in, catch-up and prepare. This morning, a colleague sent me a quote taken from this book:

“The pandemic teaching of mid-2020 was not really distance learning, but rather crisis teaching. But starting now, teachers have the opportunity to prepare for distance learning with purpose and intent—using what works best to accelerate students’ learning all the while maintaining an indelible focus on equity”.

This will strike a chord with many I'm sure and there have been some excellent blog posts offered by teachers, found here, which really sum up the journey well when taken together as a whole. However, seeing our learners face to face for the first time has allowed us to dig a little deeper into the whole situation from their perspective and the purpose of this post is to draw together the themes, problems and successes in order to steer our PLN in preparing for an effective and meaningful blended learning offer and hopefully support others as they wrestle with how to provide the best for our learners should this be the case in September.

• The overwhelming feedback from many learners is the amount of work and the time it takes to get it done. They've spoken about logging in and just seeing so many things to do that they either panic or give up. Either way this is not a good start or experience for our learners and any blended offer needs to consider and plan carefully for the amount of work, subjects and realistic expectations in terms of time - both in terms of motivation and wellbeing. Ideally, this should be planned whole-school as our learners were clear that not having the structure of a timetable that clearly and carefully set out what subjects to do, when to do them and how long to spend doing them was a barrier. This should be organised on the basis of all subjects being studied being included but without overloading the learners. Our learners were clear they want a timetable to work to and structure their efforts.

  ---

• In a similar way, many learners raised issues surrounding deadlines. Some teachers set them and some don't. They spoke of frustration with subjects that did not set a specific deadline for the work to be completed and that this either added to their anxiety or meant that it wasn't a priority and often got lost during the pressures of other work. It was clear that our learners want clear expectations and deadlines for work to be completed. With this in mind, a blended learning offer needs to establish clear routines and expectations in terms of setting and completion of work.

  ---

• Another aspect learners raised was they didn't always understand the purpose of the lesson, activities and content and felt that sometimes the work being provided was a bit random and unconnected. This came as no surprise to me as it's super difficult to get any progression and sequence across activities in a remote setting and this is an area many teachers need to think carefully about within the planning for a possible blended approach. Learners want to know the purpose and want to see the links between assignment; and from a blended perspective, this will be even more difficult than for just remote learning as the input may come in different formats within the offer and at different times. Ensuring there is clarity across all input options will be crucial to avoid learner confusion and impacting motivation. For this reason, we believe it's vital to ensure any blended learning offer establishes clear guidance and expectations for teachers to provide clear links to syllabus, knowledge, skills and plan sequences of learning not isolated stand alone lessons in order to support the learners to stay in the learning zone.

---

•    A surprising bit of feedback was with respect to the level of challenge and amount of new content. The surprise came in the form of a few learners talking to me about the difference between work based on prior-knowledge and work based on new content. They stated that work based on new content takes longer even if video support and additional scaffolding is provided. In all honesty, I hadn't really considered it from this perspective but upon hearing their words it became blatantly obvious. Working in your comfort zone takes less time than working in the stretch zone. The learners felt this caused them lots of anxiety because wrestling with learning new knowledge, content and concepts was harder but the amount of work to be completed was the same. This led on to discussions about breaking the work down into smaller chunks to make it more manageable. In discussion we feel this is a vital area to be addressed particularly in the face to face aspect of the blended offer and that subsequent work should build on this. It is our view that a blended offer should involve creating a weekly or fortnightly cycle along the lines of:

• feedback from previous work and summary of connections to syllabus/sequence/objectives (many feedback approaches may be appropriate but the offer needs to consider a small range of approaches to support their learners - whole-class, individual and also differentiated feedback)

• introduction of new content in small chunks with opportunities for learners to ask questions and seek clarifications

• modelling of assignment/task expectations - walk through tasks with examples to establish clarity

• independent work based on prior-knowledge and new content

• assess outcomes and generate feedback

  ---

• Motivation was another clear message from our learners. They struggle a lot with keeping going and establishing a routine. They spoke of being easily distracted or finding it difficult with family around etc. They spoke of a lack of feedback on their work and posing questions that were never answered and as a result losing interest. There is no easy solution to this and the face to face aspect of blended learning would definitely support addressing this aspect. However, it may be possible that a blended learning offer could include a tutor drop-in online. This could be achieved with form tutors acting as conduits of information regarding specific issues and a wellbeing check-in. The blended offer could include a regular time where form tutors would be available for learners to drop in and share any specific issues (although clear protocols would be needed for this to occur online of course). Establishing clear lines of communication that aren't onerous or problematic is vital to both engagement and motivation. Keeping learners motivated is a consideration we cannot overlook as it's crucial to do all we can to keep them in the learning zone without undue pressure on their wellbeing. How can we transfer those positive comments and encouragements to support learners if the contact time is significantly reduced? We cannot underestimate the power of "You are really doing well, keep going!"

Is Big Tech Driving Education The Wrong Way?

This is a Guest Post from Rob Davies

Guest Post

                                         

               

 

Many governments around the world, probably driven by the PISA league tables, have been seduced into thinking that their education systems need new curricular and indeed new pedagogies for the 21^st Century. 

The argument goes something like, “The world is changing so fast, jobs of the future are going to be very different, knowledge is no longer important as Google knows everything.  Therefore, pupils need to acquire essential 21^st-century competencies such as collaboration, communication, independent research and higher-order cognitive skills”.  Which, all sounds very enticing and forward-thinking; what self-worthy Government wouldn’t want that for their learners? 

But, what does the evidence say; is it a sham?

There is limited evidence to suggest that changing a curriculum and adopting “new” pedagogies will help pupils become more independent and better problem solvers.  There is a lot of educational research and survey evidence that suggests the complete opposite in fact.  In addition, OECD’s own PISA survey data below suggests pupils are more likely to be better problem solvers when taught in more traditional ways. 

Moreover, and significantly, many countries that have introduced 21^st-century curricular and associated pedagogies, have found their educational outcomes, noticeably in literacy and numeracy, have declined; countries and jurisdictions where this has occurred to a greater or lesser extent include Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden and British Columbia.

A person in the street might ponder why governments around the world are re-writing curricular and adopting new pedagogies for the 21^st century.   The answer could well be in the influence of big-tech companies such as Microsoft, Google and IBM, have on OECD and their policy agenda.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated OECD’s continued drive to promote 21^st-century skills.  In its report, “Schooling disrupted, schooling rethought”, June 2020, OECD suggests:

“Perhaps most important, we can seize the moment to make curricula and learning environments more relevant to the needs of the 21^st century.”

And,

“Access to online learning and independent learning using technology can facilitate the acquisition of essential 21^st century competencies such as collaboration, communication, independent research and higher order cognitive skills.”

Unsurprisingly, big-tech companies, such as Microsoft, are also using the pandemic to promote the curricula and pedagogy reform agenda, suggesting in their “Education Reimagined: The Future of Learning”, 2020:

“The fallout of COVID-19, continuing advances in digital technology, and intensifying pent-up demand for student centred learning have combined to present an unprecedented opportunity to transform education across whole systems.”

In the report, “Deep Learning” is defined as “the process of acquiring six competencies:  Character, Citizenship, Collaboration, Communication, Creativity and Critical Thinking.”  The article juxtaposes this “Deep Learning” against “Traditional”, noting, for example, that “Traditional” transmits existing knowledge, while “Deep Learning” connects students to real-world, authentic problem solving.

Yawn.

A little bit of rummaging on the internet soon uncovers that OECD is associated with a wide range of big-tech companies through the Centre for Curriculum Redesign.  The Centre for Curriculum Redesign’s vision is spelt out in this presentation.  The array of tech corporations associated with this organisation is impressive and includes, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Pearson and Promethean.  Also of note, OECD’s PISA-D programme is partly funded by Microsoft.

Now I might be putting two and two together and coming up with five, but I thought “Is Big Tech Driving Education the Wrong Way?” could make for an interesting slow-chat topic.

Rob Davies