Banishing quiet classrooms pupils talking teachers listening teachers

Banishing quiet classrooms: pupils talking teachers listening teachers talking across phases Tim Nelson and Julie Roberts Gateshead LA

What the workshop intends to do … • Show to develop pupil voice so that as learners pass through the system, their voice is not lost. • They do not become passive. • Discuss developing dialogue to give them the skills they need to be involved in learning.

The cross-phase action research project • Used Af. L as the focus but then narrowed this down to investigate the use of dialogue within the classroom and its impact on pupil learning • To look at developing a commonality of approaches

The cross-phase action research project • National Strategy funded pilot • Started in January 2007 • Involves one secondary and five of its primary feeder schools • Set up 2 networks : Head teachers » Teachers • Each network met at least twice a term. • Builds on work already going on in the LA

Project outcomes: Pupils talking teachers listening • Pupils’ improvement in the quality of discussion, extended answers and pupils ability to build on each others answers • Improvement in the quality of written work • More pupils participating (particularly secondary) • Pupils talk in depth with confidence in the primary school • Pupils in Year 7 need support to talk in the same depth with a new set of people

We like talking to each other because sometimes someone has a better idea then you can work together to solve the problem I explained to the other group how I solved the puzzle… some did it in a different way Pupils said … We can share ideas and solve the problem more easily when we work together

I hope we will discuss our learning when we move to our next school. It would be sad if we didn’t because we share ideas and that helps us to see where we need to improve so we just get better and better.

Project outcomes: Teachers talking cross phase • Teachers in triads benefited from working closely to share ideas and information • They observed how different strategies opened up dialogue in the classroom • The project had provided a focussed opportunity to develop links with primary colleagues • Good relationships are being established • Teacher observations had raised expectations about what pupils were capable of achieving.

From not knowing either environment, we know have a greater understanding and insight of each other. The observations have helped us to continue to develop best practice The observations have allowed us to see and understand what was involved at primary/ secondary level. Secondary colleagues can now speak confidently to pupils about their primary experiences

Students’ movement from one school to the next, and the impact on their learning, has been a concern for many years. Ruth Sutton

‘Cross phase collaboration between teachers and partnerships between schools are difficult concepts to put into action. Primary and secondary education phases are separate rather than a continuum, with a different initial training, teaching methods and support network. ’ (Martin, 2007)

Purpose To contribute to raising attainment in English, Mathematics, Science, ICT and DT by strengthening: • Transfer and transition between and within schools and settings particularly focussing on the continuity of learning • Use of assessment data to set learning targets for all pupils • Pupil ownership and involvement of their own learning • Parental involvement at points of transition and transfer SC Developing a commonality of approaches using Af. L Drive Colgate Roman Heworth Road Lingey House White Mere Feedback Dialogue Peer and Self Assessment

The cross-phase action research project • Who are involved? Primary: 3 year 5, 1 year 2 1 year 6 Secondary: English, Maths, Science, ICT & DT • How did it work? Teachers were sub divided into cross phase triads. Each half term organised lesson observations of all in their triad.

Individually identify on where your class is and where you want them to go next Integrate strategies Develop seen from strategies to elsewhere and move the children continue to develop on children’s skills Visit each others class within triangle Compile range of evidence to show children have developed Visit each others class within triangle 1 st Feb 13 th March April /May June/July Teachers TLC 20 th March April/May June/July Headteachers TLC Consultant visit before 6 th March Consultant visit

Principles • • Networking Collaboration Enquiry External input Leadership Integration and management mechanisms Focus and purpose

Common and differences Triad 1 • *Routines linking peer and self-assessment back to success criteria; • *talking partners, • *‘no hands’, • *looking at learning objectives and creating success criteria. Triad 2 • wait time’ • focussed questioning • the inclusion of all children Triad 3 • open questioning. • • • • Triad 1 *levels *self-esteem issues Triad 2 Feedback Triad 3 · the use of lolly sticks to encourage · talking partners in groups · teacher and pupil talk ·pupils giving detailed explanations · opportunities for reflection · the use of success criteria ·self assessment and explanations good independent dialogue used by pupils without the teacher

Reviewing the range of strategies used • Insert 32 strategies here.

Commonality of principles applied • Vocabulary • Developing some common learning routines such as talking partners • Developing extended answers and quality dialogue

Talking Partners Wait time Pounce, bounce Randometer Ask a friend millionaire No hands up

Outcomes: Pupil voice and personalised learning 1. Developed talk in learning through on going conversation at different levels • • Learner with learner Teacher to learner Learner to teacher Teacher with teacher

Outcomes: Pupil voice and personalised learning 2. Focused upon anomalies in learning practice and disjointed structure of pupils’ learning journey; 3. Talk between pupils and their teachers helped to personalise learning; 4. Talk between teachers helped to develop commonality of Af. L principles and vocabulary; 5. Learners became more confident; 6. Improved the quality of work and learning; 7. Aroused interest and engaged pupils far more in their learning and for longer.

Headteacher outcomes • Primary school headteachers’ felt that the project was going well and had raised the profile of Af. L, although an emerging issue was the difficulty of embedding Af. L across a school. • One school used a teacher involved in the project by encouraging other staff to observe the successful strategies in practice and to observe their impact on pupils. • All agreed that the project was timely. • The focus on questioning and dialogue fitted in with other key messages on developing speaking and listening. • Project had highlighted for some schools the need to further develop dialogue.

What is still to come? • Expanded to include 8 Primary feeder schools • Continue to focus on developing pupil dialogue in the classrooms • Teacher observations will continue this term • Develop strategies for feedback, peer and self assessment • Build the work into structures within schools/ departments • Lesser experienced/ ‘harder to move’ staff could perhaps be invited into the project as a method of implementing more effective CPD • Including a focus of the impact of the work on ‘vulnerable students’ in the transfer process. • Exploring parental involvement

‘It now takes a bit more time to get something, whereas in the past it had taken no time to get nothing. ’ Gary Secondary