# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Bell Foundation commissions research with leading Universities both to support our programmes and to add to knowledge in our programme areas.

The Bell Foundation also uses the expertise from our programmes and our research to respond to policy consultations from Government.

You can download our commissioned research reports and policy responses below.

Looking for something else?

The EAL Programme seeks to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged children in the UK who have English as an Additional Language, in order to benefit the individual child and society as a whole.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research The Bell Foundation commissions research with leading Universities both to support our programmes and to add to knowledge in our programme areas. The Bell Foundation also uses the expertise from our programmes and our research to respond to policy consultations from Government. You can download our commissioned research reports and policy responses below.

# data[].attributes.headline
Children's views of the learning environment

# data[].attributes.subject
Children's views of the learning environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To support schools the Design and Technology Association provides training, advice, information, and guidance regarding the National Curriculum Design and Technology Programmes of Study introduced in September 2014, we have produced a number of resources, and will continue to, including some developed in collaboration with the National Curriculum Expert Group for Design and Technology.

During the National Curriculum review the Department for Education (DfE) set up the Expert Group. This was given the task of advising the DfE on implementation and worked closely with the Design and Technology Association.
Key messages, advice and explanatory notes for schools
The revised programmes of study are slimmer and set out only the essential, core knowledge, understanding and skills that all pupils should learn from Key Stages 1 to 3. Schools need to consider wider aspects of Design and Technology not included in the National Curriculum which they would like to teach as part of their own school curriculum.

The publication in the Associated Files box below, Key messages, advice and explanatory notes for schools, has been written to help primary and secondary schools interpret words and phrases in the programmes of study that need further explanation. It also provides initial advice on how the new requirements can be implemented effectively to ensure good quality teaching and learning.
School Curriculum Principles for Design and Technology
To support implementation of the programmes of study, six interrelated principles were agreed by the National Curriculum Expert Group for Design and Technology. They describe the features of a genuine Design and Technology experience from the pupils' perspective and can be applied to all material areas and aspects of the subject. Each principle should be evident to a greater or lesser degree in each project that pupils undertake. The principles do not represent an exhaustive list, but provide a helpful starting point for clarifying and securing the distinctive nature of Design and Technology in the classroom. The National Curriculum requirements are consistent with the six principles.

Freely available guidance on each of the six principles can be accessed from the link below. The purpose of the guidance is to enable primary and secondary teachers and trainees to evaluate their own practice, reflecting on the experience they are providing for pupils in relation to each of the principles. Each principle is defined and illustrated through examples of practice in Key Stages 1 to 3.

The School Curriculum Principles for Design and Technology file can be found below.
National Curriculum myths and facts
The primary and secondary myths and facts documents provide answers to frequently asked question concerning implementation of the new programmes of study. These will be added to as other answers are provided to questions from Design and Technology Association members.
Formative Assessment: Initial Guidance statement
With the removal of the use of levels for assessing progress in National Curriculum subjects, schools are now able to focus their teacher assessment and reporting in Design and Technology, not on a set of opaque level descriptions but on the essential knowledge, understanding and skills that all pupils should learn. The short statement (found as a pdf below) provides out some commentary from DfE and sets out some guiding principles to inform the development of schools' individual approaches.
Design and Technology Progression Framework
This resource has been developed as a progression framework for Design and Technology. It is presented here as a freely downloadable pdf and has been developed further as a 'clickable' version of the resource for Key Stages 1 and 2 to help teachers plan their own school curriculum. It should be considered together with the brief Progression Framework Guidance document.

The framework provides steps for progression in pupils' knowledge, understanding and skills. These include but go beyond the new programmes of study. Age-related expectations have been developed for KS1, early and late KS2, and early and late KS3. These are intended to help teachers plan activities which build on pupils' previous learning and ensure an appropriate level of challenge. The intention is for pupils' learning to be developed cumulatively. This means that learning from previous key stages should be revisited in teachers' planning and practice and used in a more sophisticated way in subsequent key stages. Some of the age-related expectations are generic and ongoing, whereas others are specific to particular projects.

The framework could also be used to inform assessments of pupils' performance in Design and Technology as they progress through school. The KS1-2 content has been included as part of the Design and Technology Association's primary resource, Projects on a Page.
The Design and Technology Expert Group
Some of the resources available here have been produced by or with advice from the Design and Technology Expert Group. These individual subject groups were established by the Department for Education (DfE) in 2013. In the first instance their remit was to provide them with advice on the implications of the new National Curriculum for initial teacher training (ITT).

Join Now

Design and Technology (D&T) is the inspiring, rigorous and practical subject which prepares all young people to live and work in the designed and made world.

We are focused on giving you the tools, knowledge and information you need to become more effective, more experienced and more efficient. Giving you access to expert opinions. And creating a place where you can air your views, ask your questions and so help make a difference to your life and those of your pupils. We want to hear from you. We want to know how we can help. And we want you to join us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
D&T National Curriculum for England 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To support schools the Design and Technology Association provides training, advice, information, and guidance regarding the National Curriculum Design and Technology Programmes of Study introduced in September 2014, we have produced a number of resources, and will continue to, including some developed in collaboration with the National Curriculum Expert Group for Design and Technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
D&T Primary Clickable Progression Framework KS1 & 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies

Research about the use and effects of teaching assistants in primary and secondary mainstream schools in England.

Applies to England

Documents

Details

The report explores the models of teaching assistant deployment to:

understand the factors affecting deployment

gather insight into recent or upcoming changes in deployment

Thank you for your feedback

Report a problem with this page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The deployment of teaching assistants in schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research about the use and effects of teaching assistants in primary and secondary mainstream schools in England.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
while the number of teachers in mainstream schools in england has remained relatively steady over the last decade or so

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the number of full-time equivalent tas has more than trebled since 2000: from 79

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
700. teaching assistants comprise over a quarter of the workforce in mainstream schools in england: 35% of the primary workforce

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
and 14% of the secondary school workforce. the number of full-time equivalent tas has more than trebled since 2000: from 79

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
there are currently more tas in english nursery and primary schools than teachers: 273

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
900.1 about 7% of tas in state-funded schools have higher-level teaching assistant (hlta) status. a key reason for increasing the number of tas was to help deal with problems with teacher workloads. in 2003

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the government introduced the national agreement to help raise pupil standards and tackle excessive teacher workload

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
in large part via new and expanded support roles and responsibilities for tas and other support staff. the growth in the numbers of tas has also been driven by the push for greater inclusion of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (send) into mainstream schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
with tas often providing the key means by which inclusion is facilitated. given that sen pupils and low-attaining pupils are more likely to claim free school meals (fsm)1. tas also work more closely with pupils from low-income backgrounds. indeed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
expenditure on tas is one of the most common uses of the pupil premium in primary schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
a government initiative that assigns funding to schools in proportion to the number of pupils on fsm. a combination of these factors means that schools now spend approximately £4.4 billion each year on tas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
corresponding to 13% of the education budget. this presents an excellent opportunity for improvements in practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
with such a large and already committed resource in place. the recommendations in this guidance recognise the fact that schools are operating within already tight budgets; however

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
noticeable improvements in pupil outcomes can be made through the thoughtful use of existing resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guidance to help primary and secondary schools make the best use of TAs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New research shows MITA improves TA deployment and practice and has a positive impact on pupil engagement and independence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Julie Dockrell.
An All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) has been set up to make Parliament and the public aware of how important the ability to communicate is as a life skill and the impact communication difficulties have on people's lives. The APPG, which aims to press for increased provision of speech and language therapy, is to gather evidence this month.

Here is some of the research evidence that will be informing their discussions and their final report, due next year.

We know that developing strong oracy skills - the ability to speak fluently and listen well - is the key to effective communication throughout life, through both the spoken and written word. For many children who have difficulty with oral language, behaviour, mental health and academic attainment are affected. In addition, language difficulties are the most common special need in the early years, with their frequency skewed toward the most deprived children and those whose first language is not English.

Oracy is not prioritised in the curriculum. This is particularly unfortunate because research shows that language skills are the most consistent predictor of future academic and social skill levels. The lack of focus on oral language skills means that school staff are not well prepared to meet children's needs or to judge their language levels. A further problem is that no national gold standard has been developed for identifying language benchmarks or language difficulties.

Evidence from projects such as the government-funded Better Communication Research Programme (BCRP) shows what is needed. Children acquire strong oracy skills through frequent, effective and high-quality conversations with adults and other children. Those who do not arrive at school with such an advantage need to have such opportunities systematically embedded within the school curriculum. It is talking with children in specific ways that matters. Early years teachers have a key role by supporting children's engagement in conversations, using a slow pace and open-ended questions.

We need much more professional development for teachers in oracy, especially since there is often little about it in initial teacher education. Teachers themselves have highlighted the need for bespoke resources, especially for upper primary and secondary schools. In recent years, a Communication supporting Classroom Tool has been developed in the wake of the BCRP to help staff profile their school's language learning environment.

In addition, the Supporting Spoken Language in Classrooms programme developed by the IOE's Centre for Inclusive Education helps staff develop whole-school practice.

Without system wide reform, such tools can only go so far. It is to be hoped the APPG will bring a strong message to government that oracy is far more than the poor relation of reading and writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oracy: children's skills are skewed by deprivation and privilege. How can schools bridge the gap?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Julie Dockrell. An All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) has been set up to make Parliament and the public aware of how important the ability to communicate is as a life skill and the impact communication difficulties have on people's lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Writing floats on a sea of talk - James Britton

How important is the role of talk in children's writing development? Case studies of the best performing writing teachers would argue that it is transformative (Pressley et al. 1997; Medwell et al. 1998; Langer 2001; Gadd & Parr 2017; Young 2019). A child's writing and their language development mutually benefit when they are invited to craft writing amongst their teacher and peers every single day. Indeed, engaging in daily and meaningful talk and writing is one of the best ways to develop children's language (Mercer et al. 1999; Rojas-Drummond et al. 2008; Green et al. 2008; Parr et al. 2009; Fisher et al. 2010; Dix 2016; Reedy & Bearne 2021).

Encouraging children to talk and collaborate together during writing time is an evidence-based research recommendation (Graham et al. 2012; Grossman et al. 2013; De Smedt & Van Keer 2014) and an opportunity to talk as they write improves children's final written outcomes (McQuitty 2014). For example, children who talk as they write go on to write richer and more sophisticated texts (Wiseman 2003; Vass et al. 2008). This may be because talk gives children more working memory for writing (Latham 2002; Cremin & Myhill 2012; Young & Ferguson 2021) or because talk between children assists them in deciding what to say and how to encode it (Davidson 2007; Whittick 2020).

A classroom rich in talk, where children are encouraged to tell others about events in their own lives, the knowledge they bring into school, and the imaginative ideas their minds conjure up is the foundation of any high-quality writing program (Lamme et al. 2002; Tolentino 2013; Daniels 2014; Rowe 2018; Young & Ferguson 2020, 2021). Your class can have more stories and ideas for writing than you'll ever know what to do with as long as you're willing to give time for talking and sharing. Children regularly rely on talk for guidance, a model, expertise, assistance, and instruction (Wohlwend 2008; Kissel 2009). This isn't a negative thing as it shows children's commitment to being independent through what's called co-regulation (Young & Ferguson 2021).

Children talk their texts into being. Talk is vital at all parts of a young writer's process. Firstly, talking with peers helps children generate ideas for what it is they want to write about. Talk also supports pupils to plan what it is they want to write down. It helps them draft fluently, to revise, and to proofread with a readership in mind. Finally, talk is an opportunity to publish or perform for others (Young & Ferguson 2021).

Children talk with one another before they write, as they write and after they write. These interactions occur in different ways and can include:

Idea explaining Children share what they plan to write about during the session with others.
Idea sharing Children work in pairs or small 'clusters' to co-construct their own texts together.
Idea spreading One pupil mentions an idea to their group. Children then leapfrog on the idea and create their own texts in response too.
Supplementary ideas Children hear about a child's idea, like it, and incorporate it into the text they are already writing.
Communal text rehearsal Children say out loud what they are about to write - others listen in, comment, offer support or give feedback.
Personal text rehearsal Children talk to themselves about what they are about to write down. This may include encoding individual words aloud. Other children might listen in, comment, offer support or give feedback.
Text checking Children tell or read back what they've written so far and others listen in, comment, offer support or give feedback.
Performance Children share their texts with each other as an act of celebration and publication.

(Young & Ferguson in press)

Through our own talk with pupils during writing time, we teach children how to respond to other's writing, ask questions, and how to give advice and instruction. Children begin to copy us. By hearing and participating in pupil-conferences, children become sociable and knowledgeable writer-teachers too (Ferguson & Young 2021).

This article looks to highlight the importance of talk in writing. Children can write all the words they can say. However, if we put words in children's mouths, they end up not as writers but reciters. Duplicators of someone else's voice. If we want to develop children's language and writing alongside each other, we must give them time to talk and write together everyday. We must keep in mind that dictating and reciting texts isn't talking or writing. Dictation and recitation are practices associated with a presentational-skills (Young & Ferguson 2021) or 'writing readiness' (Young 2021) ideology towards early writing development. Both of which are fundamentally flawed.

Neither scientific research nor the case studies of the best performing writing teachers recommend the slavish and repetitive learning of a text. It's not in children's best interests to spend their time engaged in long-winded 'barking out of a text'. Instead, we must put talk and language development where it belongs - at the heart of the writing process.
References

Cremin,T., and Myhill, D. (2012) Creating Communities of Writers London: Routledge.

Daniels, K., (2014) Cultural agents creating texts: a collaborative space adventure Literacy 48(2) pp.103-111

Davidson, C. (2007). Independent writing in current approaches to writing instruction: What have we overlooked? English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6, 11-24

De Smedt, F., and Van Keer, H. (2014). A research synthesis on effective writing instruction in primary education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 693-701.

Dix, S. (2016).Teaching writing:A multilayered participatory scaffolding practice. Literacy, 50(1), 23-31.

Ferguson, F., Young, R. (2021) Pupil-conferencing With 3-11 Year Olds: Powerful Feedback & Responsive Teaching That Changes Writers [https://writing4pleasure.com/a-guide-to-pupil-conferencing-with-3-11-year-olds/]

Fisher, R., Myhill, D., Jones, S., and Larkin, S. (2010) Using Talk to Support Writing. London: Sage.

Gadd, M., and Parr, J. (2017). Practices of effective writing teachers. Reading & Writing 30(6), 1551-1574.

Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., Olinghouse, N. (2012) Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Green, J., Yeager, B., and Castanheira, M. (2008). Talking texts into being: On the social construction of everyday life and academic knowledge in the classroom. In Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes, Mercer, N., and Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.) (pp. 115-130). London: Sage.

Grossman, P.L., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., and Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure:The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers' value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119(3), 445-470.

Kissel, B. (2009) Beyond the Page: Peers Influence Pre-Kindergarten Writing through Image, Movement, and Talk, Childhood Education 85:3 pp.160-166

Langer, J.A. (2001). Beating the odds:Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.

Lamme, L., Fu, D., Johnson, J., Savage, D. (2002). Helping kindergarten children move towards independence. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 73-79.

Latham, D. (2002) How children learn to write: Supporting and developing children's writing in schools London: Paul Chapman

McQuitty, V. (2014) Process-oriented writing instruction in elementary classrooms: Evidence of effective practices from the research literature. Writing & Pedagogy, 6(3), 467-495

Medwell, J., Wray, D., Poulson, L., and Fox, R. (1998). Effective Teachers of Literacy. A Report Commissioned by the UK Teacher Training Agency.

Mercer, N.,Wegerif, R., and Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95-111.

Parr, J., Jesson, J., and McNaughton, S. (2009). Agency and platform:The relationships between talk and writing. In The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development. London: Sage.

Pressley, M.,Yokoi, L., Rankin, J.,Wharton-McDonald, R., and Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145-160.

Reedy, D., Bearne, E. (2021) Talk for teaching and learning: the dialogic classroom Leicester: UKLA

Rojas-Drummond, S.M.,Albarr'an, C.D., and Littleton, K.S. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 177-191.

Rowe, D. (2008) The Social Construction of Intentionality: Two-Year-Olds' and Adults' Participation at a Preschool Writing Center Research in the Teaching of English 42(4) pp.387-434

Tolentino, E. (2013) "Put an explanation point to make it louder": Uncovering Emergent Writing Revelations through Talk Language Arts 91(1) 10-22

Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., Jones, A. (2008) The discourse of collaborative creative writing: Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration Thinking Skills and Creativity pp.192-202

Whittick, L. (2020) Write a little - share a little [Online].Available: [https://writing4pleasure.com/write-a-little-share-a-little/]

Wiseman, A. (2003) Collaboration, Initiation, and Rejection: The Social Construction of Stories in a Kindergarten Class The Reading Teacher 56(8) pp.802-810

Wohlwend, K. (2008) From "What Did I Write?" to "Is this Right?": Intention, Convention, and Accountability in Early Literacy, The New Educator, 4:1, 43-63

Young, R. (2019). What is it 'Writing For Pleasure' teachers do that makes the difference? The University Of Sussex:The Goldsmiths' Company [Online] Available: http://www.writing4pleasure.com.

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (2020) Real-World Writers: A Handbook For Teaching Writing With 7-11 Year Olds London: Routledge

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (2021) Writing For Pleasure: Theory, Research & Practice London: Routledge

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (in press) Real-World Writers: A Handbook For Teaching Writing With 3-7 Year Olds

Cremin,T., and Myhill, D. (2012) Creating Communities of Writers London: Routledge.

Daniels, K., (2014) Cultural agents creating texts: a collaborative space adventure Literacy 48(2) pp.103-111

Davidson, C. (2007). Independent writing in current approaches to writing instruction: What have we overlooked? English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6, 11-24

De Smedt, F., and Van Keer, H. (2014). A research synthesis on effective writing instruction in primary education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 693-701.

Dix, S. (2016).Teaching writing:A multilayered participatory scaffolding practice. Literacy, 50(1), 23-31.

Ferguson, F., Young, R. (2021) Pupil-conferencing With 3-11 Year Olds: Powerful Feedback & Responsive Teaching That Changes Writers [https://writing4pleasure.com/a-guide-to-pupil-conferencing-with-3-11-year-olds/]

Fisher, R., Myhill, D., Jones, S., and Larkin, S. (2010) Using Talk to Support Writing. London: Sage.

Gadd, M., and Parr, J. (2017). Practices of effective writing teachers. Reading & Writing 30(6), 1551-1574.

Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., Olinghouse, N. (2012) Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Green, J., Yeager, B., and Castanheira, M. (2008). Talking texts into being: On the social construction of everyday life and academic knowledge in the classroom. In Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes, Mercer, N., and Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.) (pp. 115-130). London: Sage.

Grossman, P.L., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., and Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure:The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers' value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119(3), 445-470.

Kissel, B. (2009) Beyond the Page: Peers Influence Pre-Kindergarten Writing through Image, Movement, and Talk, Childhood Education 85:3 pp.160-166

Langer, J.A. (2001). Beating the odds:Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.

Lamme, L., Fu, D., Johnson, J., Savage, D. (2002). Helping kindergarten children move towards independence. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 73-79.

Latham, D. (2002) How children learn to write: Supporting and developing children's writing in schools London: Paul Chapman

McQuitty, V. (2014) Process-oriented writing instruction in elementary classrooms: Evidence of effective practices from the research literature. Writing & Pedagogy, 6(3), 467-495

Medwell, J., Wray, D., Poulson, L., and Fox, R. (1998). Effective Teachers of Literacy. A Report Commissioned by the UK Teacher Training Agency.

Mercer, N.,Wegerif, R., and Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95-111.

Parr, J., Jesson, J., and McNaughton, S. (2009). Agency and platform:The relationships between talk and writing. In The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development. London: Sage.

Pressley, M.,Yokoi, L., Rankin, J.,Wharton-McDonald, R., and Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145-160.

Reedy, D., Bearne, E. (2021) Talk for teaching and learning: the dialogic classroom Leicester: UKLA

Rojas-Drummond, S.M.,Albarr'an, C.D., and Littleton, K.S. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 177-191.

Rowe, D. (2008) The Social Construction of Intentionality: Two-Year-Olds' and Adults' Participation at a Preschool Writing Center Research in the Teaching of English 42(4) pp.387-434

Tolentino, E. (2013) "Put an explanation point to make it louder": Uncovering Emergent Writing Revelations through Talk Language Arts 91(1) 10-22

Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., Jones, A. (2008) The discourse of collaborative creative writing: Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration Thinking Skills and Creativity pp.192-202

Whittick, L. (2020) Write a little - share a little [Online].Available: [https://writing4pleasure.com/write-a-little-share-a-little/]

Wiseman, A. (2003) Collaboration, Initiation, and Rejection: The Social Construction of Stories in a Kindergarten Class The Reading Teacher 56(8) pp.802-810

Wohlwend, K. (2008) From "What Did I Write?" to "Is this Right?": Intention, Convention, and Accountability in Early Literacy, The New Educator, 4:1, 43-63

Young, R. (2019). What is it 'Writing For Pleasure' teachers do that makes the difference? The University Of Sussex:The Goldsmiths' Company [Online] Available: http://www.writing4pleasure.com.

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (2020) Real-World Writers: A Handbook For Teaching Writing With 7-11 Year Olds London: Routledge

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (2021) Writing For Pleasure: Theory, Research & Practice London: Routledge

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (in press) Real-World Writers: A Handbook For Teaching Writing With 3-7 Year Olds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
download this article Writing floats on a sea of talk - James Britton How important is the role of talk in children's writing development? Case studies of the best performing writing teachers would argue that it is transformative (Pressley et al. 1997; Medwell et al. 1998; Langer 2001; Gadd & Parr 2017; Young 2019).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cognitive Load Theory (Cognitive Load Theory - the idea that working memory is limi... Abbreviated to CLT, the idea that working memory is limited ... More ) has recently become 'The Next Big Thing' in teaching. Dylan Wiliam tweeted on 26 January 2017 that he had 'come to the conclusion Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory More is the single most important thing for teachers to know.' This is an emphatic statement and it is important to consider the implications. As teachers, there are huge demands on our time, so when considering a new strategy it is essential to evaluate the evidence.

CLT, first researched by Sweller (Sweller, 1998) towards in the late 1980s, is based around the idea that our working memory - the part of our mind that processes what we are currently doing - can only deal with a limited amount of information at one time. Reif's (Reif, 2010) description of cognitive load is extremely useful: 'The cognitive load involved in a task is the cognitive effort (or amount of information processing) required by a person to perform this task.' There are a number of excellent resources freely available online that explain CLT (see Paas et al. (Paas et al., 2003) for a useful overview), so we will only touch on the foundations of the theory here that will be useful for the rest of the article.

The theory identifies three different forms of cognitive load:

Intrinsic cognitive load: the inherent difficulty of the material itself, which can be influenced by prior knowledge of the topic

Extraneous cognitive load: the load generated by the way the material is presented and which does not aid learning

Germane cognitive load: the elements that aid information processing and contribute to the development of 'schemas'.

CLT suggests that if the cognitive load exceeds our processing capacity, we will struggle to complete the activity successfully. In summarising CLT, De Jong (De Jong, 2010) states that 'cognitive load theory asserts that learning is hampered when working memory capacity is exceeded in a learning task'.

Working memory should be seen as short term and finite, whereas long-term memory can be seen as infinite. The aim should be to move knowledge to long-term memory because when a student is exposed to new material, they can draw on this previous knowledge and the cognitive load is reduced. However, if subject knowledge is incomplete, the student is unable to fall back on the long-term memory and the working memory becomes overloaded, leading to working memory failures. According to Gathercole and Alloway (Gathercole and Alloway, 2007), indications of working memory failures include:

incomplete recall

failing to follow instructions

place-keeping errors

task abandonment.

Of course, there are many other reasons for these that are not related to CLT; however, if teachers understand how this theory applies to their classroom, they can plan their lessons in a way that takes into account cognitive load.

Reducing cognitive load

Intrinsic cognitive load can be reduced by breaking down the subject content, sequencing the delivery so that sub-tasks are taught individually before being explained together as a whole. The idea is to not overwhelm a student too early on in the introduction of new work.

Extraneous cognitive load can be reduced by the way in which instructions are presented. We make sense of new material by referencing schema or mental models of pre-existing knowledge. Lack of clarity in instruction puts too high a load on the working memory, and so too much time is spent problem-solving the instructions as opposed to new schema formation. For example, lessons that use PowerPoint with excessive writing and the teacher talking at the same time, can inadvertently generate excessive cognitive load and lead to working memory failures. Chandler and Sweller (Chandler and Sweller, 1991) write that 'Cognitive Load Theory suggests that effective instructional material facilitates learning by directing cognitive resources towards activities that are relevant to learning.'

Van Merriënboer et al. (Van Merriënboer et al., 2003) recommend using simple-to-complex sequencing to try to reduce cognitive load. They advise starting with worked-out examples (where a full solution is shown, which students then have to apply to a new question), then moving into completion assignments (where a partial solution is given and they have to complete it themselves), and then moving to conventional tasks, where they are simply given the question. This acts as a form of Progressively introducing students to new concepts to suppor... scaffolding More , which helps students to learn independently, without necessarily needing the help of their teacher for each stage.

Renkl and Atkinson (Renkl and Atkinson, 2003)further investigated this fading form of scaffolding. They suggestedthat moving through activities sequentially could reduce intrinsic load, as learners will have already mastered some of the knowledge they need to work out a solution in an earlier skill stage. Therefore, their research recommends beginning with a model (a complete example), gradually removing completed steps, which the learner will have to complete independently, and finally leaving just the to-be-solved problem.

These principles can be readily applied in the classroom by beginning with a model answer, then providing a writing frame/structure with a lot of information, followed by a writing frame/structure with less information, then finally a question that learners must complete independently without a writing frame. It is worth, though, being aware of the 'expertise reversal effect' suggested by Kalyuga et al. (Kalyuga et al., 2003), whereby if you continue to provide worked-out examples for experts, their usefulness is significantly reduced. Cognitive load theorists suggest this is because worked-out examples contain information that an expert could work out for themselves, making it redundant and therefore extraneous cognitive load rather than useful germane cognitive load.

Presenting information to minimise cognitive load

Chandler and Sweller (Chandler and Sweller, 1992) found evidence of the split-attention effect. This occurs when different sources of information discussing the same topic are separated by time or space, such as a diagram with a key that corresponds to separate text next to it. When information is presented in this way, it is left to the learner to attempt to amalgamate it, which generates extraneous cognitive load. Therefore, it is recommended that if one of the sources adds nothing new, it should be eliminated. However, if it is essential to include both sources, they should ideally be physically integrated (e.g. texts and diagrams combined). This way, extraneous cognitive load is reduced and working memory capacity can be used for intrinsic and germane cognitive load instead.

A word of caution

There are, of course, issues with CLT. Reif (Reif, 2010) writes that if cognitive load is reduced too much, 'the entire learning process would consist of too many small steps - and would thus become unduly fragmented and long'. There are also issues to do with the hypothesis being unfalsifiable. Doug Holton (Holton, 2009) points out that it is difficult to measure cognitive load, and therefore difficult to generate evidence to prove the theory.

An important question, though, is whether it is useful in the classroom. Ashman (Ashman, 2017) has explained that an understanding of CLT changed his maths teaching, and offers the following four examples:

1. I don't read out my slides - avoid simultaneous oral and text presentation

2. Break it down, further - pause for practice between individual problem types (this leads directly into number 3)

3. Example-problem pairs - give a worked example alongside an almost identical question

4. Stop after five minutes - advise students never to spend more than five minutes trying to solve a homework problem

So is CLT the single most important thing for a teacher to know? Perhaps not - it is a bold claim. But, if used correctly, it can improve teacher instruction, which is an important variable in the complex classroom environment.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Break down subject content when introducing new topics and pause regularly to check understanding.

Present instructions clearly without using too many sources of information at the same time.

Be wary of reducing cognitive load too much - the learning process should be manageable, but not overly fragmented.

Dominic Shibli is Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Hertfordshire. Prior to that he was Head of Science and SLE for the North Herts Teaching Alliance.

Rachel West has a BSc in psychology and has been teaching psychology for three years. She is interested in raising awareness of the ways in which psychological theory can be applied to teaching practice.

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cognitive Load Theory and its application in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) has recently become 'The Next Big Thing' in teaching. Dylan Wiliam tweeted on 26 January 2017 that he had 'come to the conclusion Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory is the single most important thing for teachers to know.' This is an emphatic statement and it is important to consider the implications.

# data[].attributes.headline
Useful assessment for design and technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Useful assessment for design and technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Speech and Language UK: Changing young lives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Communicating the Curriculum Resources

For each statement in the Spoken Language Programme of Study, this resource provides descriptors for what to expect at the end of each year in primary school. This includes information about the aspects of language which contribute to the statement. For each year group, a pupil statement is also provided which begins with 'I can ...', 'I try' or 'I know ...'.
There are two formats of the Programme of Study Statements:
The first sets out progress against each Programme of Study statement for all year groups from 1-6.

The second provides an overview of all 12 Programme of Study statements for each year group.

Communicating the Curriculum also provides guidelines to support the recording of pupil performance: below what is expected, at the expected level, above what is expected and a mastery level. These reflect the frequency, confidence, consistency and context in which children demonstrate the skills and are based on what is known about how children typically develop language. We know schools will rightly be deciding their own descriptors for progress and attainment those we've used are guidelines only. Schools should use their own system and 'Communicating the Curriculum' will support them with this.

We have also produced template summary tables which provide a space for teachers to record and track progress both for individual pupils and whole classes across the Spoken Language Programme of Study.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Communicating the Curriculum Resource Page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Communicating the Curriculum Resources For each statement in the Spoken Language Programme of Study, this resource provides descriptors for what to expect at the end of each year in primary school. This includes information about the aspects of language which contribute to the statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Writing Project (U.K.) To teach writing, you need to write Go to Weebly Site (archive)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Colleagues and I have been working with primary schools to develop an alternative to listed 'success criteria' for writing, which we call 'boxed' or 'expanding success criteria' (or often just 'the rectangles thing.') It is very easy to adopt, and teachers have been finding that it can transform how writing is talked about and approached in the classroom, with an immediate impact on the quality of what pupils are producing. (That is something which we now need to research properly!)

When approaching a piece of writing, pupils are often given 'success criteria' in the form of a list of features which the writing 'requires' in order to be successful. These often include technicalities such as full stops and commas; they may include features such as metaphors, adjectives for description, varied sentence openers and so on; and they tend to include grammatical or cohesive devices, such as time adverbials, subordinate clauses or relative pronouns. In this way, they are tied explicitly to particular curriculum and teaching 'objectives'.

These lists of ingredients clearly have usefulness - for reminding pupils of some things they might do to make the writing effective, for reinforcing learning, for providing a ready checklist for self and peer assessment, and so on. But teachers are increasingly aware of their potential drawbacks:

1. They can promote a 'writing-by-numbers' approach, in which writing becomes a performance of features rather than a coherent whole.

2. They can encourage teaching and task-setting by narrow text type, limiting the scope of what pupils might achieve.

3. They are not really success criteria: the success of a piece of actual writing can only be measured by how well it communicates or achieves its purpose for its intended reader, not by whether it contains specified ingredients.

4. Feedback - at the end or while drafting and editing - can therefore tend to focus just on whether specific elements are included, rather than on how effective the writing is as writing.*

Together, these interrelated factors can work against pupils' development as real writers, writing for real purposes and real audiences. By 'real', we don't mean a real life situation, like a letter to the school governors, or a story to be published, although there is an important place for such tasks; we mean an imagined but specific and authentic purpose and audience.
Purpose and audience: the starting point for teaching
If pupils are to write a recipe, it is simple and easy to give them a list like this:

Lists of ingredients and equipment

Numbered steps

Time and sequence adverbials

Imperative or command verbs

Certainly, these things are a useful starting point. But ask pupils then to compare the following two fragments, each giving exactly the same instruction ...
Add Worcester sauce for extra flavour.
Slosh in some Worcester sauce to make it even yummier.

... and suddenly there is much more to consider and to teach. Who is the recipe for? Other children? A professional chef? Grandparents? What do they want and need? How can we engage them? What sort of verbs, nouns and adjectives might we therefore use? And so on. This is much more interesting for pupils. It is certainly more fun to teach.

It is important to teach about genre and about the features of different kinds of writing. But teachers know that, when pupils move on from thinking just in terms of text type, their writing opens up, with much more potential for richness, variety and authenticity. An account of a trip - perhaps in the form of an article - is not just a 'recount': it can be engagingly descriptive; it will have elements of entertaining narrative; it is likely to involve explanation, and even elements of persuasion and argument. Similarly a brochure about a town should be much more than a 'non-chronological report': depending on the intended audience, it will modulate between and blend elements of description, narrative, explanation, instruction and persuasion.
Purpose and audience: the starting point for feedback
Thinking about how to move on the pupil writing this story opening, it is easy to start listing technical or stylistic devices.

Billy went into the house. He looked into the kitchen. He saw a big dog. The dog ran to him.

The child could use more conjunctions, and perhaps a fronted adverbial or two. She could add description, using adjectives and adverbs. Perhaps she could expand some noun-phrases.

But, of course, the first question to ask this child is not 'Could you use some...?' or 'Can you add in...?' It is, simply: 'What sort of story is this, and how do you want the reader to feel?' Then things move forward. If it is a scary story, then perhaps the verb 'went' could be replaced by a scarier verb, with a scary adverb, such as 'crept slowly'. Meanwhile, 'looked' could become 'peered nervously'. The kitchen could be 'dark and shadowy'. The dog could be 'lion-like' and it could 'charge' rather than 'run'. The last sentence could be fronted with 'Suddenly,...' If it is a sad story, he might 'walk slowly' into the house, the kitchen could be 'gloomy'. If it is happy, then he might 'skip' and the dog might 'bounce' up to him. And so on.
The 'boxed' or 'expanding' success criteria
So traditional 'success criteria' are really the wrong way round. They define 'success' in terms of the presence of ingredients, not in terms of the actual point of the writing.

The boxed criteria keep the ingredients, but link them explicitly to purpose and to the reader. It's really that simple. In the middle, pupils put what the writing is and its intended audience; outwards from this are the intended 'effects' on that audience, or what the writing is meant to provide for its readers; outwards again are the ingredients - the features which might help to achieve these things.

For example, a guide for children to looking after a chosen pet animal might be planned like this:

The 'boxed success criteria' for the story (above) of Billy entering the house might look like this:

Note that in this example the ingredients are themselves described in terms of their impact: 'scary nouns', 'frightening adjectives' and 'spooky similes'. Grammatical forms should be used for a reason, not for their own sake.

The grid might be created by the teacher and given to the pupils. It is more likely, however, that it will be constructed out of discussion with the class, and out of their reading and picking apart of examples. In the example below, for a description of what lies behind a mysterious door, the ingredients have come directly from discussion of an example text, and the outermost layer has been used for assembling examples of language.

Pupils might have their own grid in their books. (In the one below, the school has kept the label of 'success criteria' for the ingredients layer, to ease the transition to a new format!)

Or there might be a big class one on the wall.

Either way, it can be a dynamic, evolving thing, added to and adjusted as ideas are developed and shared through the planning, drafting and editing stages of writing. This is a tool which can live with the piece of writing through its stages: from reading and exploring examples, to planning and assembling ideas, to drafting and editing, to proof-reading, to publication, to reflection. And of course, at every stage, the starting point for teacher, peer or self-assessment and feedback is not a list of ingredients, but whether the writing is achieving what it is meant to achieve.

There is nothing radical or intrinsically innovative about this. It is just a visual device for focusing the thinking of teachers and pupils on what writing is actually about: communication and effect, not just the performance of skills.

___________________________
* In the article Objectives and purpose in English, I wrote this about the hazards of misapplied success criteria:
In their 2014 report for CfBT on educational blogging and its effects on writing, Myra Barrs and Sarah Horrocks noted a discrepancy between primary teachers' views of what makes 'good writing' and that of their pupils. The teachers valued "good content and ideas", "real meaning and purpose", "imagination, originality and creativity", "fluency and momentum" and "a strong sense of a reader/audience." In contrast, pupils' conception of 'good writing' "reflected the teachers' marking of their books, and the learning objectives and targets that they were used to: 'It would need 'wow' words to impress me'; 'Good sentences full of adjectives'; 'Describing. Good punctuation'; 'Vocabulary that catches attention' 'Description and similes.'"

Pupils tend to define success in terms of such mechanistic attributes because these - rather than the real purposes of reading, writing or talking - are so often the starting point in lessons. They also dominate the checklists of 'success criteria' given to children when they embark on tasks. A description will be 'successful' not if it 'makes the reader feel as though they are there' but if it contains at least one metaphor, at least one simile, some adjectives, and so on. A persuasive letter will be successful not if it is 'powerful' but if it contains all the elements of 'AFOREST' or 'SPEARFACTOR'. And a response to a poem will be successful not if it convinces or is interesting, but if it contains P.E.E. paragraphs, quotations and at least three ideas. All of these elements may be useful, but they are ingredients not recipes. Checklists of features can limit, rather than raise, attainment, if they are allowed to define success.

It is often easy to spot where such features are being deployed by children, keen to 'move up a level' rather than, perhaps, to be real writers. In this piece, a Year 5 boy steeped in the excitable rhythms and language of football reports, writes:

All the fans were booing around the ground. We got a free kick. Our striker was taking it. He whipped it past the wall. We were level at half time. He celebrated by sliding on his knees. The goal was fantastic to watch - curved it to the top corner, wow! The ref blew his whistle for half time. The fans were singing.

Redrafting it, he dutifully writes in more detail, adds description and uses more adjectives, with ruinous results.

All the fans booing really loud around the ground. We got a free kick. The striker was number 10 and had orange boots. He took a run up at the football. He struck it. It went around the wall and went into the top corner. The player celebrated by sliding on his knees through the wet green grass. It was nearly half time. We were levelling. The ref blew his whistle for half time. The manager gave the number 10 a high five. The team went into the big changing room to talk about the plan for the next half.

For years, I have used in training an extract from a Year 7 girl's writing, which I was given by Simon Wrigley. In her first draft, she introduces the reader to her main character like this.

His mates called him Flash Harry because he was a rich photographer who liked to flash his cash around. They weren't really his friends, of course, because he was too horrible to have any friends. He had yellow teeth and always smelt of beer. He was also very rude.

In her second draft, she 'improves' her description.

His friends called him Flash Harry as he was a wealthy photographer who loved showing off his money. They were not really his friends due to the fact that he was an extremely rude alcoholic with yellowing teeth.

The feedback that she was given on her draft, the objectives that she was chasing and the 'success criteria' that she was following are long lost. However, it is quite fun to guess. What is very clear is the way that her second draft, although ticking off such 'higher-level' features as more sophisticated language ('wow words'?), a more formal register and more varied connectives, has lost the vitality and the narrative richness of the first. A great piece of real story-telling has become a performance of skills, dislocated from real purpose.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
View all posts by James Durran (@jdurran)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Re-thinking 'success criteria': a simple device to support pupils' writing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colleagues and I have been working with primary schools to develop an alternative to listed 'success criteria' for writing, which we call 'boxed' or 'expanding success criteria' (or often just 'the rectangles thing.') It is very easy to adopt, and teachers have been finding that it can transform how writing is talked about and approached...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gears allow a small force to have a greater effect.

Print out: Gears to print

A4 card to make gears, scissors, glue, split pins, thick card to attach gears to e.g. cardboard box, sharp pencil and sticky tack to make holes.
To make the gears:
Print out the PDF. Stick this to the A4 card and cut out the gears.

Make a hole in the centre of each gear by putting it on top of your sticky tack and forcing the pencil through it.

Position the gears on top of the thick cardboard so that the teeth of one gear are interlocking with the next gear. Mark the position of the centre of each gear using the pencil. Make a hole using the pencil and sticky tack.

Attach the gears to the card using the split pins.
Challenge:
Make a gear chain to create a low gear for cycling up hills.

Make a gear chain to create a high gear for cycling down hills.

Which gear would you choose for cycling on the flat and why? Make this gear chain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Levers, pulleys and gears - Key Stages 1 & 2 - NUSTEM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Simple mechanisms for Key Stages 1 and 2: gears, levers and pulleys. Context and activities for classroom and home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you want to be a writer, you must do two things above all others: read a lot and write a lot.

If you don't have the time to read, you don't have the time (or the tools) to write.

In the ongoing process of becoming a writer, I read and re-read the authors I most loved. I read for pleasure, first, but also more analytically, conscious of style, of diction, of how sentences were formed and information was being conveyed, how the writer was structuring a plot, creating characters, employing detail and dialogue. And as I wrote, I discovered that writing, like reading, was done one word at a time, one punctuation mark at a time. It required what a friend calls 'putting every word on trial for its life.

My father's name being Bleiman and my first name being Barbara, the pleasant alliterative ring of the two words did little to assuage my feeling that the name was both bland and undistinguished,' followed by, 'Ours was a different country, a world away, thousands of miles from the London where we finally planted our shaky, immigrant feet. My first, intensely vivid memory seems to have been gained at a moment when I lay in my bed, in a house in Cape Town, watching the shadows of the fig tree swaying gloomily on my bedroom wall.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading as a Writer, Writing as a Reader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Barbara Bleiman reflects on the value of encouraging students to read like writers and write like readers - and in the process asks important questions about where learning occurs in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How can teachers develop boys' academic writing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Writing proficiency is a vital component of academic success. Despite the emergence of new technologies, a great deal of what we ask students to do in school still involves putting pen to paper and shaping sentences. Across most subjects, students will be expected to show that they can write in a way that demonstrates they [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lin Goram, English Subject Development Lead, Teach First, UK

Reading and writing are given broadly equal emphasis in the most recent iteration of the National Curriculum for English (Department for Education - a ministerial department responsi... More , 2014). But the two are positioned differently. The National Curriculum recommends that cultural, emotional, intellectual, social and spiritual development are achieved 'through reading in particular'. A curriculum is put forward that supports students to 'develop their love of literature through widespread reading for enjoyment' (DfE, 2014, p. 2). Conversely, the emphasis on developing skills of writing in English focuses more on the functional. Students need to be able to 'write clearly, accurately and coherently' (DfE, 2014, p. 2). This is unsurprising: writing is often seen as a functional tool of communication. There is one slightly oblique reference to self-expression: through speaking and writing, students should be able to 'communicate their ideas and emotions to others' (DfE, 2014, p. 2).

The National Curriculum for English has been criticised for creating a writing course of study focusing on the components of writing in a decontextualised way, 'privileg[ing] grammar and punctuation over style and creativity' (Barrs, 2019, p. 25). This has led to a writing curriculum that is 'reductive, ideological and pedestrian' (Barrs, 2019, p. 28). For this reason, teachers and trainee teachers have for the past few decades expressed a lack of confidence when guiding students' writing development (see Cliff Hodges, 2005). Added to this, English teachers identify most strongly with the growth model of English, which means that this knowledge-driven approach to the teaching of writing undermines a large proportion of English teachers' professional values (Goodwyn, 2016).

This article examines tensions around teaching writing in the secondary English classroom, focusing on the role of the teacher and offering some approaches to planning effective writing teaching.

Teachers and writing

Cremin and Oliver's (2016) review of research into teachers as writers found that, in general, teachers often have a narrow view of what a 'writer' is and what constitutes 'writing', with a focus on production of longer-form narrative and descriptive pieces. However, teachers who identify as writers are more likely to be open-minded about what it means to be a writer and what writing is. Additionally, those identifying as writers are also more likely to enjoy writing and say that they are good at it. This appears to be because they are focusing on ideas and personal expression rather than on 'grammar, spelling, punctuation, organisation, creativity, sentence structure, handwriting, neatness and vocabulary' (Cremin and Oliver, 2016, p. 14).

Those who identify as writers consider writing to be a personal act of creative expression (McDermott, 2019). The National Curriculum for English tempers this definition with its rules associated with functional - as opposed to creative - expression. This creates cognitive dissonance, which leads to some teachers feeling anxiety when teaching creative writing. Teachers are not writers: they are teachers of writing. But they have past writing experiences and they bring their own identities and pasts as writers into the English classroom. This extends to their time as students: teachers who identify as writers also say that that they had a teacher who inspired them as a writer (Cremin and Baker, 2016).

It is important to unpick this so that teachers can find a productive way forward in the writing classroom. Often the two identities of 'writer' and 'teacher' are put in opposition to each other, setting up a dichotomy where a writer must change or compromise in some way in order to be a teacher, and vice versa (Cremin and Baker, 2010; McDermott, 2019). For teachers to see themselves also as writers, it isn't just a question of writing more (Cremin and Baker, 2010; Cremin and Oliver, 2016) - we need to understand the influences on a teacher's writing identity and how this influences classroom practice.

This is an under-researched area, and Cremin and Oliver (2016) have made it clear that there is currently no research examining the impact of teachers' writing on their students' exam outcomes. However, we have seen that the status quo has limitations, and so this article moves to examining ways in which to articulate opportunities for teachers and their students to develop writing in the secondary English classroom.

Teachers as writers

Cremin and Baker's 2010 research into teaching creative writing examines teachers' writing behaviour in the classroom. They use the concept of the writing identity to explore teachers' articulation of their feelings when modelling writing for their classes. Two identities emerge: the teacher-writer and the writer-teacher, positioned at each end of a continuum. This helps us to understand how a teacher's writing identity influences their behaviour when teaching creative writing.

At one end is the writer-teacher. The writer-teacher approach models to students how a writer thinks and what they do, free of constraint. This aligns with McDermott's (2019) approach: the teacher is foremostly writing for themselves and is therefore emotionally invested. In this role, one of the appeals is that 'you were in control of what you wrote' (Cremin and Baker, 2010, p. 14). The writer-teacher aligns with students - everyone is a writer. This authentic immersion prompts modelling that exhibits 'hesitation, ongoing error correction and problem-solving' (Cremin and Baker, 2010, p. 16), as teachers strive to produce something of which they are proud. In this role, teachers writing alongside their students can 'help them see' (Cremin and Baker, p. 19) by uncovering the internal monologue of the decisions that the writer is making. For this reason, writing in the moment has authentic power in a way that pre-prepared models do not.

At the other end of Cremin and Baker's (2010) continuum is the teacher-writer. This aligns with the approach discussed earlier in this article, in which writing is produced to model success criteria for 'good' writing in the English classroom, as defined by the National Curriculum for English (DfE, 2014). The teacher-writer is writing for the institution, aware of the need to model elements of the success criteria, foregrounding this over authenticity where necessary. This results in teachers having less control over what they write: it is a product-writing approach in which the outcome is assessed rather than the process.

According to Cremin and Baker's (2010) research, in modelling phases, teachers often begin as writer-teachers and move along the continuum towards the teacher-writer end. As a writer, it can be easy to become frustrated if the writing is not going well. Additionally, when the teacher is focusing on the act of writing, modelling using an 'I do' approach, it can easily become disengaging for students, who would be more engaged with a 'we do' activity. The easiest thing for a writer-teacher to do if either of these things happen is to stop writing and move to teacher-writer mode, focusing on students' writing instead. This reveals a weakness in the practices of the writer-teacher: modelling writing in the classroom is extrinsically motivated, which is not an authentic motivation for a writer. Stopping writing is not an option for students in a classroom: ultimately, they are writing to be assessed.

Approaches to teaching writing

The recommendations below are made with the intention of supporting both teachers and their students in becoming more comfortable and confident with writing. As we have said, there is currently no research drawing clear links between this and student attainment (Cremin and Oliver, 2016). But new approaches support the growth model of English, as well as teacher and student wellbeing, both of which are important principles.

Reflect

Reflect on your experiences, confidence and attitudes to writing. It is important that we do this: as teachers who model the process of writing and draw out key elements of effective writing, we are expected to be competent, but 'this is potentially problematic if [we] lack self-assurance and positive writing identities' (Cremin and Baker, 2016, p. 9).

Plan

When planning, think about what your identity will be in the classroom for that lesson, at that point in the unit - are you a writer-teacher or a teacher-writer? This will be led by the lesson's objective, which is in turn led by the learning needs of students. There is room for both in a unit of work, but they are most effective when planned. If you are clear on when you are a writer-teacher or teacher-writer, it is less likely that your emotions will get in the way of your planned identity in that moment if your writing is not going as well as you hoped.

Write

When you have planned to be a writer-teacher, be as much of a writer as you can: write alongside students, share your work and your frustrations and take the sort of risks that you want your students to take. Reflect on this to better understand the experience of your students. This includes becoming comfortable with discomfort, which will come from writing publicly. When you have planned to be a teacher-writer, consider your boundaries: what does your writing need to show? How can you demonstrate this as authentically as possible? How can you ensure that you hold this identity, even if the act of writing feels challenging?

Talk

There is no substitute for teachers being genuinely interested in what students have to say (Marshal and Wiliam, 2006). Peter Elbow's work (nd) supports approaches to the sharing of writing. The underpinning principles are allowing students to be in control of sharing their writing and for this to happen in pairs. When discussing writing, you can be a writer-teacher, listening as a peer or ally, asking questions about the process or commenting on thoughts, ideas and feelings in the writing, or giving non-judgemental feedback and asking neutral questions to draw out ideas about the creative process. You can also be a teacher-writer, giving constructive feedback designed to support students to improve their work according to success criteria. Of course, pupils can take on these two roles as well. Being clear with yourself and with your class can support these conversations to have impact on writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Developing approaches to writing in the secondary English classroom : My College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lin Goram, English Subject Development Lead, Teach First, UK Writing and the National Curriculum for English Reading and writing are given broadly equal emphasis in the most recent iteration of the National Curriculum for English (DfE, 2014). But the two are positioned differently. The National Curriculum recommends that cultural, emotional, intellectual, social and spiritual development [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
Designing curriculum in a primary school

# data[].attributes.subject
Designing curriculum in a primary school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Designing curriculum in a primary school : My College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This case study was written by Robbie Burns, a primary school teacher and leader. As you read this case study, reflect on how the curriculum has been shaped and developed. Take some time to think about how some of these approaches might translate to your own context. In this case study, I will explore four […]

# data[].attributes.headline
Designing a creative contextualised primary curriculum 

# data[].attributes.subject
Designing a creative contextualised primary curriculum 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I have been Head Teacher of Langford Primary School in Fulham (London) since September 2015. One of the things I'm proudest of is our work to develop a broader and evidence-led curriculum.

We place a lot of importance on this area, and one of the core pillars of our school vision is to embed and deliver a thought-provoking curriculum which broadens experiences and prepares our children for life in modern day Britain. We therefore spend a lot of time considering this, thinking about it as part of our curriculum design and lesson planning, engaging with research, and using this to help prepare our children for the next stage of their education.

We're several years into our journey and are really pleased with our achievements, but we've also made mistakes along the way which we think other schools could learn from. So here are our 3 top tips on curriculum design:
1. Curriculum development takes time
Developing a strong curriculum takes time. It simply can't happen overnight. At Langford we started our journey by thinking about each individual subject and what macro-concepts we wanted our children to develop a deep understanding of by the end of KS2. This was inspired by Erickson's 3D curriculum, which argues that if we get children to apply what they know and can do so in a conceptual way, they are more likely to retain this.

Each subject is planned so that it links with prior learning and concepts children have already experienced. They contain knowledge organisers - which outlines the knowledge all children must master on a subject - to help them learn the basics, and this is quizzed regularly, using key questions to expose existing understanding. This goes hand in hand with well-planned lessons, which always ask the question, 'what is this lesson encouraging the children to think about?'.

At the end of the learning journey, the children will have to answer a conceptual question in an essay/extended response manner. One example of this is present in our history curriculum, for which one of our macro concepts is 'cause and consequence'. At the end of learning about both The Great Fire of London (Y2) and The Second World War (Y5) the children were asked if there were any positive consequences from these episodes in history - responses ranged from the birth of insurance companies to the formation of the U.N.
2. Don't forget the National Curriculum document
When we first began to think about our curriculum aims (whether whole curriculum or individual subjects), we started with the aims set out in the National Curriculum and this was a great starting point. One of the main reasons for doing this was following a conversation I had with a curriculum leader who showed me her 5-page document outlining the curriculum 'Intent' for her school. She is probably the only one who will read this and because of this, the document itself is likely to have little impact on the curriculum in her school. My personal view is that keeping things as simple and concise as possible is the approach that tends to be the most effective. This is why, if you haven't looked back at the national curriculum in a while - now is the time to do this.

The two main aims of the national curriculum are:

1. The national curriculum provides pupils with an introduction to the essential knowledge that they need to educated citizen. It introduces pupils to be the best that has been thought and said; and helps engender an appreciation of human creativity and achievement.

2. The national curriculum is just one element in the education of every child. There is a time and space in the school day and in each week, term and year to range beyond the national curriculum specifications. The national curriculum provides an outline of core knowledge around which teachers can develop exciting and stimulating lessons to promote the development of pupils' knowledge, understanding and skills as part of the wider school curriculum.

There is some great stuff in the national curriculum that could really support you in thinking about the curriculum for your school. This is of course, should be tailored for each subject, and will support the subject leaders in your school and provide something for them to focus on. For example, one of the aims of the geography curriculum is to 'develop contextual knowledge of the location of globally significant places'. Adopting this mantra ourselves influenced us to design our geography curriculum so that each year group studies a different continent, building upon and deepening the knowledge and concepts they experienced in the previous year/s.
3. Allow opportunities to re-visit
Every child in our school starts their morning by revisiting learning they have previously encountered some time ago. When children come into class, there will be a number of questions on the board linked to prior learning which the children respond to immediately. If they can't remember, this is the time they go back in their books, review knowledge organisers, or get a book to find the answer so next time they see the question they will remember. This spaced practice allows children the opportunity to make good links between different elements of the different disciplines as they progress through the school.
The impacts of a well-planned curriculum
The main positive impact of our approach to curriculum development has been on our children's background knowledge and vocabulary. Both of which are fundamental in enabling them to achieve higher standards in reading and closing the disadvantage gap. We're also finding it's helping our pupils to be more engaged in their learning, developing a real thirst for it.

Our teachers are benefiting from this approach too though. As we are several years into this approach, our teachers now can focus on fine tuning their lessons, which simply involves scribbling notes in a planning jotter, and no time is wasted on unnecessary workload.

Let me finish by saying that the curriculum at Langford continues to be developed and refined, but hopefully this blog has provided a snapshot of some of what we have done.

___

Want to receive blog posts in your inbox?
Sign up to receive blog updates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 top tips for designing a broad and thought provoking primary school curriculum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seamus Gibbons, Headteacher at Langford Primary School in Fulham on his top tips for Primary school's who are looking to redesign their curriculums.

# data[].attributes.headline
Leading your school: Developing a curriculum for all

# data[].attributes.subject
Leading your school: Developing a curriculum for all

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At One Education, the foundation of our success lies with putting all children first. Everything we do, and each decision we make, goes back to what is best for every individual child; for them to reach their true potential - thriving in school and beyond, throughout their whole life.

There has been a lot of noise surrounding curriculums in schools recently, and I want to take this as an opportunity to talk about school curriculums as an extension of our vision around putting children first.

This academic year, our team has been asked to review many school and academy curriculums. At times, the curriculums we review can appear to be statutorily sound but, as we delve deeper, there can sometimes be a disconnect to the moral purpose of putting children first.

It can become apparent that there is no "us story" within the curriculum. Instead, we find off-the-peg schemes that have not been adapted to suit the school's needs. In some situations, schemes provide a consistency that is key to learning. Curriculums bought off the peg however, though they help with workload, will never be specific to the children in your school, under your care. They don't know the children in your classrooms, but you do.

This type of curriculum often comes about due to time pressures but, as Mary Myatt often exclaims, "the Curriculum is a never-ending story." It should not be a race to tick every box because that sort of curriculum will never be able to showcase the wonderful locality of the school; the culture; the links that children could make between and within subjects; opportunities to see themselves in stories or to open doors to other worlds; possibilities to connect learning with the children's own lives; or the ability to ensure a curriculum that suits all learners.

My curriculum story

I tried, as an NQT, to do what I was passionate about, putting the children first and creating a curriculum that suited all learners in my class. The school was in a deprived area and the Year One children had so much going on in their home lives that sitting down to learn was just not possible. They needed a personalised, individual curriculum for their needs and for their situations: they needed a play-based curriculum; they needed to have learning linked to inspirational people; to see themselves in stories, what's more, they needed positive connections in their life.

Instead, they had a jam-packed curriculum following schemes of computing lessons, writing, reading, phonics, PE, maths, and foundation subjects despite not achieving their ELGs in EYFS. One day that stands out significantly in my mind was a cold winter's day when it had snowed heavily overnight. We were the only school in the area that was open that day and, when I got to school, I was told that, under no circumstances, were the children allowed to play out in the snow. We had to continue with the timetable and the schemes as planned. I remember 30 young five-year olds looking at me, then back at the snow, with puppy dog eyes. I made a decision there and then that I couldn't continue my career in a school that didn't share my values. With a combination of being inexperienced and a school culture that did not match my moral purpose, I did what I never thought I would do, I handed in my notice part way through my NQT year. It's my biggest regret in my career, not staying and fighting for my moral purpose and for those children but I think, in fact I know, if I had stayed another term then I would have left teaching for good.

When I went to my next school, I found an SLT who were willing to listen and try out suggestions. I was allowed to deviate away from the literacy hour and the QCA units. I embedded a play-based curriculum. I worked hard and governors agreed that it was working when Ofsted said I was outstanding - back in the day when they did that, and data reflected their findings. But more than that, we were a community. As my role changed within the school and my responsibility grew, we worked together to ensure that the curriculum provided continuity, we planned in collaboration and ensured progression.

When the National Curriculum changed in 2014, I set about changing the curriculum to be bespoke to our pupils in our school. We made connections to the lives of our children in the school and the local area, enriching their lives with stories in everything we could. We linked the curriculum to careers and widened experiences to develop aspirations. We considered people that would inspire our children to learn: artists, designers, athletes, significant people from history. We invited parents in, people from the community, local university staff and a wealth of professionals from further afield (even a deep-sea diver who skyped us from under the ocean, way before Zoom was a thing!) The curriculum was unique to our school, it supported the strengths of our staff, the individual needs of our children AND we felt like a family.

The curriculum we built changed and adapted to suit the needs of each cohort and each child, whilst ensuring the progression across the school continued; tracking anything that had changed for each cohort so that teachers had a good understanding of prior learning. What's more, if a child didn't learn the way we taught something, then we adapted our practice and explored other ways.

Your curriculum story

I feel privileged in being able to support so many schools who are passionate about getting their curriculum right for their children. The school curriculum is more than just the National Curriculum: it's about connections, about knowledge, skills, stories, resilience and a magic that can't be found elsewhere, which inspires children to achieve in ways they never thought possible. A unique school curriculum is a lifeline for some children (and their parents) that may otherwise falter or fail in the education system.

The curriculum is never a finished product, we will always want to monitor, evaluate and review our school curriculum to suit the needs of the children in our setting. To support your school in reviewing where you are on your curriculum journey, you may want to ask questions such as those below:
Intent

1. What is your rationale for how you have organised your curriculum?

2. Why this curriculum for these children, in this school, at this time?

3. How is the school's curriculum planned and taught and sequenced so that new concepts, knowledge and skills build on what has been taught before, and towards those defined end points?

4. What is the school's focus for and approach to CPD, what has been the impact of staff CPD for NQT's/RQT's/Experienced Teachers?

5. Which subjects are the strongest and why? Which subject/s are at an early stage of development? Plans in place to address this?

6. How do you ensure that children are articulate, have strong oracy skills and have developed an excellent understand of key vocabulary across all subjects?

Implementation

1. What will we see in lessons? What are your pedagogical strategies to ensure children learn more and remember more? Is this consistently established/developed/embedded throughout the school?

2. What are the strengths and areas to improve in the implementation of your curriculum?

Impact

1. How do you check that pupils have learnt the curriculum - how do you know that all children have acquired the knowledge and cultural capital to succeed in life? How do you know they are ready for the next stage of their education/transition points?

2. What are the strengths and areas to improve in the leadership of the curriculum, particularly in terms of impact?

(In addition: EYFS should be considered at every point in every question if you are an infant or primary school)
But, in considering a curriculum for all, we may also want to consider a few extra questions such as:
11. How is your curriculum unique to your school? How does it tell your story?

1. How does your curriculum create a sense of belonging and togetherness for all stakeholders?

2. How has your curriculum been created to harness the strengths of your school, staff and children?

3. How does your curriculum create magic, awe and inspiration that stays with children for life?

4. How do you ensure that you adapt, change and review your curriculum to suit different learners?

Once SLT have considered these questions, it is also worth understanding the thoughts of subject leads, teachers, children and other stakeholders. Do all groups of stakeholders express the same views about your unique curriculum and do they tell a similar curriculum story? This is where we need to consider how our curriculum vision and values are shared and developed across the school community. You may want to consider sharing the school's unique curriculum story in ways such as those listed below:

Consult with all stakeholders when establishing a shared curriculum vision.

Develop the curriculum story based on the experience of the whole school community

Ensure the curriculum story supports the direction of strategic planning

Discussions in staff meetings, curriculum meetings and parent events link to the curriculum vision

The school's unique curriculum story is shared in newsletters, offices, staff rooms, school corridors and websites

The school's curriculum is an explicit reference point throughout professional learning activities

The school's unique curriculum story is referenced when success is being celebrated

It is tied to the day-to-day work of the school when school tours and information events are held

In addition to celebrating successes, develop a culture where you as a leader show what the curriculum vision looks like, rather than telling people what to expect. If all members of the school community show the vision, it becomes a reality. As leaders, we also need to ensure we support others to become more comfortable with calculated risks. This approach requires that all involved realise that teaching the curriculum is not always going to be perfect. Just like we tell our children, it is ok to make mistakes and things aren't going to be perfect. Embrace those missteps and use them to allow you to progress on the never-ending journey of your school's unique curriculum.

So, what is your school's unique curriculum story? How are you creating a curriculum that suits all learners in your school and opening doors to endless possibilities? You have the power to change lives; ensuring that all children are able to succeed in education, and beyond.

Free Download

To support you in your journey of curriculum planning, a planning format considering progression, key concepts, experiences and more can be downloaded here.

Next Steps

To learn more about leading the development of your curriculum and other aspects of leadership in education, our new leadership network hopes to inspire school and academy leaders to connect, discuss and reflect upon their individual situation, consider crucial relationships and leadership challenges within a supportive space. Each session will consider four different areas:

L eadership: Looking at various aspects of being a leader

E xperts: Speakers providing inspiration and information

A dvice: Guidance, updates, reviews and research around specific topics

D evelop: Focusing on best practice within specific areas with resources and frameworks to take away and implement for all delegates.

The dates and subjects for the academic year 2022/23 are as follows:

10th November 2022 - Leadership: Focusing on yourself as a leader; Experts: Safeguarding and Wellbeing; Advice: Research and white paper; Develop: SEF, SDP and HTPM.

2nd February 2023 - Leadership: Focusing on your leadership team; Experts: EYFS and SEND; Advice: Culture and Ethos; Develop: Curriculum reviews.

25th May 2023 - Leadership: Focusing on your school; Experts: Academisation and HR; Advice: Future of Education; Develop: Policies and Procedures

To book please visit this link. For more information on school leadership or curriculum development, please contact Jo Gray, Head of Educational development at jo.gray@oneeducation.co.uk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leading Your School: A Curriculum For All | One Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this blog, we explore all the ways you can develop a curriculum that is unique to your school, supporting the strengths of your staff and the individual needs of your children, whilst bringing together your school community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I wanted to publish one more guest post on the topic of "how we know what students know" (look back at the introduction to this post for the full text of my guest post request). My favorite idea in Loryn's piece is that formative assessment is a necessary piece of a good lesson. I encourage you to check out the resources she references and think about ways to uncover students ideas during your work with them. If you have other resources or ideas about formative assessment please share them in the comments.
We are in an age of education where proof is required to show true success. Teachers often hear the question: "how do you know your students understand?" As a middle school science teacher of ten years, it would be easy for me to say, "Well, I just do. I'm a good teacher, and I know my kids." This is not enough. We have to show evidence.

I was taken aback initially by the fact that others might not trust that I was certainly capable of ensuring my students understood and mastered material. It was difficult for me to think of tangible ways I could provide evidence of said learning to outsiders. After some time in professional development and discussion with my colleagues, it became clearer and clearer that while teachers might think that they "just know" when their students get it, it is actually impossible to assess their learning without deliberate effort on our part to look for it. Furthermore, it isn't the outsiders for which we should do this; it's our students.

So, then, how do we look for understanding? Of course, there are traditional summative quizzes and tests that provide an opportunity for students to show their learning through essays, multiple choice responses, or fill-in-the-blanks. But while summative assessments are largely important, this is merely one way to assess our students. A problem with summative assessments is, by the time students take this assessment, and by the time it is graded with feedback, it might be too late to intervene. In addition to assessing our students summatively, we must also implement deliberate formative assessment.

Whether it be hand signals and eyes closed in which students show you how well they understand a concept on a rating of 1-5, sentence stems

to help them complete a summary of what they learned that day, or five things that they learned illustrated in their instructional notebook, a product from the student needs to be created to give the teacher an idea of what they learned or didn't learn in each lesson. Page Keeley, an author for the National Science Teacher's Association, has a plethora of examples that can be used for formative assessment with little to no prep for the teacher, as does a simple Google or Pinterest search. However, searching can be daunting, so in order to streamline this part of my instruction and showcase the evidence of my students' learning, I made a simple bulletin board in which students display their evidence.

Some days it is a post-it note of a follow-up question they have over the material discussed, other days it is a concept map filled in by them and their partner. When, and only when, they show mastery, I tell them, "Staple it to the board." They proudly display this work, not showing a creative ability to neatly display their work, but a true understanding of that particular concept. I've been amazed at how much more eager students are to use their notes or discuss with their partner to formulate a correct response to be able to showcase even one word on the board. This not only incorporates the essential piece of instilling ownership in students' learning, but also holds students accountable for mastering material. Additionally, it provides an easy way for instructional coaches, colleagues, or administrators to see what students are learning when visiting classrooms.

I have found that it is not the ideas of formative assessment that teachers are lacking, rather it is the intentional effort to draw attention to the understanding that we forget to do in our very busy lives. I firmly believe that leaving this piece of teaching out bears the greatest consequences for all involved. Good teaching must show evidence of learning, or it is not good teaching.

Loryn Windwehen is an 8th grade science teacher and department coordinator at Jefferson Middle School in San Antonio, Texas. She has been teaching for nine years. Windwehen was named the 2012 Overall Teacher of the Year for North East ISD in San Antonio, TX, 2012 Region 20 Secondary Teacher of the Year in Texas, received the 2012 Kens5 ExCel Award for Excellence in Education, and was selected for the America Achieves Fellowship of Teachers and Principals. She is known for co-founding the Harris Middle School Community Garden and the famous "Green Team" which became a nationally recognized community garden program.

Follow John McCrann on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
So How Do You Know They Got It? Showing Evidence of Learning (Opinion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are in an age of education where proof is required to show true success. Teachers often hear the question: "how do you know your students understand?" As a middle school science teacher of ten years, it would be easy for me to say, "Well, I just do.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gathering evidence of student achievement

# data[].attributes.subject
Gathering evidence of student achievement

# data[].attributes.headline
Importance of gathering evidence of learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Importance of gathering evidence of learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Loading...

Thank you for your submission!

Oops, something went wrong.

Creating impactful online learning experiences that lead to improved career and classroom outcomes is a key focus of our online master's degree program. Alum Sydney Castonguay credits her experiences as a KU student for bringing her new leadership roles, community connections, and a renewed enthusiasm for education.

I've made connections here that I didn't make in brick-and-mortar schools. This is the place to be if you want to build a caring community, and be truly knowledgeable, and feel like you have a solid foundation in education.

Sydney C, M.S.E. in Special Education: High Incidence Disabilities, Graduate Certificate: Autism Spectrum Disorders

Curriculum & instruction programs

* Licensure track and non-licensure track are available
** Teacher track and non-teacher track are available

Special and inclusive education programs

**Master's building leadership track and master's non-licensure track are available

Education administration & leadership policy programs

*** Master's building leadership track and master's non-licensure track are available

Curriculum & instruction programs

Special and inclusive education programs

Educational administration & leadership policy programs

* This is a post-master's certificate that leads to endorsement.

Curriculum & instruction programs

Special & inclusive education program

The University of Kansas School of Education and Human Sciences offers a variety of online master's degree programs, graduate certificates and licensure endorsements to meet the needs of today's teachers, administrators, specialists and other education professionals.

Yes, you can complete your master's degree education or graduate teaching certificate completely online. In our online master's degree programs and licensure tracks, students study under the same award-winning faculty members and complete the same rigorous curriculum as in our on-ground programs, but also enjoy a highly personalized classroom experience within a flexible format. You'll be able to attend virtual classes and complete your coursework anywhere, at any time, through our robust, interactive online learning management system (LMS).

To prepare for a career at the best academic institutions, you have to garner the credentials and experience worthy of them. In terms of making yourself more marketable, there are several benefits to earning your online master's in education:

Teaches you advanced topics that weren't covered in your undergraduate classes

Gives you an esteemed, industry-recognized title that conveys a broad skill set and deeper knowledge

Provides insights into the education system and its policies and procedures

Demonstrates to employers that you're committed to your craft and invested in your professional growth

And, of course, there's the pay. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, your earnings increase along with your master's degree education; conversely, your likelihood of unemployment decreases. Indeed, alumni across all of our online graduate education programs reported a 36% average increase in salary within three years after graduating. ³ Across the board, workers who hold master's degrees earn 20% more than those with bachelor's degrees, which, over time, can create a sizable difference in your quality of life. ⁴

No matter the concentration you choose, an online master's in education will position you to succeed in a variety of roles, such as:

Preschool, elementary, middle school, high school, or special education teacher

Principal

Superintendent

Curriculum developer

Education consultant

Instructional coordinator

Education policy analyst

You can find more career options and salary information on our Careers page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Online Master's in Education Degrees | KU SOE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about University of Kansas online teaching programs. Get the resources you need to pursue your master's in education today.

# data[].attributes.headline
Learning Environments (Birth to 5 matters)

# data[].attributes.subject
Learning Environments (Birth to 5 matters)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enabling Environments offer children security, comfort, choice, engagement and opportunity. Children's learning is best supported when they have opportunities which allow for movement and action, creativity and imagination, independence and collaboration. Time outdoors benefits children by offering unique opportunities. Open-ended resources enable children to access and combine processes of development and learning. Inclusive spaces are nurturing and supportive of all children. Within an enabling environment, knowledgeable practitioners optimise the development and learning potential of every child.

The outdoors offers unique possibilities, and daily opportunities should be made available for children to immerse themselves in outdoor spaces, offered through regular visits to suitable local places if the setting has no outside space. Within environments that offer engaging activities with real choice, autonomy and time, children can engage and wallow in independent exploration and enquiry, connecting with other children, adults and the natural world as they benefit from what Froebel calls "freedom with guidance" - freedom of movement and activity, within a framework of supportive adult guidance.

Given access to natural resources and first-hand experiences, children will independently explore, discover and investigate, choosing the items and the environment that best suit their own interests and their development and learning needs. Such an environment will support a child's creativity and critical thinking, building the Characteristics of Effective Learning.

Provision is needed for:

diverse forms of active play, both indoors and outdoors

experiencing the real physical and natural world, as well as the social world

the space and time for children to fully discover, test and revisit their ideas and theories

cosy and quiet space for sleeping, resting, sitting quietly and sensory engagement

experiences in familiar and predictable spaces, and in those that are unfamiliar, complex and exciting

routines and adult involvement which offer support for development and learning that may be planned or may arise informally, for example when a surprise event or spontaneous opportunity presents itself

opportunities for children to explore things that they would not otherwise have access to

exposure to things where specific skills need to be taught, which would only happen if an adult initiated it, e.g. woodwork, cooking, sewing.

Children's learning is best supported when they have opportunities which allow for movement and action, creativity and imagination, independence and collaboration. An enabling environment offers:

opportunities for negotiation and collaboration with other children, as their communication, language and social skills are employed and developed

open-ended play opportunities allowing imagination and creativity to flourish, with children exploring their own ideas and theories as all areas of learning are unlocked rather than specific intended learning outcomes

opportunities to challenge their own emotional, social, physical and cognitive abilities and to take risks

time simply to be within the environments, to develop a sense of self as children explore their capabilities

a balance of relevant, interactive and celebratory displays at the child's level, as well as natural, calm and neutral backdrops that invite children's own ideas.

Time outdoors benefits children by offering unique opportunities. Being outdoors offers children unique possibilities to see longer distances, observe the horizon, experience the natural world as they feel weather, hear sounds in nature or experience changes in natural light. There is also greater scope to manipulate loose parts and other versatile resources, and to engage in appropriately energetic, risky and adventurous play. Time outdoors benefits children's health and wellbeing and all areas of development and learning. First-hand experience outdoors helps children to make sense of the world, and to learn to care for their environment. Through a sense of belonging and understanding the impact of their actions on their environment, children can become confident caretakers and problem-solvers of the future.

Natural environments support children's imaginative play and the development of peer relationships, encouraging collaboration with others. The relative freedom from rules outdoors can lead to more relaxed interactions between adults and children. The outdoors also offers the chance to experiment with the larger scales of space, shape and measure.

Open-ended resources enable children to access and combine processes of development and learning. Easily accessible, well organised and appealing resources inside and outside allow children to make choices and transform their environments. In the process, they can develop flexible thinking as they may be surprised by what happens, and they are challenged as they learn across the curriculum to develop their own working theories, their thinking and problem-solving skills.

Inclusive spaces are nurturing and supportive of all children. Spaces should be planned to both nurture and inspire children, recognising their interests and curiosities, encouraging questioning, awe and wonder, and sustained shared thinking. The environment should allow free movement, with support if needed, including easy access to the outdoors. Spaces both indoors and out should be safe and supportive, and able to be adapted responsively to children's emotions, interests, and needs through an array of engaging opportunities which take account of cultural diversity. Stimulating environments allow children to engage with all their senses, but should not become overwhelming through too much colour, noise or artificial textures.

Within an enabling environment, knowledgeable practitioners optimise the development and learning potential of every child. Knowledgeable practitioners:

consider the environment from a child's perspective, supporting a broader understanding of the real world around them and their own community

consider all locations available to children with equal priority - indoors, outside and beyond the setting - and value the time that is spent on journeying

understand that their role includes facilitating an enabling environment, rather than prioritising specific activities

consider the messages conveyed within the environment, questioning what the space is inviting children to do

support children's autonomy, explorations and risk-taking, confident that much is within the children's capabilities, with assistance if necessary.

Resources Bibliography
Previous page: Supporting development and learning | Next page: The wider context

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enabling Environments offer children security, comfort, choice, engagement and opportunity. Children's learning is best supported when they have opportunities which allow for movement and action, creativity and imagination, independence and collaboration. Time outdoors benefits children by offering unique opportunities. Open-ended resources enable children to access and combine processes of development and learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's human nature to avoid the hard things in life. There's little pleasure in "sticking with it" when the payoff seems paltry. And when it comes to building literacy skills, the relationship between putting in the practice it takes to build skills and the success that feeds the desire to practice presents a paradox-even a Catch 22. To get better, students need a lot of practice and exposure to reading and writing. Putting in that practice demands sustained effort or stamina. A key motivator for continuing to practice (thus building stamina) is experiencing some success-but success is hard to come by without putting in the practice. Students who don't experience much success in literacy often become locked in a negative feedback loop. Getting them to practice and build their strengths becomes increasingly difficult.

Consider Lena, a 3rd grader who reads at home every night. Lena frequently calls out, "Ooh, I've read that!" at the mention of a title. Reading is a joyful task for her; she's in a positive feedback loop in which reading a lot improves her ability, which in turn leads her to read more.

Julia, however, finds reading arduous. Decoding requires so much attention that as she reads, the words don't evoke images, activate schema, or connect to prior knowledge in a way that's satisfying. She avoids reading and abandons more books than she completes. Julia has entered a negative feedback loop.

How do we help students like Julia build stamina? By creating opportunities for success early and often and constructing a new narrative for their self-perception as capable learners. I'm not advocating that we lower our standards or praise everything students do to build their self-esteem. There's a huge difference between making something easier and making it easier to learn. The latter doesn't preclude experiences with rigor or even failure. Rather, it gives students strategies they can use to learn and grow from challenges and establishes conditions that let them feel safe in taking risks. It promotes a growth mindset. Making it easier to learn shifts the focus from completing a task to developing a self-extending system for learning- while completing that task.

Let's examine three methods of intentional teaching and learning to build readers' stamina and encourage a greater volume of reading, thereby increasing opportunities for success. I share here suggestions-for teachers, learners, and learning-that I've seen help underachieving students build greater resilience as readers and writers.

Considerations for Teachers: Scaffold the Process, Not the Just the Activity

Teachers often use scaffolds to support their students. Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) defined scaffolding as a process "that enables a child or novice to solve a task or achieve a goal that would be beyond his unassisted efforts" (p. 90). Although Vygotsky never used the term scaffold, his Zone of Proximal Development (the "distance between a child's actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the higher level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance") is a related concept (Vygotksy, 1978, p. 86).

This research and writing on scaffolding has had a tremendous influence on pedagogy. However, I believe a common misinterpretation of the role of a scaffold has occasionally created more dependence than independence for some learners. A scaffold is intended to be a temporary structure. In practice, too often it has become a catch-all way of offering help with a task rather than encouraging independent problem solving.

A Tale of Two Teachers

Consider two classrooms. Before inviting students to silently read "The Raven," one teacher writes on the board words that might be difficult for students to comprehend ( quaint, entreating, obeisance, decorum) and their definitions.

In another classroom, a teacher introduces "The Raven" by reading the first two stanzas aloud. She asks, "What's the mood of this poem? How does it make you feel?" Students respond with, "Sad. Scared. Kinda spooked."

She continues, "Poe wrote this a long time ago, in a style we don't talk like today. Are there any words he used that you don't know?" Students call out several words. Without defining the words, she invites students to read the poem with this strategy: "When you're reading and you get to a tricky word, think about the style and mood of the poem to help you make your best guess about what Poe is trying to say. Even if you don't know every word, slow down and reread. Think about the context to create a picture in your head." She goes on to model an example.

Clearly, these two teachers took different scaffolding approaches. Which class would you say came away better equipped to read "The Raven" and similar texts? When deciding on scaffolds that will help students build stamina for extended literacy engagement, ask yourself whether this scaffold

Encourages stamina to stick with a complex text.

Allows students an opportunity to struggle a bit and still find success.

Invites problem solving or requires continued support.

Allows for transfer of a strategy to other texts/tasks.

Eventually fades or becomes obsolete with experience and practice.

If we shift our goal from merely having learners complete a task to helping them build a strategic system while working on tasks, we can choose better scaffolds. Students don't lose stamina simply because they struggle. They lose stamina when they struggle with no strategies or hope of success.

One of my mantras is "whoever does the work, does the learning!" If we do all the heavy lifting for students in reading complex texts or writing, they begin to lean on that support rather than learn from it.

Considerations for Students: Sit in the Driver's Seat

For students who struggle with stamina in reading and writing, the end of the journey can seem too far away. They often give up when completing a task seems beyond their ability. They feel defeated before the journey begins. We need to help them focus on their driving more than on their destination.

The Tale of One Driver

Jafaar is writing a response to a reading in social studies. Before he puts pencil to paper, he must make dozens of decisions. What will he say first? How will he describe what he's thinking? How will he organize and sequence his ideas? While writing, he often pauses midsentence to think of the precise word he wants to use. He may have to consider the spelling or the verb conjugation. When he finishes a sentence, he rereads to monitor for cohesion with other sentences or contemplate the clarity of his idea, and then decides what comes next. Jafaar realizes that he has far less writing on his paper than his peers do. He's not feeling successful in reaching the destination.

So much of the writing process happens in the space I call "between the words"-in the thinking and decision making that learners often give themselves little credit for. Jafaar is quite strategic but isn't aware of it. He's so focused on the distance to the destination that he cannot see how successfully he's navigating. Teachers have an opportunity to change the narrative for learners like Jafaar.

I love sharing with students the metaphor of the brain as a car and the student as the driver. Teachers can use this metaphor to help students appreciate all the decisions and actions they take as writers and to raise their metacognitive awareness. For that car to go anywhere, the driver needs to make lots of decisions, many of which aren't even conscious. Compare adjusting the seat and mirrors to how people prepare themselves and their tools to start writing. Just as the driver decides when to turn, slow down, or stop, writers make important decisions about word choice, structure, and when to shift to a new point.

Students are empowered when they understand they are the ones driving their brains and their learning. We can then make the analogy between the long distances one often has to drive a car and the stamina required to complete a longer writing journey.

Educators might want to become familiar with the work of neuropsychologists who are making the study of the brain's structure and function more accessible and applicable to our pedagogy. We don't need to know the details of this research, but it's important to become aware of its implications and share them with students.

For the Learning: Show a Tangible History

There's a lot of buzz these days about the concept of grit and mindset. Duckworth (2016) describes grit as "the combination of passion and perseverance." But we can't just ask our students to muster grit-it needs to be cultivated. Duckworth leans on Carol Dweck's (2006) work on a fixed mindset (a belief that intelligence or ability is predetermined) versus a growth mindset (a belief that abilities are developed through hard work). Dweck contends, "The passion for stretching yourself and sticking to it, even ... when it's not going well, is the hallmark of the growth mindset."

Herein lies the Catch 22. Many struggling readers lose their "stick-to-it-ness" during challenging times because they haven't experienced the success that lies at the end of the hard work. They experience the hard part, but don't see the growth part. We have to make that growth visible to our struggling readers, help them refine their definitions of success so they don't merely compare themselves to others, but see the trajectory of their own learning. I've found two effective approaches for accomplishing this: delivering the right feedback and providing evidence.

A Tale of Two Feedback Efforts

Words matter. If we choose them mindfully, the words we use to give learners feedback can empower them to persist.

Amani's teacher knows word problems in math have been difficult for her, so she checks in frequently to encourage her. Each time she stops by, she offers some support: "You're doing great. Keep it up." Yet Amani finishes only about a third of the assigned problems by the end of class.

Zharra is also struggling with word problems, unsure whether she should add or subtract. Her teacher, Ms. Phelps, offers this support: "I see you know how to pull the numbers out of the word problem to make your equation. That helps you to start. So now, which signal words do you see [on the anchor chart] that were used in the problem?"

Zharra reads the problem again and says, "In all." Ms. Phelps responds, "Signal words signal us to choose an operation. What operation will you choose?" When Zharra answers "Addition," rather than confirming, the teacher asks, "How do you know?" Zharra replies, " All means everything, so I put all the numbers together."

Praising Amani's effort might make her feel good in the short term, but won't sustain her persistence as she becomes more confused. In contrast, Zharra received more actionable information to help her problem solve-not only on this problem, but on all the others.

Conferring with students about their process after a lesson can also foster the growth mindset they'll need to develop grit. Inviting them to reflect on what was difficult and how they faced it and reminding them that struggling was part of their new learning can help students tap into those reserves the next time they feel themselves losing stamina. Questions like these help focus on the learning process or strategic thinking:

A Trail of Evidence

Some kids hear us talking about their growth, but they can't visualize it. Hearing it is one thing, seeing it is another. Teachers proclaim how important the process is, but displaying finished pieces of student work, or grading an assignment emphasizes product. This can give struggling students mixed messages about what we value. Instead, to emphasize the process, we should also try to publically share evidence of students' progress and celebrate effort. For example:

Use "look-fors." When responding to student writing, I often suggest that students use "look-fors"-notes that direct the reader's attention to intentional moves a student has made in their writing ("I would like you to notice that I used sensory words to describe my setting and dialogue to develop my character"). Such notes help make the invisible process that went into creating the writing more visible to everyone, including the writer herself. Rather than comparing one student's writing to another's, the audience-including the student-can appreciate the learning that the writer accomplished to create the piece.

Showcase process. I recommend posting drafts, mark-ups, edits, and revisions alongside the finished piece of work to spotlight using the writing process. This celebrates the 'messiness' of writing that often discourages our underachieving students, many of whom believe that good writers don't need to revise, but just know what they want a piece to say.

Make it count. One of the simplest ways to show growth is to measure and track volume. If we're working on writing stamina, I might ask students to count up the number of words written in a set number of minutes and track their progress over time. Tracking some measure can help build fluency for reading sight words, automaticity for math facts, or other skills in which students' fluency impacts their stamina.

Reflect with portfolios. Student portfolios can create a tangible learning history for students if students revisit and reflect on the portfolio with a growth mindset goal. For example, students can showcase pieces of work on a bulletin board labeled "I Used to ___, Now I ___." They can spotlight areas of growth in their thinking and learning, backed up by tangible evidence.

Preventing the Paradox

I recommend trying these methods with all student readers and writers to encourage stamina and a growth mindset. It's crucial, however, to be even more purposeful when we see students caught in a negative feedback loop that inhibits their stamina and ensnares them in the Catch-22 of a fixed mindset.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Building Stamina for Struggling Readers and Writers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Readers can get into a Catch 22: To improve requires much practice, but it's hard to get motivated to practice without success.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is talk to writing?

The type of scaffolding activities that can be used to support this include:

1. Building up knowledge of a specific context;

2. Shared reading of models of texts;

3. Joint construction of the text (shared writing).

Such learning cycles allow learners to integrate developing concepts and language which supports them to progress from informal, spoken language to the more formal and academic language, which is required for written language. This progress trajectory has been called

Examples of activities

1. Collaborative activities

Learners who use English as an Additional Language (EAL) need plenty of hands-on and interactive experiences in meaningful contexts to build up concepts. They also need encouragement to use new and explicit vocabulary of the curriculum area. Collaborative talk also provides active listening practice.

Working collaboratively on shared tasks: for example, school trips and educational visits, science experiments, following directions, giving and following instructions, matching, sorting, sequencing activities, and competitive games.

2. Developing vocabulary

Introducing and rehearsing vocabulary : for example, pre-teaching key vocabulary.

Applying some simple quick wins such as prompting vocabulary by providing options in the choice of vocabulary required for learners to recall alongside talk. This can also be achieved using visuals, finger talk, actions, and gestures.

Memorising chunks of language using language drills .

Playing well known adapted games using flashcards (snap, bingo).

Using speaking frames, with gap fills, to recall new vocabulary in context.

3. Visuals

provide context for taught content. Use visuals that scaffold and prompt talk such as:

Story props or story sacks (visual and objects) - helpful to scaffold the retelling of a story in sequence.

Concrete objects (realia) - e.g., to scaffold identifying and naming objects.

Flashcards , with pictures and words - to play collaborative matching games.

Media (for instance, videos).

Visual word mats.

Bilingual keywords or glossaries, particularly for learners who are literate in their first language.

4. Modelling

provides learners with a written or oral model of the language that the teacher would like the learner to produce. Here are some examples of activities that model oral structures prior to writing taking place:

Speaking frames : A speaking frame can be used orally to and practice models of vocabulary, language, and sentence structures for specific writing genres. For example, a sentence with a language pattern with gaps to complete not only provides the opportunity for learners to rehearse the language form, but also allows them to practise recalling the vocabulary in the gaps. Speaking frames can be adapted for different levels of English language proficiency. Roman soldiers is an example of a resource that performs this function.

Shared reading : This can be carried out with the teacher first preparing a model of the text to write (for example, an instruction text). The teacher and the whole class or small groups of learners can read such a text together. The sentences in the text can have gaps for learners to fill in. This provides opportunity for the teacher to bring learners' close attention to the specific language structures of the genre being taught.

Substitution tables: A substitution table is a type of activity where a teacher provides a table giving model sentences with a range of choices for learners to select from, using a set pattern. It is a useful scaffolding resource which provides opportunity to rehearse and extend speaking skills, and in turn prepares learners for writing. A substitution table can be easily adapted for different levels of English language proficiency by providing visuals or sentences with different levels of complexity. Here is an example, from the resource How to Grow a Plant .

Sequencing jumbled up sentences: Learners work in pairs to sequence a set of sentences. These sentences can be matched to a corresponding visual.

Joint construction of text: This involves the teacher and the learners writing together (shared writing). Learners are encouraged to contribute orally to the writing and act as scribes alongside the teacher to construct the text. During this process, you can use oracy strategies, for instance, prompt words or phrases, provide a choice of vocabulary to include, visual word banks, and recasting modelled language. This will scaffold language and support the participation of learners who use EAL.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Talk to writing" occurs when a teacher plans scaffolded activities that allow learners to orally rehearse explicit vocabulary, sentence, and language structures that they require in order to write.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Speaking and Writing Frames - The Bell Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Great Idea: Speaking and Writing Frames Play What are speaking and writing frames? Speaking and writing frames provide models of sentence construction, language structures, and vocabulary for EAL learners to use orally within a curriculum context. There are various different types: Sentence starters…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What children learn does not follow as an automatic result from what is taught, rather, it is in large part due to the children's own doing, as a consequence of their activities and our resources.
-Loris Malaguzzi, The Hundred Languages of Children

The author of these words, Loris Malaguzzi, was the founder and director of the renowned municipal preschools of Reggio Emilia, Italy. Malaguzzi passed away two decades ago, but we hope he would be pleased with the progress early childhood educators in North America have made toward understanding his pedagogical lessons. His philosophy-a blend of theory and practice that challenges educators to see children as competent and capable learners in the context of group work (Fraser & Gestwicki 2002)-differs from the widely accepted Piagetian perspective that views child development as largely internal and occurring in stages (Mooney 2013). Malaguzzi emphasized that "it was not so much that we need to think of the child who develops himself by himself but rather of a child who develops himself interacting and developing with others" (Rankin 2004, 82). As such, at the core of the Reggio Emilia philosophy is its emphasis on building and sustaining relationships.

Much like Vygotzky, Malaguzzi believed that social learning preceded cognitive development (Gandini 2012). He emphasized that the environment plays a central role in the process of making learning meaningful. So important was this notion, that Malaguzzi defined the environment as the third teacher (Gandini 2011). Malaguzzi's third teacher is a flexible environment, responsive to the need for teachers and children to create learning together. Fostering creativity through the work of young hands manipulating objects or making art, it is an environment that reflects the values we want to communicate to children. Moreover, the classroom environment can help shape a child's identity as a powerful player in his or her own life and the lives of others. To foster such an environment, teachers must go deeper than what is merely seen at eye level and develop a deep understanding of the underlying principles and of children's thinking, questions, and curiosities.

A little more than a decade ago, Pinnacle Presbyterian Preschool, in Scottsdale, Arizona, began implementing a program directly influenced by the schools of Reggio Emilia. Inspired by the writings of Lella Gandini, we began a fond relationship with the author and educator, inviting Gandini to visit our school with regularity.

Lella Gandini is best known in North America as the leading advocate for the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Her numerous publications include writings on early childhood education and folklore, and she is coauthor or coeditor of such works as Insights and Inspirations From Reggio Emilia: Stories of Teachers and Children From North America and The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education. It is through our friendship with Lella Gandini that we have implemented strategies that empower teachers to use space and materials to ignite learning. For example, teachers notice in early autumn that the children are taking an interest in spider webs on the playground. Several 4-year-olds discover the strands reflecting the sunlight on a fence post. The teachers know the finding has sparked the children's curiosity when the children ask to photograph the web. Classroom teacher Keri Woolsey describes her response:

We try to integrate the writing and prewriting skills with the children, so I told the children, "Oh my gosh, I don't have my camera; could you draw it for me?" They ran inside the classroom and got clipboards, paper, and markers and hurried back to the playground. And then they began to draw. Some of these kids typically don't really want to try to write or draw, just because they are not confident with those skills. Yet here they are jumping at the task because it was meaningful to them. No matter what the drawing looked like, it was a total celebration of what they were learning.

Creating a flexible, relationship-driven learning environment

Relationships are at the very heart of the Reggio Emilia philosophy. That philosophy is reflected in an environment that encircles the child with three "teachers," or protagonists. The first teacher-the parent-takes on the role of active partner and guide in the education of the child. The second is the classroom teacher. Often working in pairs, the classroom teacher assumes the role of researcher and intentionally engages children in meaningful work and conversation. The third teacher is the environment-a setting designed to be not only functional but also beautiful and reflective of the child's learning. It is the child's relationship with parent, teacher, and environment that ignites learning.

Children construct their own knowledge through a carefully planned curriculum that engages and builds upon the child's current knowledge, recognizing that knowledge cannot simply be provided for the child. The curriculum, often emergent in nature, is based on the interests of the children. When learning is the product of the child's guided construction rather than simply the teacher's transmission and the child's absorption, learning becomes individualized. Most important, teaching becomes a two-way relationship in which the teacher's understanding of the child is just as important as the child's understanding of the teacher.

Emergent curriculum is not a free-for-all. It requires that teachers actively seek out and chase the interests of the children. This kind of teaching environment demands a high degree of trust in the teacher's creative abilities, and envisions an image of the child as someone actively seeking knowledge. It is a perspective that turns structured curriculum, with predetermined outcomes, on its head. A standardized curriculum that is designed to replicate outcomes often eliminates all possibility of spontaneous inquiry, stealing potential moments of learning from students and teachers in a cookie-cutter approach to education in the classroom. Given the diversity of the children we teach, accepting a canned recipe for teaching, evaluation, and assessment is problematic at best. Each child we teach is unique, requiring us to use our own judgment, instead of rules, to guide our teaching practice. To teach well, educators must ensure that creativity and innovation are always present. Although good teaching requires organization and routines, it is never inflexible and rarely routine. It dances with surprise. It pursues wonder. It finds joy at every turn.

Flexible environments allow teachers to be responsive to the interests of the children, freeing them to construct knowledge together. This is apparent in our example of the spider investigation. The teachers could simply leave behind the children's interest in spiders, limiting the activity to the playground. Instead, they encourage the children to draw what they observe and to share those observations and drawings during class circle time. To be sure, the teachers already have an activity planned for the daily circle time; they set it aside to pursue knowledge on a subject that has sparked the children's imaginations. One of the classroom teachers, Kristine Lundquist, describes what happened next.

We asked the children what they knew about spiders and spider webs. Living in the desert, spiders of all shapes and sizes are common. So we were not surprised when the children bubbled forth with ideas about how webs are created or stories of brave dads removing spiders from rooms in their homes. We wrote down the children's comments and included them in the daily journal email to parents. The very next day on the playground the children were at it once again, finding and exclaiming, rather loudly, that another spider had been discovered.

The teachers take action, at first by seeking out spider storybooks in the school library and checking out non-fiction books from the local library. A chance conversation between one of the teachers and her neighbor results in the donation of a live tarantula-elevating the investigation to the next level. Parents, alerted to the spider investigation through daily email communication, begin talking and reading about spiders with their children at home. The construction of knowledge becomes apparent as children include egg sacs, spinnerets, and multiple eyes in their drawings; count off the legs of the spiders; and compare spiders to other insects found on the playground.

Creating environments that reflect our values

Surprisingly, in our efforts to define best practices, we seldom address the vision of how our values are communicated through our practice. Once we get beyond standards in literacy and numeracy, what do we hope to achieve? What kind of culture do we want the children to experience in our schools? A few years ago, our staff attended a conference at one of the local community colleges presented by Deb Curtis and Margie Carter. Titled "Reflecting With the Thinking Lens," the conference was designed to help teachers and schools cultivate creative and reflective thinking about their teaching environments (Curtis et al. 2013). Margie Carter suggested that as a teaching team we create a simple worksheet to help us consider how our values are reflected in our classroom environments.

When we evaluate the spider investigation, the worksheet reflects the learning occurring in our classroom, modifications needed to the environments, and introductions of new materials. Using evaluation tools like this, the teaching team at Pinnacle meets each week as a group and also several times during the week with classroom teaching partners. This time for teachers to learn from each other is scheduled into the week and never compromised. It is time devoted to discuss their work, their hopes and concerns, and their ideas with other colleagues. It is a recognition that learning to teach well rarely occurs during college instruction, but rather within the context of classroom experiences and discussions with colleagues. We believe that learning to teach well is a lifelong endeavor. As such, we define ourselves as colearners with our students. Behaving more as researchers, teachers provide meaning and demonstrate values as teachers and students construct learning together.

One thing we know for certain is that students will thrive in a school environment where the teachers themselves are thriving. The best schools nurture the teachers who work there as well as the students who learn within the walls. Learning from our colleagues deserves time and attention, as it opens up new ideas about what professional development should be. Changing outcomes in classrooms requires teachers to challenge what they know and what they think is developmentally appropriate, and to reach beyond pedagogical techniques. In our experience, this can happen only in an environment that is respectful of differences in viewpoint, supportive in trying something new, and mindful of the willingness of teachers to shed their sensitivity and isolation. Teachers who have grown accustomed to working alone transform their thinking into creating solutions as they share with their colleagues. This transformation in teaching practices can happen only in an environment where collaboration and discussion are highly valued.

Creating environments that foster creativity

Teaching for creativity involves asking open-ended questions where there may be multiple solutions; working in groups on collaborative projects, using imagination to explore possibilities; making connections between different ways of seeing; and exploring the ambiguities and tensions that may lie between them.
-Ken Robinson, Out Of Our Minds: Learning to Be Creative

There is much about the Reggio Emilia approach that distinguishes it from other efforts to define best practices in early childhood education. Much of the worldwide attention has been on the program's emphasis on children's symbolic languages, lovingly referred to as the hundred languages of children. George Forman and Brenda Fyfe (2012) describe the hundred languages of children as symbolic languages children use to express their own knowledge and desires through artwork, conversation, early writing, dramatic play, music, dance, and other outlets. Recognizing that at the very core of creativity is our desire to express ourselves, Reggio Emilia schools create environments that inspire and support creative thinking and invention. If building and sustaining relationships are to be the foundation of a learning community, then creativity must always be present. Creativity is the conduit-the instrument that allows us to communicate with and understand others.

At Pinnacle, every learning space has paper and writing instruments. In the imaginary play spaces within the classrooms and the playground outside, children are actively writing and drawing. It becomes a part of the culture of learning, a process that is internalized within the group. We have made a conscious effort to steer away from purchasing ready-made materials, such as pre-cut foam pieces or rubber stamps, and instead spend resources on paper, clipboards, and multiple forms of writing and drawing tools. Asking children to draw what they see and then revisit the subject later to add yet more detail is the very essence of scientific observation. When the tarantula joins the classroom, teachers place magnifying glasses, small clipboards with paper, and markers next to the terrarium. They place nonfiction books about spiders on the shelf near the terrarium and display close-up pictures of different kinds of spiders. Rather than instructing the children, the teachers set up the provocation and then take a step back.

In Reggio Emilia-inspired schools, teachers place great emphasis on using materials and activities that provoke investigation and group learning. As expected, being curious and inventive little people, the children are very excited about the new spider addition to their classroom. They closely watch the tarantula, using the magnifying glasses to see the details and then drawing what they observe. The conversation is lively and loud as they speculate about where the spider came from, what the spider eats, whether it is a boy or a girl spider, and how the spider compares to the other spiders in the photographs. When the children ask their teachers what kind of spider it is, the teachers seem uncertain and wonder aloud how the class might figure it out. "We don't jump at giving them the answers," explains Jane Barber, classroom teacher. "Our intent is to focus on the processes of discovery, to teach them how to learn by not only observing but also using resources such as books and the Internet. We act as guides in the hunt for information." In the weeks that follow numerous drawings of spiders are on display in the classroom, and the children count the legs and eyes, write their names on their drawings, and ask how to spell tarantula, spinnaret, and egg sac. The children want to write, because the writing is meaningful to them. The scientific inquiry, early literacy, and math opportunities naturally fall into place around the spider investigation.

Fostering creativity through investigations

Creativity seems to emerge from multiple experiences, coupled with a well-supported development of personal resources, including a sense of freedom to venture beyond the known.
-Loris Malaguzzi, The Hundred Languages of Children

Just off the center courtyard of our school there is a lovely building called the atelier, a French word, meaning workroom or artist's studio. Historically, an atelier serves not only as a place where seamstresses, carpenters, painters, sculptors, and other artists could create their products, but also as a place that could offer inspiration and answers to their questions. Inspired by the schools of Reggio Emilia, we have created a special place, separate from the classrooms, where children use creative art as a tool to represent their ideas and feelings.

Though classrooms have a scheduled time each week to visit the atelier, teachers are welcome to bring small groups to the atelier to create at any time. The two teachers in our atelier have a close relationship with the classroom teachers. As colleagues, they communicate about the interests of the children and work going on in the classroom. Today, the children arrive in the atelier to find a shadow of a spider cast across the white tiled floor. They delight in this discovery and wonder how this can possibly be. Some reach down with hesitant hands to touch the dark shadow on the floor. Encouraged, they soon search out the source of the bright light. In the corner is an overhead projector with a spider photograph laying on the light tray. The teachers allow them to touch the equipment and investigate. They giggle at the discovery that the spider on the floor moves when the photograph moves. Some children ask if they can draw the spider. Anticipating this request, the teachers tear off a long sheet of butcher paper and the children sprawl out on the floor and begin to trace the shadow.

Although investigations often begin with children representing what they know through drawing, creating three-dimensional artwork is highly valued by teachers as a way to extend the learning. Clay, wire, wood, and recycled materials are used daily in the classrooms and the atelier to help children express what they know. As such, we ensure that the classrooms have many different kinds of materials that help the children piece it all together. Materials such as masking tape, packaging tape, wire, clay, and various kinds of glues and adhesives are available at easy access to the children. Again, we steer away from prepackaged materials. Instead we use open-ended, recycled materials, which are often donated by the parents. Children learn how to glue, cut, fold, tear, balance, and solve problems in the context of project work. Although the end product is deemed lovely, it is not the driver of the activity. Rather, it is the process of creating-the enjoyment of creating together-that is at the forefront of the endeavor.

An opportunity to move the children toward creating three-dimensional art becomes apparent during one of the class conversations. Ms. Woosley, the classroom teacher, explains, "It's really surprising to us that it is the spider webbing the children are most interested in. One of the boys expressed concern that they were having trouble remembering where all of the webs were on the playground. We suggested creating a map of the playground, mapping where the spider webs were located. The children liked that idea." A committee of students is formed to investigate how to make a map. Because the teachers are aware of another map project occurring on campus, they collaborate with colleagues in another classroom. The Spider Web Committee is invited to meet with the other classroom students to discuss strategies for mapping the playground.

In the weeks that follow, the two classrooms-using their individual drawings as guides-will create together one three-dimensional map of the playground. They label the spider web locations and create a map legend. Their knowledge of spider webs was extended to understanding maps, use of legends, and a compass, all within the context of group work.

Celebrating the child's identity

Those of us who have been fortunate to teach for years in early childhood know well the elation we experience when our teaching goes well-when everything clicks into place. Our students share this same feeling when they experience success. This sense and level of satisfaction children experience creates an appetite for learning, a hunger to do it again-and again and again.

This is never more evident than the moment a child understands that he or she belongs, that he or she is a member of the group. In the first week of classes, teachers quickly cluster 8-inch by 10-inch photographs of the children on the walls surrounding the classroom circle space. Their names are printed boldly next to their images. As soon as possible, drawings and other forms of artwork appear next to each child's photograph, with the child's name written in his or her own hand, and a quotation about something the child likes.

But this is just the start of building the child's identity. As you walk around the classroom space, you find family photographs donated by the parents and a basket of "All About Me" books that the parents have created using family photographs. These personal books are read over and over again as children seek comfort in sharing the names and faces of those most dear to them. There are individual mailboxes with their names and individual cubby spaces that belong only to them. It is an environment that opens its arms wide, surrounding children with a sense of who they are.

Project work and investigations easily lend themselves to fostering a child's sense of identity. With the spider investigation, the teachers suggest that the children create a Bug Club. The Bug Club meets on the playground each day and sets out to find bugs and spider webs. "There were some children who were not engaged in the spider hunts occurring on the playground. However, when we created the Bug Club, everyone wanted to join in," says Jane Barber, a classroom teacher. "We suggested that each child have a name badge to identify them as part of the club." Using simple card stock, with yarn as a lanyard, the children draw a picture of their favorite bug and write their own first name. In addition, the children create their own Bug Club Journal. They use these journals to draw the creatures they find and to write down new words. The Bug Club Journals have the child's name and photograph on the cover. To be a member of the Bug Club, you need your name badge, your journal, and a writing tool such as a marker, crayon, or pencil. As hoped, the children jumped at the chance to be a member of the club. "It just took off. We moved outside the playground, just beyond the gate, and the children were so excited. All they wanted to do was draw and draw. We were surprised and pleased at how they stayed on task, how careful they were with their drawings. Venturing out with the Bug Club became a part of our daily routine," says Kristine Lundquist, classroom teacher.

As all teachers and parents know, there is a big difference between what a child is capable of doing and what a child is willing to do. You cannot teach someone who does not want to learn or someone who does not believe he or she can learn. If we want to promote the hunger for learning, then we should create environments in which students and teachers feel safe to venture beyond what is already known-environments that reflect our values and celebrate students and teachers as uniquely creative individuals.

Author's Note: Transforming education happens only when we transform our teaching. My deep appreciation to Sabrina Ball, Jane Barber, Keri Woolsey, Kristine Lundquist, and the staff at Pinnacle for their leadership in creating playful and inquiry-based learning environments.

Photos courtesy of the author

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inspired by Reggio Emilia: Emergent Curriculum in Relationship-Driven Learning Environments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To promote the hunger for learning, create environments that reflect our values and celebrate students and teachers as uniquely creative individuals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This enabling environment audit is designed to provide a framework with which to evaluate the current environment from all perspectives and focus attention on areas that require improvement. Current research has proved that the environment can have a significant impact on well-being as well as children's learning and development. The audit reflects areas highlighted in EYFS guidelines and also aspects from innovative pedagogies such as the Reggio Emilia approach.

When completing the audit take time to observe the environment, try to imagine viewing it for the first time and from different perspectives; as a teacher, a child, a parent/carer compiling a 360° view. To aid observation also take images -and from different heights (child/ adult). Consult with children, parents and governors to also get their opinions and input. Having children take photographs can be a useful tool to support this. When you review images together they are likely to be much more communicative that if asked direct questions. Please feel free to share this document.

In order to allow children to develop their creativity we need to allow children to construct their learning, make discoveries, make connections. We need to offer them real experiences. They need to spaces in which they can communicate, stretch their thinking and spaces of quiet reflection. The environment needs to offer many varied opportunities for children to express their imagination and creativity.

The environment needs to be conducive to emotional well-being and learning - the audit looks at a wide range of aspects from aesthetics and stimulation to physical factors such as noise levels and light quality. It is crucial that we also ensure the outdoor area also supports growth and learning - research has shown that children can learn even more effectively outdoors.

When we want to implement change it can at times seem overwhelming. It is important to agree on priorities, set achievable objectives and then implement improvements on a realistic timescale.

The audit starts by looking at general aspects affecting wellbeing, then looks at the aspects that affect the indoor environment followed by the outdoor environment. It is essential to consider how children can also be consulted and contribute their ideas in this audit process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Early Years 360° Environment Audit - free - Irresistible Learning - Pete Moorhouse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Early Years 360 Environment Audit - Comprehensive environment audit form This enabling environment audit is designed to provide a framework with which to evaluate the current environment from all perspectives and focus attention on areas that require improvement. Current research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cognitive Load Theory: A teacher’s guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How can you use Cognitive Load Theory to improve learning outcomes in your classroom?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teaching assistants (TAs) are one of the biggest investments we make in terms of provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and those eligible for the Additional funding for publicly funded schools in England to... Pupil Premium More funding. Most TAs spend the majority of their time supporting these pupils in lessons across the curriculum. Yet, perhaps counter-intuitively, the evidence shows that this is one of the least effective ways to improve outcomes.

The largest UK study of the impact of classroom support staff found that pupils who got the most Teaching Assistant - an adult that assists the teacher in th... More support performed less well academically than those who received little or no support - regardless of whether they had underlying SEND or low prior attainment (Blatchford et al., 2011).

The common-sense view is that children who experience difficulties with learning require more support, and this tends to come from TAs. Yet, as the evidence also reveals, a side-effect of this arrangement - and something of which teachers need to be mindful - is that pupils who require high-quality teaching the most receive the least (Webster, 2017). Separation from the classroom and the teacher is a key factor in the explanations of impact.

There are two other components to this explanation. Firstly, there are the interactions that TAs have with pupils. The evidence shows that, compared with teacher-pupil interactions, TA-pupil interactions are less academically demanding and more task-driven. TAs tend to focus on getting the task completed - and completed correctly - which can foster an unnecessary dependency. Secondly, there is the preparedness. This relates to the training that TAs have had (or not) to support learning effectively, and the training that teachers have received (or not) to know how to make the most of TAs in their classrooms. Preparedness also concerns the nature and quality of planning, preparation and feedback between teachers and TAs.

The central thesis of the work my colleagues and I do with schools is not that TAs are ineffective, but that school leaders and teachers do not always make the best decisions about how to deploy and work with TAs. The key to unlocking the potential of TAs is an effective partnership. And the best partnerships are characterised by seamless, fluid movements around the classroom, and an almost-telepathic understanding of who needs to do what, with which children, and when. It is a bit like watching a pair of accomplished dancers executing their moves.

So, how can new teachers develop an effective 'classroom choreography' with TAs?

Know your dance routine

First and foremost, TAs should not be used as an informal teaching resource for disadvantaged learners and those with SEND. The first line of defence in raising attainment is high-quality, teacher-led teaching. Ensure that you spend sufficient time with these pupils.

In partner dancing, one person usually takes the lead. This is you. Your mantra should be 'supplement, not replace'. How can you organise the classroom to ensure that TAs add value to your teaching? Aim to deploy TAs in ways that free up opportunities for you to work with struggling pupils. For example, set up the classroom in such a way that on day one, the teacher works with one group, the TA with another, and the other groups complete tasks collaboratively or independently. On day two, rotate the adults and activities, and so on throughout the week. Or you could deploy the TA in a 'triage' role. Ensure that they know how to identify the pupils who are the most stuck and need your input to progress, and direct your attention to where your expertise is urgently needed. Some teachers give TAs a more visible role in teaching, scribing answers on the whiteboard or demonstrating equipment. This is useful for you as it allows you to maintain eye contact with the class.

A SENCO I know talks about teachers and TAs 'knowing their dance routine'. The best classroom partnerships are built on a clear and specified understanding of who does what. Mapping out your roles at various stages of a lesson can help you develop and embed practices. We have devised a template to help you coordinate your steps and avoid treading on each other's toes (Education Endowment Foundation, 2015).

Increase TAs' repertoire

A consistent finding in the research on TA effectiveness (Giangreco, 2010) is that pupils who receive the highest amounts of support are at risk of developing learned helplessness. We can turn this around by encouraging TAs to foster pupil independence - and dial down dependence - by ensuring that their interactions focus on the processes of learning, not products (i.e. task completion). To do this, you may need to support the TAs you work with to build or refine their interaction skills. Think of this as helping to build their repertoire of dance steps, and ensure the consistent execution of signature moves.

Figure 1 shows a straightforward, practical Progressively introducing students to new concepts to suppor... scaffolding More framework to support better TA-pupil interaction, based on the work of Paula Bosanquet and Julie Radford (Bosanquet et al., 2016).

The transformative potential of the scaffolding framework lies in an apparent contradiction: TAs should always give pupils the least amount of help first. Let us consider how this works in practice by unpacking the five layers of the framework.

1. Self-scaffolding: The TA's default position is to observe pupil performance, allowing time and space for them to process, think and try tasks independently. TAs need to get comfortable with pupils struggling a bit and recognise this as an essential part of learning.

2. Prompting: TAs intervene with a nudge or encouragement - 'What do you need to do first?'; 'What's your plan?'; 'You can do this!'

3. Clueing: Often, pupils know the problem-solving strategies that prompts are designed to elicit, but they find it difficult to call them to mind. Clues are a question or small piece of information to help pupils work out how to move forward. They should be drip-fed; always start with a small clue.

4. Modelling: Usually the teacher will have modelled new skills and strategies for the class, but some pupils may require further demonstration. TAs can do additional modelling while pupils actively watch and listen, before trying the same step for themselves afterwards.

5. Correcting: Correction is simply where TAs provide answers and it requires no independent thinking. Avoid.

Pupils can internalise, practise and perfect independent learning skills over time and add them to their store of self-scaffolding techniques. But as you get to know your new class(es), you will need to ascertain whether pupils have a set of strategies to help them plan, problem-solve and review their work independently, and where and how TAs can help them improve these.

Rehearse and review

One of the biggest barriers to fully unlocking the potential of classroom support is the lack of opportunities for teachers and TAs to meet to plan and prepare. This is a good example of the important strategic step that school leaders need to undertake in order to support their staff to collaborate, share and create better teaching and learning opportunities for pupils.

It is worth reflecting on why effective teacher-TA liaison is so essential to effective classroom partnerships. Here is how one TA put it to me: 'You come into a classroom, you listen to the 20 minutes of teaching, and from that, you should know. And then you're to feed it to the children. It's scary.' (Webster et al., 2016)

Unpacking this, we can see that in the absence of a pre-lesson briefing, this TA has to tune in to the teacher's whole-class input in order to understand the concepts being taught, skills to be learned or applied, tasks and instructions, and the intended learning outcomes. Then she is expected to apply her judgment and provide any differentiation she deems necessary (this is what she means by 'feed it to the children'). Add to this the very probable subject and instructional knowledge differential that exists between teachers and TAs, and the fact that she is working with those who find it hardest to access teaching. Scary, indeed.

Teaching is a craft mostly acquired on the job; it is the same for TAs. In reality, when it comes to perfecting your classroom partnership, there is not much time for rehearsal. But as the 'lead partner', it is your responsibility to ensure that TAs are prepared and know their role in the lesson. Should you and your TA get non-contact time, avoid using it to get them to do admin tasks. Focus on communicating the lesson 'need to knows'. Structure your conversations by agreeing a checklist of things to cover.

Effective and efficient lesson planning starts with a good understanding of what pupils could and could not do at the end of the previous lesson. Be clear about what you want TAs to feed back. Ask them to record their observations on pupil performance as they are working. You could set process success criteria and ask TAs to capture observations against the layers of the scaffolding framework using our editable template (Bosanquet et al., 2016).

Building an effective classroom partnership with your TA can make a significant difference to young lives.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Supplement, not replace: Use TAs to add value to your teaching, not replace you. Avoid deploying TAs as an informal teaching resource for lowattaining pupils and those with SEND.

Least help first: Support TAs to help them develop pupils' independence and manage their own learning. Ensure that TAs are not prioritising task completion or providing too much correction.

Need-to-knows: Ensure that TAs are equipped ahead of lessons with the concepts and facts being taught; the skills being applied, practised or extended; the intended learning outcomes; and the feedback you require to fuel teaching and learning.

Download the 'making best use of TAs' template here: http://maximisingtas.co.uk/assets/content/03eef-tasupplementaryteacheragreementv3.pdf.

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strictly classroom: Why knowing your dance routine can help you maximise the contribution and impact of teaching assistants : My College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teaching assistants (TAs) are one of the biggest investments we make in terms of provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and those eligible for the Pupil Premium funding. Most TAs spend the majority of their time supporting these pupils in lessons across the curriculum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Working with teaching assistants - Geographical Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'TAs should not be used as an informal teaching resource for low attaining pupils.'Education Endowment Foundation, 2015Topics on this page:Who are teaching assistantsDeployment of teaching assistantsWorking with TAs in your classroomMaking the best use of a TAReadingWho are teaching assistantsTeaching assistants (TAs) are adults that assist teachers in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our resources for teacher assistants cover a wide range of topics from burnout, talking to your line manager about stress and financial worries.

Teaching assistants make up a quarter of the education workforce and their main job role is assisting students who need help. TAs display initiative, self-motivation and exceptional organisation skills as well as sparkle!

Every day is different for TAs and plans do not always go the way you think they will. This can be challenging and rewarding in equal measures. You could be doing a wide range of things to support learning; setting up desks, hanging up coats, wiping tears, building confidence, chatting and building relationships, reminding and yes, reminding again...all in addition to learning. It is safe to say that many schools would be helpless without their TA team.

Our confidential grants service is here to help you manage money worries.

Everyone occasionally needs help. Our friendly, experienced team is here to support you.

Financial support

Sign up to our newsletter for the latest mental heath and wellbeing resources, news and events straight to your inbox.

Sign up

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wellbeing resources for Teaching Assistants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our resources for teacher assistants cover a wide range of topics from burnout, talking to your line manager about stress and financial worries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Literacy - 2021 - Smith - The Playful Writing Project  exploring the synergy between young children s play and writing with (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mackenzie article Building strong writers

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01483/full

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Center for Advanced Research in Education (CIAE), Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands

School of Education/Early Start, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

According to the concept of desirable difficulties, introducing difficulties in learning may sacrifice short-term performance in order to benefit long-term retention of learning. We describe three types of desirable difficulty effects: testing, generation, and varied conditions of practice. The empirical literature indicates that desirable difficulty effects are not always obtained and we suggest that cognitive load theory may be used to explain many of these contradictory results. Many failures to obtain desirable difficulty effects may occur under conditions where working memory is already stressed due to the use of high element interactivity information. Under such conditions, the introduction of additional difficulties may be undesirable rather than desirable. Empirical evidence from diverse experiments is used to support this hypothesis.

Introduction

There is considerable data available indicating that introducing difficulties during instruction may slow down the acquisition rate of learning, but facilitate long-term retention and transfer ( Bjork and Linn, 2006; Roediger and Karpicke, 2006; Rohrer and Taylor, 2007; Soderstrom and Bjork, 2015). These instructional difficulties are known as desirable difficulties. In this review paper, we will discuss theoretical and empirical work in the context of cognitive load theory to argue that the effectiveness of desirable difficulties in learning may be moderated by the working memory load imposed by the instructional material. Working memory load is determined by available working memory capacity and levels of element interactivity defined by a combination of the complexity of the information and levels of learners' expertise. In this paper, we focus on the testing and generation effects that are desirable difficulties that have been moderated by varying levels of element interactivity.

Desirable Difficulties

The framework of desirable difficulties is based on the assumption that including some difficulties in students' learning may lead to long-term retention and transfer of knowledge ( Bjork, 1994). Such difficulties may include: testing - including retrieval practice of taught materials compared to re-visiting them; generation - self-generating answers compared to studying presented answers; and varied conditions of practice - learning in multiple environments compared to a single environment.

Testing Effect

The advantage of testing can be explained by both storage and retrieval processes ( Wheeler et al., 2003). Storage occurs during learning and retrieval is induced by testing. Meta-analyses of the testing effect have been conducted, showing the robustness of this effect with overall effect sizes of 0.50 ( Rowland, 2014) and 0.56 ( Schwieren et al., 2017). The nature of the learning materials (e.g., the type of stimuli) may constitute a moderator ( Rowland, 2014; Adesope et al., 2017; Pan and Rickard, 2018).

However, there might be additional moderators, as research has also shown failures in obtaining testing effects in acquiring problem-solving skills. For example, several studies ( van Gog and Kester, 2012; Leahy et al., 2015; van Gog et al., 2015; Hanham et al., 2017) using cognitive load theory compared a worked example only condition (study-study) to a worked example-problem solving condition (study-testing), but over many experiments obtained a mix of results favoring testing, reverse testing where additional studying was superior to testing, or no difference between conditions. Reasons for these contradictory results are provided below in our discussion of cognitive load theory.

Generation Effect

The generation effect describes the finding that generating one's own answers rather than studying the answers of others may have long-term advantages for learning ( Slamecka and Graf, 1978). The generation effect differs from the testing effect in the sequence of study and testing. The testing effect compares a study-testing with a study-study sequence while the generation effect compares a generating condition with a study or presentation condition. Traditionally, research into the generation effect has used word pairs. Glisky and Rabinowitz (1985) applied single words with missing letters (e.g., ALC-H-L) in their experiments. One group of students generated the missing letters to complete the word compared to another group of students who were presented the missing letters. The experiment may suggest that the access to semantic memory improves performance on an episodic memory test, e.g., when using words with missing letters. Also, Anderson et al. (1971) applied incomplete sentences as contexts in which the to-be-generated target was a highly probable completion, such as "The doctor looked at the time on his (watch)".

A meta-analysis of the generation effect by Bertsch et al. (2007) showed that the effect was robust (overall effect size of 0.40 across 86 studies). The analysis also showed that the difficulty of the task was a significant moderator, and simple tasks such as simple math calculations and word fragment completions showed larger effects. The generation effect has had multiple explanations, such as generation activates or strengthens both response-specific features and the relation between a stimulus and a response ( Hirshman and Bjork, 1988).

However, similar to the testing effect, some research studies also have demonstrated a failure in obtaining the generation effect. The studies of McElroy and Slamecka (1982) and Lutz et al. (2003) suggested that materials used in the generation effect may need to be semantically meaningful. They found no generation effect for non-words, even if these non-words were readable. Similar results were found when the materials were meaningless letter bigrams (e.g., E C), non-unitized 2-digit numbers (e.g., 2, 8), and unfamiliar compounds (e.g., cheese ketchup) ( Gardiner and Hampton, 1985). A failure to obtain the generation effect under some specific conditions also has been demonstrated in recent research studies ( Chen et al., 2015, 2016a, b) that are discussed in more detail below.

Varied Conditions of Practice

Studying in a constant and predictable condition may facilitate immediate retrieval of learning materials, but show no advantages for knowledge transfer and long-term retention ( Bjork and Bjork, 2011). In contrast, varying the conditions of practice may impair performance during acquisition but may enhance long-term performance. Smith et al. (1978) tested environmental context effects with recall and recognition of word lists. They found an advantage of varying context practice over constant context practice on a free recall test, but a reversed effect was found on a recognition test and a recall test of categories and words from the same category. Similar results have been found with problem solving tasks (e.g., Reder et al., 1986). The theory of encoding variability is often used to explain the advantage of varied conditions of practice ( Smith and Handy, 2014).

The difficulty added to learning tasks by varying the conditions of practice may not always be effective. Paas and van Merriënboer (1994) compared both low- and high-variability conditions with either conventional problem solving or with worked example studying. For both conventional and worked example conditions, the low variability condition varied the values only, but the high variability condition varied both the values and format of questions. The results indicated that adding variability to the format of questions was effective in combination with worked examples, but ineffective in combination with conventional problem solving.

Summary of the Desirable Difficulties Research

As can be seen, there is substantial evidence for a variety of desirable difficulty effects. Nevertheless, there also is evidence of failure to find expected effects and, as will be indicated below, considerable evidence for reverse desirable (or undesirable) difficulty effects. As we will argue, the reverse desirable (or undesirable) difficulty effects, indicated below, are caused by the element interactivity of the learning materials. McDaniel and Butler (2011) also discussed how relations among difficulties, the nature of the learning materials, and the properties of the learners may affect desirable difficulties. However, there is not a concept in the desirable difficulty framework that could be used to measure the difficulty of the learning materials. We suggest that cognitive load theory and the concept of element interactivity can be used as a possible option for measuring the difficulty and complexity of learning materials and, in the process, explain some of the apparent contradictions in the research base.

Cognitive Load Theory and Human Cognitive Architecture

Human cognitive architecture provides a base for cognitive load theory, which is an instructional theory. Instructional design and human cognitive architecture are inseparably intertwined ( Sweller et al., 1998, 2011). Knowing how students learn and solve problems informs us how we should organize their learning environments. Five principles indicate the pedagogical aspects that flow from human cognitive architecture. These five principles also describe the manner in which evolution by natural selection processes information ( Sweller and Sweller, 2006).

The Information Store Principle

In order to function in a complex, natural environment, humans must be able to store large amounts of information. That information is stored in long-term memory. The goal of instruction is to increase knowledge stored in long-term memory. Based on the information store principle, difficulties will be desirable if they increase the amount and speed that information can be stored in long-term memory. Difficulties will be undesirable if they interfere with the storage of information in long-term memory.

The Borrowing and Reorganizing Principle

Given the enormous amounts of information that must be acquired to be stored in long-term memory, efficient procedures are required to obtain that information in a timely fashion. Humans have evolved to "borrow" instructionally relevant information from other people. We imitate others, listen to what they say, and read what they write. The information is re-organized before being transferred to long-term memory to cohere with currently stored information.

Randomness As Genesis Principle

Sometimes, required information is not available from others and so must be generated. We generate novel information by using a random generate and test procedure during problem solving. Problem solving moves can be randomly generated and tested for effectiveness with successful moves retained in long-term memory and unsuccessful ones discarded.

Narrow Limits of Change Principle

Very large, rapid changes to long-term memory can be dysfunctional and using a random generate and test procedure when dealing with more than a few elements of novel information can result in combinatorial explosions that also can render the procedure dysfunctional. In order to avoid those problems, limits on the amount of novel information that can be processed are required. Those limits are provided by the limitations of working memory, which has a very limited capacity ( Miller, 1956; Cowan, 2001) and duration ( Peterson and Peterson, 1959). Cognitive load theory assumes that these limits only apply when dealing with novel information. Any difficulties we add to information will be undesirable if there is not enough working memory capacity to deal with them. If they are within working memory limits, then they may potentially have positive (desirable) effects.

Environmental Organizing and Linking Principle

Once information has been structured and stored in long-term memory, it can be retrieved by working memory to generate action that is appropriate for a given environment without the limitations associated with processing novel information. This principle provides the transformational character of education. We are able to engage in learned activities that otherwise we could not possibly carry out.

The environmental organizing and linking principle is critical to human cognitive architecture and leads directly to the concept of element interactivity below. Once information is stored in long-term memory, it alters the characteristics of working memory and so may alter the desirability or undesirability of additional difficulties. Because the information stored in long-term memory is chunked, the amount of information that can be processed by working memory is reduced. Hence, a difficulty that may be desirable for a more knowledgeable learner may be undesirable for a less knowledgeable learner. The difficulty and complexity of information will depend not just on the characteristics of the information but on the knowledge of the person processing the information. Element interactivity considers both of these factors simultaneously.

Instructional Consequences of Human Cognitive Architecture

Cognitive load theory uses this cognitive architecture to devise instructional effects, such as the worked example effect. For novices learning from worked examples, cognitive load is relatively low and overloading of working memory capacity is avoided through the borrowing and reorganizing principle. In contrast, when learning from problem solving, novices' cognitive load is relatively high and their working memory capacity is easily overloaded through the randomness as genesis principle, which is a result of the means-ends strategy that they use to solve problems. Note that testing and generation share the same mechanism of problem solving. From that perspective, it can be argued that the comparison between studying worked examples only and studying worked examples followed by problem solving is analogous to the comparison between repeated reading and reading followed by recalling information. Importantly for the purposes of the current paper, some of the cognitive load effects such as the worked example effect directly contradict the concept of desirable difficulties. Nevertheless, by use of the concept of element interactivity, which is central to cognitive load theory, some of the conditions under which desirable difficulty phenomena should and should not be manifested can be predicted.

Element Interactivity

Element Interactivity Determines Types of Cognitive Load

Element interactivity determines the three types of cognitive load: intrinsic load, extraneous load and germane load ( Sweller et al., 2011). Intrinsic load reflects the nature of learning materials and is positively related to the number of interactive elements of learning materials. Extraneous load, imposed by suboptimal instructional design, depends on the number of interactive elements that are present not because of the nature of the information but because of the way the information is presented. Germane load refers to the actual working memory resources allocated to deal with intrinsic cognitive load. It relies on the number of interactive elements that are intrinsic to the learning materials. Therefore, learning materials that include more intrinsic interactive elements impose a greater cognitive load compared to materials with fewer intrinsic interactive elements.

Element Interactivity and the Characteristics of the Learning Material

The nature of the learning material influences the level of element interactivity which determines the level of cognitive load imposed on working memory. For example, learning the translation of words from one language to another provides an example of material low in element interactivity and so imposing a low level of cognitive load. When a student memorizes the word "cat" in a foreign language, which is 1 new element that needs to be learned, there is no need to refer to the translation of any other words. Therefore, the number of interactive elements should be 1 for memorizing a list of individual vocabulary words. In contrast, if a student is required to solve an equation, such as 2 x + 5 = 3 for x, there may be over a dozen or more interconnected elements (e.g., the algebraic elements such as 2, x, +, along with the relations between them) that must be simultaneously processed in working memory. Therefore, this type of material is high in element interactivity resulting in a high level of cognitive load.

It needs to be noted that element interactivity is related to but not equivalent to difficulty. Learning the translation of a long list of words may be far more difficult than learning to solve an algebraic equation but imposes a far lower working memory load. Element interactivity refers to working memory load, not difficulty.

Element Interactivity and Levels of Expertise

Levels of learners' expertise also affect levels of element interactivity. When solving the above equation, for a novice, the number of interactive elements may be over 12, which will exceed working memory capacity, whereas, for an expert, the number of interactive elements may be reduced to 1. An expert who can retrieve knowledge of the equation and its solution as a single entity from long-term memory using the environmental organizing and linking principle, treats the equation and its solution as a single element. Therefore, material that is high in element interactivity for a novice in the area will be low in element interactivity for an expert. Notwithstanding, if the number of elements remains constant but interactivity alters, difficulty also will alter. For this reason, element interactivity should be an essential component of discussions of desirable difficulties. By doing so, a clearer picture of desirable difficulties may be drawn.

Element Interactivity May Moderate the Effectiveness of Desirable Difficulties

Evidence collected thus far from studies based on cognitive load theory indicates that two desirable difficulties, the testing and the generation effects, are effective for low but ineffective for high element interactivity information. For another desirable difficulty, varied conditions of practice, a similar hypothesis can be made. That evidence is discussed next.

Element Interactivity Moderates Testing Effects

These results can be explained from a cognitive load theory perspective. To understand and learn high element interactivity information, learners are likely to require multiple passes through the material. After a single pass, they are likely to have only partially understood and learned the material and so require additional practice before the information is consolidated in long-term memory, resulting in superior performance by students presented opportunities for that additional practice. In contrast, low element interactivity information may be understood and learned after a single pass. Additional passes may be redundant and presenting learners with redundant information interferes with learning (see Sweller et al., 2011 for a summary of the redundancy effect). Accordingly, providing learners with a test rather than additional, redundant study time is beneficial.

Element Interactivity Moderates Generation Effects

Again, these results can be explained by cognitive load theory using a similar explanation to the testing effect results. High element interactivity information imposes a high working memory load that can be reduced by using worked examples rather than problem solving. Additional difficulties such as generating a solution can be considered undesirable difficulties rather than desirable difficulties. In contrast, low element interactivity information does not require worked examples. Instead, worked examples are redundant and undesirable. With simple materials, generating a response can be considered a desirable difficulty rather than an undesirable difficulty, resulting in a generation effect.

Element Interactivity Moderates Varied Conditions of Practice

Paas and van Merriënboer (1994) used the cognitive load theory framework to investigate the effects of variability of practice when novices studied worked examples or solved problems. They compared a low-variability practice condition, in which the same problem format was used with different values, with a high-variability learning condition, in which both values and problem format were varied. In these conditions, higher variability implied higher element interactivity, as there were more elements to manage simultaneously in working memory. Because problem solving imposes a higher working memory load on novices than studying worked examples, it was hypothesized that higher variability would be effective in combination with worked-example practice and ineffective in combination with conventional problem solving practice. Accordingly, for worked examples, the introduction of variability constitutes a desirable difficulty. The hypothesis was confirmed by the results. When studying worked examples, increased variability resulted in increased learning.

We can predict that in line with the argument and results obtained from the generation and testing effects, an increase in element interactivity should eliminate or reverse the variability effect with low rather than high variability leading to improved performance. Additional difficulties that increase element interactivity may not be desirable if element interactivity is already so high that it exceeds working memory capacity. In contrast, increasing element interactivity when it is low may be beneficial provided that the increase in element interactivity does not exceed working memory capacity. If element interactivity is already high, adding to it by introducing variability may result in worked memory capacity being exceeded with deleterious effects on learning. The consequence will be an undesirable difficulty effect.

Future Directions for Research

Future research could show further boundary conditions for desirable difficulties. For example, for the testing effect, the degree of information given to students (e.g., allowing open book study, cf. Roelle and Berthold, 2017) could influence the differences between generating a solution and studying examples. Given that the main dependent variable in testing-effect studies is text comprehension and memory for text information, it would be interesting to further investigate whether the degree of element interactivity in the text materials moderates the testing effect. In this context, it should be noted that Hanham et al. (2017) conducted six experiments using textual material and found strong relations between the testing effect and the element interactivity of the information. Also regarding the testing effect, considering the research literature on elaborative memory strategies (e.g., Endres et al., 2017), it can be investigated if a test with elaborative prompts, in conditions of low element interactivity, is also productive for learning.

Concerning varied conditions of practice, future research could investigate whether the positive effects of practice variability would decrease or even reverse using high element interactivity information. Based on cognitive load theory, we can hypothesize that for high element interactivity information, practice variability may have negative rather than positive consequences. The high working memory load imposed by high element interactivity information may need to be compensated for by reducing variability. Another important direction for future research is related to investigating the role of element interactivity in other strategies that have been identified as desirable difficulties, such as distributed practice and interleaving practice (e.g., Rohrer and Pashler, 2010), although it should be noted that based on the current literature, there is little evidence that element interactivity plays a part in either the distributed practice or interleaving practice effects. Lastly, because the instructions that are used in desirable difficulty research could also be argued to be more challenging and engaging, future research could investigate the moderating effects of motivation on desirable difficulty effects.

Conclusion

Some conflicting findings associated with desirable difficulties research possibly may be resolved by the concept of element interactivity within the framework of cognitive load theory. The experimental results on the testing effect and the generation effect have consistently shown that different results are obtained using high as opposed to low element interactivity information. The variability effect may similarly be dependent on element interactivity. We suggest that the element interactivity effect of cognitive load theory may provide a theoretical base indicating when difficulties are and are not desirable as well as providing a theoretical explanation for otherwise contradictory results.

Author Contributions

OC drafted the manuscript. JC-A co-drafted the manuscript. FP and JS provided the critical revision of the manuscript. All the authors approved the final manuscript and were accountable for it.

Funding

Funding from the Erasmus University Rotterdam Research Excellence Initiative 2013 and the PIA-CONICYT Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence Project FB0003 is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frontiers | Undesirable Difficulty Effects in the Learning of High-Element Interactivity Materials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to the concept of desirable difficulties, introducing difficulties in learning may sacrifice short-term performance in order to benefit long-term r...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation aims to improve our natural world, secure a fairer future and strengthen the bonds in communities in the UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Useful paper on critical incident research methods.  Particularly helpful for reflexivity.

# data[].attributes.body
Useful paper on using critical incident collages with pupils.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
VRM Children's experiences of school (1)

# data[].attributes.headline
Cohen, Manion et al (2018) Research Methods in Education supporting powerpoints and resources.

# data[].attributes.subject
Cohen, Manion et al (2018) Research Methods in Education supporting powerpoints and resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maximise the impact of new approaches and practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Promote, deliver, and design high-quality learning opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does it take to make a change? Teacher feedback and student revisions in writing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, I completed a PETAA short course delivered by Professor Deb Myhill of the University of Exeter named Going Meta: Enabling Rich Talk about Writing. Of all the approaches to writing I've come across, Myhill's is likely the only one that attempts to integrate ideas from the three theoretical perspectives on writing. Since it doesn't leave out a critical piece of the writing puzzle, I think that makes it quite special and potentially game-changing.

In this post, I've drawn on my learning through the course to outline key terms relevant to Myhill's approach, discuss its benefits, and explain how you can use it to improve your students' writing skills.

Key perspectives on writing

Every primary and secondary school teacher wants to help their students become strong writers. There are many specific approaches out there for achieving this, but did you know most are underpinned by one or two of three main theoretical perspectives on writing: cognitive, linguistic, and/or sociocultural?

Briefly,cognitive approaches focus on helping children develop cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulated learning strategies for managing the processes of writing, such as planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. They are about the thinking processes you engage in while writing.

Linguistic approaches focus mainly on helping children learn to use language features and structures of written texts. They are about your growing mastery of language for writing.

Sociocultural approaches focus on influences of culture and social contexts on what written forms are valued. They are about how you learn to write through collaboration, co-construction, and shared values.

Specific approaches to the teaching of writing tend to draw on ideas from one or more of these perspectives. As an example, self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) can be defined as a sociocognitive approach, since it develops children's use of cognitive processes and strategies to write different genres for different social purposes. It's important for teachers to know which perspective underpins their approaches to writing instruction since this will impact what aspects of writing are taught, how they are taught, and what skills and understandings they will help students develop.

Metalinguistic understanding

Deb Myhill's approach to writing instruction is based largely on helping students develop metalinguistic understanding. Myhill described metalinguistic understanding as a subcategory of metacognition. While metacognition is about reflecting on your own thinking and learning processes, metalinguistic understanding is about reflecting on how writers use language to achieve social purposes (Myhill et al., 2020). Students with strong metalinguistic understanding are able to identify and reason about how words, sentences, and paragraphs make meaning in texts (Cremlin & Myhill, 2012). It enables students to both comprehend and produce written texts (Gombert, 1992).

(Meta)talking the talk

Classroom conversations that foster metalinguistic understanding (i.e., how is language working in this text) is known as metatalk. Through metatalk, a teacher can draw students' attention to a writer's authorial intention and the language and structural choices they make to achieve the intention (Myhill, 2021). Teachers can use metatalk as a pedagogical device to check students' metalinguistic understandings before, during, and/or after a teaching episode.

Also, even if students don't know the technical grammar terms, they can still talk about different aspects of texts and show metalinguistic understanding with everyday language. That said, across the years of schooling, students should be more capable of learning a specific language (or a metalanguage) for referring to given linguistic features, such as noun phrases, verbs, adverbs, and so on. As per the Australian Curriculum: English, Australian teachers are expected to help students learn about these and many other linguistic features from Year 1.

Benefits of developing students' metalinguistic understandings

According to Myhill, students with strong metalinguistic understanding can look critically at writing and make more informed, intentional writing choices. It reveals the rich possibilities of language and gives writers agency as they create texts (Cremin & Myhill, 2012). It also makes learning visible and encourages students to play, explore, and experiment when making writing choices (Myhill, 2021).

Like many of the important things in literacy, metalinguistic understanding needs to be taught explicitly.

Four ways to build students' metalinguistic understandings

1. Create opportunities underpinned by teacher knowledge

First, teachers need to create opportunities for investigations into the choices made in texts written by experienced authors, the teachers themselves, and the students. This requires time and for teachers to have a sufficient knowledge about language and structural features of texts. If the teacher can't articulate what writing choices make a text do its work, they will struggle to build their students' metalinguistic understandings of it.

2. Use Myhill and colleagues' LEAD Principles

Deb Myhill and her colleagues at the University of Exeter developed the LEAD Principles to support teachers to scaffold thinking about grammar as being meaningfully linked to writing (Myhill et al., 2020). The LEAD acronym stands for Links, Examples, Authentic Texts, and Discussion.

Links: Teachers make links between a grammatical feature being introduced (e.g., adjectives) and how it works in a focus written genre (e.g., narratives).

Examples: Teachers explain the grammar with examples rather than long explanations.

Authentic texts: By using metatalk to explore the features of authentic model texts, teachers make connections between writers and the broader writing community.

Discussion: Teachers can promote metalinguistic understandings by engaging children in discussions about grammar and the work it does in written texts.

3. Use specific strategies

While the LEAD Principles are relatively broad and flexible, in Myhill's short course (Myhill, 2021) she suggested the following ten specific strategies for fostering stronger metatalk and metalinguistic understandings in classrooms:

4. Engage in metalinguistic modelling

The final way to build metalinguistic understanding should appeal to any fans of explicit instruction. Essentially, when the teacher models their own thinking while writing, this can assist students to understand what linguistic choices are available and how to make stronger linguistic decisions.

Such modelling could be focused on what the teacher is writing while they write or it may involve them thinking aloud about connections between linguistic choices and the effect in a written text (Myhill, 2021). From Myhill's studies into metalinguistic modelling, she and her colleagues found that teachers need to be clear and focused about what they are modelling. If they are unfocused or try to cover too many aspects of writing, the intended skills will not transfer to students' writing.

Also, when teachers focus too much on 'what' features should be in a written text, students may never even think about 'why' these choices make sense for that type of writing. Unfortunately, this prescriptive focus on including a select set of language features without a clear focus on meaning or purpose is promoted in several popular approaches to writing instruction.

Some key takeaways from the course

Three key theoretical perspectives on writing include linguistic, sociocultural, and cognitive.

While metacognitive understanding is about how writers engage in different thinking processes while writing, metalinguistic understanding is about how language works in different written genres.

Developing students' metalinguistic understandings helps them make more informed, intentional writing choices and to play and experiment with language.

Metalanguage is language for talking about language. Even without metalanguage, children can show metalinguistic understanding of writing choices using everyday language.

Teachers can use several strategies to promote metalinguistic understandings in classroom conversations. There are also general principles for this represented by the LEAD acronym.

Metalinguistic modelling is text-focused and aims to help students think about writing choices, particularly links between grammar and its rhetorical effects.

Key to discussions about metalinguistic understandings is identifying linguistic/structural/literary choices in texts and explaining their effect(s) on audiences.

There does not seem to be a widespread approach to teaching writing that integrates the sociocultural, linguistic, and cognitive perspectives, but Myhill's approach seems to go closest.

Developing metalinguistic understanding connects language choices with writing purposes and effects (Myhill, 2021). Without it, the teaching of grammar is likely to be disconnected from writing and, therefore, a poor way to build writing skills (e.g., Andrews, 2010; Andrews et al., 2006).

So, what's missing from this approach?

After finishing Myhill's course, I was still left pondering many questions that could be the basis of further research in classrooms with teachers and their students. For example:

What counts as strong metalinguistic understandings of different genres in early, middle, and upper primary school? Without this knowledge, it's hard for teachers to know what to focus on in their classrooms.

Does this approach follow any kind of developmental pattern, or is it all just randomly generated depending on what teachers teach at a given point? If a teacher chooses to focus on the features of one set of model texts over others, could that change everything their students learn about that kind of writing?

If this is the case, how can there be any consistency in this approach, particularly when aiming to support struggling writers, those in minority groups, or those in low SES areas?

Want to learn more?

If you would like to foster your students' metalinguistic understandings and help them become more independent writers, it would pay for you to 'know your stuff' when it comes to the grammatical, structural, and literary/rhetorical aspects of different written genres. In fact, I would only recommend teachers complete this short course if they already possess an adequate knowledge of language, since it assumes you know your prepositional phrases from your conjunctions and your narrative text structures from your persuasive text structures.

Since I felt Myhill's course might be most beneficial for teachers more knowledgeable about linguistic features, I asked Associate Professor Pauline Jones (PETAA's President) and Robyn Topp (PETAA's Manager of Professional Learning) if they had any introductory offerings to support teachers new to text features. While the following courses are currently not open for registration, they should be again in 2022:

Rod Campbell has an online course named Teaching Knowledge for the Art and Craft of Writing that provides an introduction to English language and sentence grammar, and advanced sentence grammar and cohesion.

Jennifer Asha has a course titled Teaching Grammar with Rich Literature, in which she covers basic skills in functional grammar and how to teach it in the context of quality texts and dialogic pedagogy.

Jo Rossbridge and Kathy Rushton offered a face-to-face course named Grammar and Teaching from April - June 2021. This popular course is likely to be converted into a self-paced, online course in 2022.

PETAA will also soon be launching an open access Early Career Teachers' Portal with quite a bit of grammar and writing content for new (and old) teachers to upskill in this area.

As a parting comment, the metalinguistic understanding course involved participants planning, writing, and revising a short character description (roughly a paragraph in length) over the five modules. It was such a joy to engage in my own creative writing like this. I believe all teachers of writing should be writers themselves, honing and experimenting with their own writing choices over time just like they expect of their students. Sharing your own writing with a class may feel a bit daunting, but it provides considerable motivation and encouragement for students to write and share their own ideas and understandings with others. After all, isn't that what it's all about?

References

Andrews, R. (2010). Teaching sentence-level grammar for writing: The evidence so far. In T. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the grammar wars: A resource for teachers and students on developing language knowledge in the English/literacy classroom (pp. 90-108). Routledge.

Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A., & Zhu, D. (2006). The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 39-55.

Cremin, T., & Myhill, D. (2012). Writing voices: Creating communities of writers. Routledge.

Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. University of Chicago Press.

Myhill, D. (2021). Going meta: Enabling rich talk about writing. Primary English Teaching Association of Australia - PETAA College. https://www.petaa.edu.au/iCore/Events/Event_display.aspx?EventKey=DM181021&WebsiteKey=23011635-8260-4fec-aa27-927df5da6e68

Myhill, D., Watson, A., & Newman, R. (2020). Thinking differently about grammar and metalinguistic understanding in writing. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.870

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, I completed a PETAA short course delivered by Professor Deb Myhill of the University of Exeter named Going Meta: Enabling Rich Talk about Writing . Of all the approaches to writing I've come across, Myhill's is likely the only one that attempts to integrate ideas from the three theoretical perspectives on writing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Robinson, 2023, Probing in qualitative research interviews

# data[].attributes.subject
Robinson, 2023, Probing in qualitative research interviews

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At The Writing For Pleasure Centre, the idea that children can be taught exceptionally well and enjoy the craft of writing is at the heart of everything we do. Indeed, research consistently shows a profound link between children writing with and for pleasure and exceptional academic achievement. World-class writing teachers focus on developing high levels of self-efficacy, self-regulation, agency, motivation, volition, writer-identity, enjoyment and satisfaction in their apprentice writers. They do this because development of these affective needs makes a bigger difference to children's performance, well-being and learning than anything else (Young & Ferguson 2021).

(Young & Ferguson's hierarchy of affective writing needs 2021)

This survey will help you discover where your Writing For Pleasure practice is strong and will also give you guidance and ideas on how to improve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Writing For Pleasure Centre's Children As Writers Survey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Writing For Pleasure pedagogy is nothing less than the pursuit of world-class writing teaching. - Young & Ferguson 2021 At The Writing For Pleasure Centre, the idea that children can be taught exceptionally well and enjoy the craft of writing is at the heart of everything we do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Writing floats on a sea of talk - James Britton

How important is the role of talk in children's writing development? Case studies of the best performing writing teachers would argue that it is transformative (Pressley et al. 1997; Medwell et al. 1998; Langer 2001; Gadd & Parr 2017; Young 2019). A child's writing and their language development mutually benefit when they are invited to craft writing amongst their teacher and peers every single day. Indeed, engaging in daily and meaningful talk and writing is one of the best ways to develop children's language (Mercer et al. 1999; Rojas-Drummond et al. 2008; Green et al. 2008; Parr et al. 2009; Fisher et al. 2010; Dix 2016; Reedy & Bearne 2021).

Encouraging children to talk and collaborate together during writing time is an evidence-based research recommendation (Graham et al. 2012; Grossman et al. 2013; De Smedt & Van Keer 2014) and an opportunity to talk as they write improves children's final written outcomes (McQuitty 2014). For example, children who talk as they write go on to write richer and more sophisticated texts (Wiseman 2003; Vass et al. 2008). This may be because talk gives children more working memory for writing (Latham 2002; Cremin & Myhill 2012; Young & Ferguson 2021) or because talk between children assists them in deciding what to say and how to encode it (Davidson 2007; Whittick 2020).

A classroom rich in talk, where children are encouraged to tell others about events in their own lives, the knowledge they bring into school, and the imaginative ideas their minds conjure up is the foundation of any high-quality writing program (Lamme et al. 2002; Tolentino 2013; Daniels 2014; Rowe 2018; Young & Ferguson 2020, 2021). Your class can have more stories and ideas for writing than you'll ever know what to do with as long as you're willing to give time for talking and sharing. Children regularly rely on talk for guidance, a model, expertise, assistance, and instruction (Wohlwend 2008; Kissel 2009). This isn't a negative thing as it shows children's commitment to being independent through what's called co-regulation (Young & Ferguson 2021).

Children talk their texts into being. Talk is vital at all parts of a young writer's process. Firstly, talking with peers helps children generate ideas for what it is they want to write about. Talk also supports pupils to plan what it is they want to write down. It helps them draft fluently, to revise, and to proofread with a readership in mind. Finally, talk is an opportunity to publish or perform for others (Young & Ferguson 2021).

Children talk with one another before they write, as they write and after they write. These interactions occur in different ways and can include:

Idea explaining Children share what they plan to write about during the session with others.
Idea sharing Children work in pairs or small 'clusters' to co-construct their own texts together.
Idea spreading One pupil mentions an idea to their group. Children then leapfrog on the idea and create their own texts in response too.
Supplementary ideas Children hear about a child's idea, like it, and incorporate it into the text they are already writing.
Communal text rehearsal Children say out loud what they are about to write - others listen in, comment, offer support or give feedback.
Personal text rehearsal Children talk to themselves about what they are about to write down. This may include encoding individual words aloud. Other children might listen in, comment, offer support or give feedback.
Text checking Children tell or read back what they've written so far and others listen in, comment, offer support or give feedback.
Performance Children share their texts with each other as an act of celebration and publication.

(Young & Ferguson in press)

Through our own talk with pupils during writing time, we teach children how to respond to other's writing, ask questions, and how to give advice and instruction. Children begin to copy us. By hearing and participating in pupil-conferences, children become sociable and knowledgeable writer-teachers too (Ferguson & Young 2021).

This article looks to highlight the importance of talk in writing. Children can write all the words they can say. However, if we put words in children's mouths, they end up not as writers but reciters. Duplicators of someone else's voice. If we want to develop children's language and writing alongside each other, we must give them time to talk and write together everyday. We must keep in mind that dictating and reciting texts isn't talking or writing. Dictation and recitation are practices associated with a presentational-skills (Young & Ferguson 2021) or 'writing readiness' (Young 2021) ideology towards early writing development. Both of which are fundamentally flawed.

Neither scientific research nor the case studies of the best performing writing teachers recommend the slavish and repetitive learning of a text. It's not in children's best interests to spend their time engaged in long-winded 'barking out of a text'. Instead, we must put talk and language development where it belongs - at the heart of the writing process.
References

Cremin,T., and Myhill, D. (2012) Creating Communities of Writers London: Routledge.

Daniels, K., (2014) Cultural agents creating texts: a collaborative space adventure Literacy 48(2) pp.103-111

Davidson, C. (2007). Independent writing in current approaches to writing instruction: What have we overlooked? English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6, 11-24

De Smedt, F., and Van Keer, H. (2014). A research synthesis on effective writing instruction in primary education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 693-701.

Dix, S. (2016).Teaching writing:A multilayered participatory scaffolding practice. Literacy, 50(1), 23-31.

Ferguson, F., Young, R. (2021) Pupil-conferencing With 3-11 Year Olds: Powerful Feedback & Responsive Teaching That Changes Writers [https://writing4pleasure.com/a-guide-to-pupil-conferencing-with-3-11-year-olds/]

Fisher, R., Myhill, D., Jones, S., and Larkin, S. (2010) Using Talk to Support Writing. London: Sage.

Gadd, M., and Parr, J. (2017). Practices of effective writing teachers. Reading & Writing 30(6), 1551-1574.

Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., Olinghouse, N. (2012) Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Green, J., Yeager, B., and Castanheira, M. (2008). Talking texts into being: On the social construction of everyday life and academic knowledge in the classroom. In Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes, Mercer, N., and Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.) (pp. 115-130). London: Sage.

Grossman, P.L., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., and Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure:The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers' value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119(3), 445-470.

Kissel, B. (2009) Beyond the Page: Peers Influence Pre-Kindergarten Writing through Image, Movement, and Talk, Childhood Education 85:3 pp.160-166

Langer, J.A. (2001). Beating the odds:Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.

Lamme, L., Fu, D., Johnson, J., Savage, D. (2002). Helping kindergarten children move towards independence. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 73-79.

Latham, D. (2002) How children learn to write: Supporting and developing children's writing in schools London: Paul Chapman

McQuitty, V. (2014) Process-oriented writing instruction in elementary classrooms: Evidence of effective practices from the research literature. Writing & Pedagogy, 6(3), 467-495

Medwell, J., Wray, D., Poulson, L., and Fox, R. (1998). Effective Teachers of Literacy. A Report Commissioned by the UK Teacher Training Agency.

Mercer, N.,Wegerif, R., and Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95-111.

Parr, J., Jesson, J., and McNaughton, S. (2009). Agency and platform:The relationships between talk and writing. In The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development. London: Sage.

Pressley, M.,Yokoi, L., Rankin, J.,Wharton-McDonald, R., and Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145-160.

Reedy, D., Bearne, E. (2021) Talk for teaching and learning: the dialogic classroom Leicester: UKLA

Rojas-Drummond, S.M.,Albarr'an, C.D., and Littleton, K.S. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 177-191.

Rowe, D. (2008) The Social Construction of Intentionality: Two-Year-Olds' and Adults' Participation at a Preschool Writing Center Research in the Teaching of English 42(4) pp.387-434

Tolentino, E. (2013) "Put an explanation point to make it louder": Uncovering Emergent Writing Revelations through Talk Language Arts 91(1) 10-22

Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., Jones, A. (2008) The discourse of collaborative creative writing: Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration Thinking Skills and Creativity pp.192-202

Whittick, L. (2020) Write a little - share a little [Online].Available: [https://writing4pleasure.com/write-a-little-share-a-little/]

Wiseman, A. (2003) Collaboration, Initiation, and Rejection: The Social Construction of Stories in a Kindergarten Class The Reading Teacher 56(8) pp.802-810

Wohlwend, K. (2008) From "What Did I Write?" to "Is this Right?": Intention, Convention, and Accountability in Early Literacy, The New Educator, 4:1, 43-63

Young, R. (2019). What is it 'Writing For Pleasure' teachers do that makes the difference? The University Of Sussex:The Goldsmiths' Company [Online] Available: http://www.writing4pleasure.com.

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (2020) Real-World Writers: A Handbook For Teaching Writing With 7-11 Year Olds London: Routledge

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (2021) Writing For Pleasure: Theory, Research & Practice London: Routledge

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (in press) Real-World Writers: A Handbook For Teaching Writing With 3-7 Year Olds

Cremin,T., and Myhill, D. (2012) Creating Communities of Writers London: Routledge.

Daniels, K., (2014) Cultural agents creating texts: a collaborative space adventure Literacy 48(2) pp.103-111

Davidson, C. (2007). Independent writing in current approaches to writing instruction: What have we overlooked? English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6, 11-24

De Smedt, F., and Van Keer, H. (2014). A research synthesis on effective writing instruction in primary education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 693-701.

Dix, S. (2016).Teaching writing:A multilayered participatory scaffolding practice. Literacy, 50(1), 23-31.

Ferguson, F., Young, R. (2021) Pupil-conferencing With 3-11 Year Olds: Powerful Feedback & Responsive Teaching That Changes Writers [https://writing4pleasure.com/a-guide-to-pupil-conferencing-with-3-11-year-olds/]

Fisher, R., Myhill, D., Jones, S., and Larkin, S. (2010) Using Talk to Support Writing. London: Sage.

Gadd, M., and Parr, J. (2017). Practices of effective writing teachers. Reading & Writing 30(6), 1551-1574.

Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D'Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., Olinghouse, N. (2012) Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Green, J., Yeager, B., and Castanheira, M. (2008). Talking texts into being: On the social construction of everyday life and academic knowledge in the classroom. In Exploring Talk in School: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Barnes, Mercer, N., and Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.) (pp. 115-130). London: Sage.

Grossman, P.L., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., and Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure:The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers' value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119(3), 445-470.

Kissel, B. (2009) Beyond the Page: Peers Influence Pre-Kindergarten Writing through Image, Movement, and Talk, Childhood Education 85:3 pp.160-166

Langer, J.A. (2001). Beating the odds:Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.

Lamme, L., Fu, D., Johnson, J., Savage, D. (2002). Helping kindergarten children move towards independence. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 73-79.

Latham, D. (2002) How children learn to write: Supporting and developing children's writing in schools London: Paul Chapman

McQuitty, V. (2014) Process-oriented writing instruction in elementary classrooms: Evidence of effective practices from the research literature. Writing & Pedagogy, 6(3), 467-495

Medwell, J., Wray, D., Poulson, L., and Fox, R. (1998). Effective Teachers of Literacy. A Report Commissioned by the UK Teacher Training Agency.

Mercer, N.,Wegerif, R., and Dawes, L. (1999). Children's talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 95-111.

Parr, J., Jesson, J., and McNaughton, S. (2009). Agency and platform:The relationships between talk and writing. In The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development. London: Sage.

Pressley, M.,Yokoi, L., Rankin, J.,Wharton-McDonald, R., and Mistretta, J. (1997). A survey of the instructional practices of grade 5 teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 145-160.

Reedy, D., Bearne, E. (2021) Talk for teaching and learning: the dialogic classroom Leicester: UKLA

Rojas-Drummond, S.M.,Albarr'an, C.D., and Littleton, K.S. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 177-191.

Rowe, D. (2008) The Social Construction of Intentionality: Two-Year-Olds' and Adults' Participation at a Preschool Writing Center Research in the Teaching of English 42(4) pp.387-434

Tolentino, E. (2013) "Put an explanation point to make it louder": Uncovering Emergent Writing Revelations through Talk Language Arts 91(1) 10-22

Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., Jones, A. (2008) The discourse of collaborative creative writing: Peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration Thinking Skills and Creativity pp.192-202

Whittick, L. (2020) Write a little - share a little [Online].Available: [https://writing4pleasure.com/write-a-little-share-a-little/]

Wiseman, A. (2003) Collaboration, Initiation, and Rejection: The Social Construction of Stories in a Kindergarten Class The Reading Teacher 56(8) pp.802-810

Wohlwend, K. (2008) From "What Did I Write?" to "Is this Right?": Intention, Convention, and Accountability in Early Literacy, The New Educator, 4:1, 43-63

Young, R. (2019). What is it 'Writing For Pleasure' teachers do that makes the difference? The University Of Sussex:The Goldsmiths' Company [Online] Available: http://www.writing4pleasure.com.

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (2020) Real-World Writers: A Handbook For Teaching Writing With 7-11 Year Olds London: Routledge

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (2021) Writing For Pleasure: Theory, Research & Practice London: Routledge

Young, R., Ferguson, F. (in press) Real-World Writers: A Handbook For Teaching Writing With 3-7 Year Olds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
download this article Writing floats on a sea of talk - James Britton How important is the role of talk in children's writing development? Case studies of the best performing writing teachers would argue that it is transformative (Pressley et al. 1997; Medwell et al. 1998; Langer 2001; Gadd & Parr 2017; Young 2019).

# data[].attributes.body
p38, p95, p103