How developing curiosity can help pupils to learn the curriculum

Some of the insights from psychology and cognitive science can be helpful in supporting to learn the curriculum. And it also has to be said that many of them are common sense! However, while they might be common sense, they are not always common practice.

One of these insights from Professor Daniel Willingham, is that human beings are curious. Who knew! He also goes on to say that thinking is hard work. It turns out that curiosity can play a role in creating a bridge into doing hard work. When poorer readers were given demanding texts to read as a class, they subsequently made gains in their reading ages. They were asked why they thought they had done so well with more demanding work than they usually tackle. They said that they had wanted to find out what happened next, in other words, their curiosity had been provoked!

When we are curious, we have an intrinsic motivation to want to find out more.

So how can we provoke curiosity in our pupils? One way is through beautiful images, a second is through interesting texts and stories and a third is interesting vocabulary. There are plenty more, but these are useful for starters.

Based on this insight, what some schools are doing is to ask themselves, to what extent does the curriculum in our school provoked pupils’ curiosity?

There’s a short film suitable for staff meetings, where I talk about curiosity on Myatt & Co you can watch it here.

Developing expertise

‘True intuitive expertise is learned from prolonged experience with good feedback on mistakes.’

- Daniel Kahneman.

 If we are serious about the curriculum, we need to think about how pupils develop expertise. There is a paradox to this, and it links to mastery - if we are expert at something or have mastered something, the conundrum is that we realise how much there still is to know and understand. At its heart, expertise is knowing something really well; the nuts and bolts and are able to show this in different contexts.

This will look different for different age groups, but underpinning expertise will be pupils’ ability to describe the key elements of what they have learnt, in their own words, and to show how this can be applied in different contexts. A child in Key Stage 1 will be an expert in story-telling if they are creating stories using their own ideas, with correct spellings, punctuation and grammar. It will be recognisably individual to them, rather than something which has been heavily scaffolded and similar to every other piece of work in the class. This doesn't happen overnight, and scaffolding will need to be in place at the early stages, but these should be removed as soon as possible so that the child’s own unique take on the subject can emerge.

If every child in the class is producing work which is remarkably similar and if they are not able to articulate what they have learnt in their own words and in their writing, then it is unlikely that they have developed in that topic. They are likely to be parroting back what the teacher has said and completing identical worksheets or closed writing frames, which mask the limitation of what they know. At a superficial glance, it might appear that they have ‘got it’, but a brief conversation with them will reveal whether this is the case or not. And quite often it isn’t. Too many children, when asked what they are doing in a lesson and why they are doing it, are not sure. Their eyes swivel back to the board and the learning objectives , which they repeat back, word for word. When this happens and they are not able to describe what they are doing and why, in their own words, they are not in the process of developing expertise.

Developing expertise is messy. Not every child will do it the same way. The unique products, namely what children say and write, are the ways in which teachers find out whether they have really understood. This applies whether it is the basic nuts and bolts of spelling, punctuation and grammar or explaining their working-out in maths, writing an account of rainforests in geography or a piece of creative writing in English. The difference between superficial and deep learning is an important one; it can appear as though a child has produced a lot of work, but it is possible that they are completing the tasks set rather than being shown how they can be deeply learnt.

The route to deep learning and expertise is, to quote Tim Oates, fewer things in greater depth [1]. When the curriculum is offered in this way, without an overload of props and activities, we have the chance to get to deep learning and the development of expertise. When we produce too many resources or plan too many activities, these can become proxies for learning. It is possible to be convinced that learning has taken place because so much has happened. In fact, what has really happened is that plenty of activities have taken place and without the slower, tentative conversations about what the heart of the matter really is, this can create a false impression of busyness masquerading as learning. The text, the source material, the scientific artefacts and the maths should have the limelight. It is tempting to dumb things down, to make them easy and accessible, but if every child is entitled to a rich and demanding curriculum, they need to be provided with and guided through the hard stuff.

If everything is easy, it is hard for learning to take place. Expertise comes through the struggle of not knowing everything, having sufficient support and making sense of it on our own terms. This is not about letting children flounder, it is rather about providing them with high-quality material and supporting them to get to grips with it and apply it in new settings. When starting something new, scaffolding needs to be there so that unnecessary time isn't wasted, but if that scaffolding remains too long, it prevents deep learning and expertise from taking place. This is because it is easy to become reliant on the structures rather than dealing with the discomfort which comes from having a go and not getting it.

The second condition which needs to be in place is sufficient time. When something complicated is expected to be covered in one or two lessons, it is very unlikely that expertise can be developed. Without the longer periods, over time, it is unlikely that the deep, intellectual architecture can be developed. This deep space is like a bucket which holds the big ideas of the aspect of the curriculum which is being learnt. If this is done properly, it means that new knowledge can be added quickly. Without the deep work, the new knowledge floats around without any organising structure to it. So what might seem time-consuming at the start is actually an investment in time, so that when more detail and knowledge is added, it links to existing earlier knowledge, which is held together in the deep structure. For example, if we have paid enough attention to helping children understand new material, when they come to see new data and information about the subject, they are able to make sense of it and discuss it in the new context, because the connections have already been made.

[1] http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/insights/national-curriculum-tim-oates-on-assessment-insights/

Thinking about curriculum impact

When considering impact, the question that needs to be asked is whether our pupils have learnt what they have been taught and how do we know? It is important to remember that the impact judgement feeds into a single quality of education judgement, drawing together intent and implementation along with impact.

The school inspection handbook[1] says ‘when inspectors evaluate the impact of the education provided by the school, their focus will primarily be on what pupils have learned.’ It goes on to say that ‘inspectors can use work scrutiny to contribute to an evaluation of whether the work that pupils do over time reflects the intended curriculum. Work scrutiny will help inspectors to form a view of whether pupils know more and can do more, and whether the knowledge and skills they have learned are well sequenced and have developed incrementally.’ It is important to emphasise that inspectors ‘will not evaluate individual workbooks or teachers. Inspectors will not use work scrutiny to evaluate teachers’ marking. Inspectors will connect work scrutiny to lesson visits and, where at all possible, conversations with pupils and staff.’

Again, we see that the criteria are drawn from inspection experience and research that shows that ‘the most important factors to consider are that:
a well-constructed, well-taught curriculum will lead to good results because those results will reflect what pupils have learned. There need be no conflict between teaching a broad, rich curriculum and achieving success in examinations and tests.’ In fact, it could be argued that a broad and balanced curriculum is essential for success in external exams and tests. For example, some pupils do not perform well in the SATS reading test at the end of key stage 2 and this is quite often due to a lack of vocabulary. Some schools identify this and provide spelling tests in order to bridge this gap. While spelling is important, it falls short of deep vocabulary development which is an ongoing process of encountering and using words in different contexts. It turns out that the most powerful way of achieving this is through a broad and balanced curriculum.

The sources of evidence relating to the impact of the quality of education comes from a number of sources: ‘the progress that pupils are making in terms of knowing more, remembering more and being able to do more’ and the first source of evidence is external: ‘the nationally generated performance information about pupils’ progress and attainment. This information is available in the IDSR, which is available to schools and inspectors, and will be analysed for its statistical significance in advance by Ofsted’s data and insight team.’ It goes on to say that ‘national assessments and examinations are useful indicators of pupils’ outcomes, but they only represent a sample of what pupils have learned. Inspectors will balance outcomes with their first-hand assessment of pupils’ work.’

As a starting point, inspectors will use the official IDSR, then gains further information through seeing firsthand the quality of education as experienced by pupils and understand how well leaders know what it is like to be a pupil at the school. In relation to any assessment data collected by the school they ask, ‘what they are drawing from their data and how that informs their curriculum and teaching’. There are implications here for schools where data input is required from teachers, but which is never used to identify gaps in pupils’ learning, nor to adjust the curriculum and teaching in light of that information. If this link cannot be made, then it begs the question of why it is being collected in the first place?

The question needs to be asked about the reason for inspection teams not using schools’ internal assessment data as evidence. ‘Inspectors will not look at non-statutory internal progress and attainment data on section 5 and section 8 inspections of schools’ (although interestingly, they will consider the school’s use of assessment). It goes on to say ‘that does not mean that schools cannot use data if they consider it appropriate. Inspectors will, however, put more focus on the curriculum and less on schools’ generation, analysis and interpretation of data.’ We have to ask why this is? One answer is that internally generated school data does not have the level of validity nor reliability that external has.

Teachers’ workload is also a factor in this: ‘teachers have told us they believe this will help us play our part in reducing unnecessary workload. Inspectors will be interested in the conclusions drawn and actions taken from any internal assessment information, but they will not examine or verify that information firsthand.

And to reinforce this message, Matthew Purves, Deputy Director, Schools explained that Ofsted’s goal is to view performance measures more in the context of the quality of education provided:[2] ‘Data should not be king. Too often, vast amounts of teachers’ and leaders’ time is absorbed into recording, collecting and analysing excessive progress and attainment data within schools. And that diverts their time away from what they entered the profession to do, which is to be educators. And, in fact, with much of that progress and attainment data, they and we can’t be confident that it’s valid and reliable information. … inspectors will not look at school’s internal progress and attainment data.’

The bulk of the information comes from ‘first-hand evidence of how pupils are doing, drawing together evidence from the interviews, lesson visits, work scrutinies and documentary review; nationally published information about the destinations to which its pupils progress when they leave the school; in primary schools, listening to a range of pupils read; discussions with pupils about what they have remembered about the content they have studied’ and finally, ‘how well pupils with SEND are prepared for the next stage of education and their adult lives.’ 

So, it turns out that much of the evidence collected during inspection relies on looking at pupils’ work (not just written work their books), talking to them about what they have learnt and talking to their teachers about how they are getting on. None of which sits neatly on a spreadsheet.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-inspection-handbook-eif

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcrp5N6c334&feature=emb_logo

Have they grasped it?

‘The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding.’

- Leonardo da Vinci

There is a joke about two men in a bar. One says to his friend ‘I’ve taught my dog to speak French.’ ‘Really?’ says his mate, ‘Let’s hear him then.’ ‘I said I taught him, I didn’t say he’d learnt it’ comes the response. There is something important in this anecdote and it is this: that the fact that I have taught something does not mean that my pupils have ‘got’ it. And they are unlikely to have really learnt something unless they produce something worthwhile with the material they are studying.

In the video explaining the rationale for the national curriculum, Tim Oates talks about curriculum ‘products’[1]. When he talks about products he means the things which pupils write, say, draw, the low stakes tests they complete or the things they make. All these provide insights for the teacher into the extent to which pupils know, understand and can do something on their own terms.

First, to consider writing. In many parts of the sector, there is a temptation to get through the writing as fast as possible. A written piece of work requires considerable background knowledge, discussion of that knowledge and rehearsal in order for it to come together. Too often, pupils are set off on a writing task without sufficient ‘food’. By food, I mean the stimulus, exposure to and discussion of vocabulary, use of spelling, punctuation and grammar to support meaning and modelling by the teacher. English teacher Matthew Pink has quite rightly said ‘Showing kids a pre-prepared model answer and asking them to write a paragraph off the back of it is no different from showing them a picture of Duck l’Orange and sending ‘em to the kitchen to knock one up. Teachers must get in the habit of live modelling whenever it is required.’[2]

Writing is slow and it is difficult. But when pupils are supported and guided through the writing process carefully, the product of writing is likely to reflect what they really understand. We need to move away from a temptation for children to complete work, which might not be original to them, such as completing closed questions on a worksheet, for example, and to conclude that they have understood, just because they have completed it. Completion of a task and understanding are not the same thing, but they are often confused. So a child is praised for having finished, before it has been checked whether they have understood it or not.

Next, to what children say: it is the responses which pupils give which provide insight into whether they have understood something. If we are going to find this out, we have to spend time during the lessons asking children questions and listening carefully to their answers. This needs to happen more. Under the pressure of time, it is tempting to either take the first correct answer from one or two children and assume that everyone has ‘got’ it; or to complete some of the answers if they are struggling; or to take incomplete or partial answers and assume that they know the rest. What quite often happens is that children are praised for an incomplete answer and then the lesson moves on. This is not good, on several counts: first, the teacher’s information is incomplete - in the rush to move on to the next part of the lesson, the brief incomplete response is taken to have more significance than it does: it is nothing more than an incomplete response and it is not enough information to judge whether to move on or not. The second reason it is not good enough is because we often need to rehearse and say our thoughts out loud before committing them to paper. As James Britton argued ‘writing floats on a sea of talk.’[3] So by short-cutting the responses we not only have incomplete information about the security of children’s learning, we also are denying them the chance to practise articulating their thoughts. And the third reason why it is not good enough is because pupils have the right to have their ideas heard by others. By moving on too swiftly we are cutting down their ability to refine their language and to deepen their understanding.

The importance of speaking is emphasised in the national curriculum for English. We are doing our children a disservice if we do not both provide them with opportunities and also expect them to articulate their ideas. Many children come from backgrounds which are language poor. If we either expect partial answers, or don't ask them to speak out loud in full sentences, using subject specific vocabulary then we are denying them the opportunity both to engage deeply with the material and also to perform well in the subject when it comes to exams. 

In some, but not all, areas it is possible to gain an insight into children’s thinking through their artwork or artefacts. If they have made a representation of a key idea from literature, or history, or science through sketching or through creating something and are able to talk about what they have produced and how it relates to the subject matter, then it follows that we can gain information about what they understand and where the gaps might be.

Many schools are now experimenting with thinking about real audiences for children’s work. Much of what is asked of children in schools is isolated knowledge and skills. While there might be nothing wrong with this per se, the purpose of learning takes on a new dimension when we ask ourselves, where could this go, who else needs to know about this, are there links we could make with this knowledge with the wider community? Who might be an external audience for what we have done?

These are some of the things they are doing: creating a class blog, preparing an exhibition with detailed notes for visitors, preparing samples of their work for governors, taking part in local and national competitions, linking with the local community on arts and environmental projects, younger children sharing their work with older pupils, and vice versa, asking family to come into school to see their work. Children are only able to engage with these wider audiences if they have something authentic to share, based on solid foundations of deep knowledge.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q5vrBXFpm0

[2] ] https://twitter.com/Positivteacha/status/950265654...

Creators not consumers

Let’s take a look at the range of things that pupils in our classroom use or consume: worksheets, power points, words, texts, images, paper, glue sticks. These are made available to them as part of their learning. And we need to consider the extent to which these elements are adding value to their learning, or whether they are part of a process that provides evidence, mostly flimsy that something has happened in the lesson. The temptation is to think, well I made all these  resources, the pupils did this with them, therefore learning must have happened. But did it, really? If we are not careful, we are inclined to believe that because they were ‘taught’ through these consumables, therefore something must have been learnt.

We need to shift the focus onto how pupils become creators with these materials. Each of them needs to be considered from two fronts: how, exactly will this worksheet, power point and so on, add value to learning. And secondly, what are pupils going to do as a result of using them? If we are serious about deepening learning, then we need to pay attention to the creation aspect. We need to remind ourselves that learning is a change in the long term memory, that it is what we pay attention to is what gets remembered. There can be so much busyness around the use of these items in classrooms, that if we are not careful, more time is spent on the completion of the sheets, and the sticking in of the sheets into exercise books, than on the point of those sheets. Any proxy placed in books, to show that something has happened.

Instead our focus needs to be absolutely on what pupils are going to do with these resources. What are they going to create as a result of using them? What do we mean by creation? Creation in the classroom means knowing more stuff, having more insights, and over time (possibly in the lesson, possibly at some point in the future) being able to do something on their own terms as a result of the materials offered. The argument here is that it is not the consumption of the materials but what happens intellectually as a result of being offered those materials, that counts. Unless we are prepared to think this through and make it explicit in lessons, then learning is likely to be shallow.

What are some of the things that pupils might do that shift the intellectual space from consumers to creators? Here are some suggestions: The first is to shift from consumption to creation is through talk: pupils should be able to articulate why a particular resource is being used in the lesson. At the heart of this, is clear explanation from the teacher, and the expectation that pupils can articulate the same. Then a pupil might ask what is their response to this information? Do they understand it? If not, what am they going to do about it? The teacher might support this by asking pupils where they might we have met this idea, or similar concept before? And then there could be further questions about pupils are finding hard about this? What else would they like to know? What am they going to do with this new knowledge? Has this information inspired poetry, literature, art or music for example? This might seem stretching it too far, but it we want to deepen understanding, pupils need to have multiple lenses and frames through which to consider new knowledge. What do academics say about this knowledge? How can we turn this knowledge into a format where we can remember it, perhaps through dual coding, for example?

There is a shift in cognitive demand when we back up the material with questions such as these. They turn the information from inert to alive, and take the pupils from consumers to creators. They are having to do something intellectually with what has been provided for them in that lesson. It will become apparent that this process will take longer than just the consumption route. And that is the point: doing fewer things, in greater depth and resisting the urge to get sucked into the curse of content coverage. Content coverage at its worst means throwing lots of stuff (metaphorically, not literally) at pupils in the assumption that this is the work and the expectation they will learn something from it. Jackson Pollocking the lessons with materials does not constitute learning. Keep throwing things, again not literally, making the assumption that pupils will learn as a result, is simply wrong.

We have to be hard-nosed about this. However, when we are clear about our priorities, namely deepening learning, it becomes easier to resist temptation to offer them more, when in fact less is needed. The lens through which we consider this needs to ensure that the curriculum thinking and planning consistently asks is what pupils are going to create, in terms of meaning, understanding and showing their knowledge as a result of this?