Encouraging confident learners

Man looking at camera: “I don’t think this is going to work?  Anyone think we should just stay stuck?”

Some classes gather momentum from day one and make leaps and bounds and bring joy to their teacher every lesson. Some do not and need a little help. I have a class at the moment that needs a little encouragement, to become a little more confident, if we are ever to get the point of joy and wonderment together.  There are a couple of things we need to work on together but issue Number 1, in my head, sounds a little bit like this:

“When you ask me for help you simply want the answer, without having to think at all.  I want to engage in a stimulating conversation about the topic with the cut and thrust of intellectual debate.”

You can see that this is as much a problem for me as much as the students.  In fact, the problem has been worse than this - most pupils didn’t ask for help at all.  Too happy to be stuck and wait for the answer, solution or thinking to be given to them on a silver plated, powerpoint based lecture from your's truly. I needed a way to get students to ask for help in such a way which would enable three things to happen:

1. they would feel encouraged to seek help when completing complex tasks
2. they would have the confidence to ask for help or ask a question without fear of making themselves look like a buffoon
3. I wouldn't get swamped by loads of poor questions or requests for help which were disguised as just wanting the answer

and also it had to help me identify precisely what they actually, specifically required help with. Most importantly, we needed to all begin to form some habits and behaviours around asking for help.  

So make that 5 things. What better way to instil confidence but by giving students an indication of the kind of language to use in a particular situation. My starting point was around the solo taxonomy since not everyone requires the same level of help or support. I am calling it “Question casino”. On a slide it looks like this:

Solo Structured 

Students at prestructural level haven’t yet formed a clear understanding. Often this means: "I haven’t got a clue so I need some help from you but I am also not really sure what part of the task or thinking I am stuck with." The prompts I gave them in the first column help to pinpoint exactly what it is the student needs help with and avoid them saying:  “ I can’t do it” or “It doesn’t make any sense” or “I’m stuck”. So at the first level they are encouraged to ask CLARIFYING questions: like

“What does x mean?”  “I don’t understand x, can you explain it”  “I’m having trouble understanding what it means by X….”

Using  these low level questions or phrases gains a white casino chip worth $5. Whoop.

Students at unistructural level need to build up their ideas and knowledge:  For a student this might mean "I have one idea about this but haven’t yet built up a full picture; there are parts I don’t understand". So using the prompts encourages students to ask slightly more PROBING questions about a specific item. The students are probing me about something they want to know but they have to be specific. So, they are encouraged to ask questions which start with….

Who…

Where…

When…

What….

or say things like -

“there’s part of the source I don’t understand…”

“In this section it says, “xyz”... does that mean...?”

Using  these questions or phrases gains a Blue Chip worth $20. Whoot, whoot.

Students at the multistructural level have several ideas and pieces of knowledge but may lack confidence in connecting these or applying them in different contexts.  In History this can be an issue especially when investigating primary sources.  So students are encouraged to Check their Understanding and be asked a question. They are encouraged to use phrases such as:

"I think that x is correct because…. Do you agree?"

"I have written this but I am concerned about…"

"Can you settle an argument about….?"

"Am I right in thinking…?"

As a reward for doing the thinking and offering their ideas students gain a Red $30 chip. Hooray. 

Finally, students at relational level are usually knowledgeable and confident about seeing how their ideas link and are able to offer analysis of ideas. In theory this means they don't require much support so depending on the task I made the final category about getting on without any help but with the stipulation that they had to get the task 100% correct.  This would gain them a black chip worth an additional 20% on top of the highest score.  Risky but with a reward.

What happened when I introduced this?

I introduced it as I have described here - me to class “I need to understand if you are stuck and require help but you could think more deeply about the help you need, so here’s some language we can benefit from.  Use the phrases to receive a coloured chip worth the value of the request.  You may ask up-to 6 questions in a clockwise direction so that each person in the group is able to ask for help”.   Ignoring me, their eyes glazed over and were drawn to the pile of casino chips, sitting, without value at the front of the room.

I set it up to run over the course of a 15 minute activity  where students were investigating different primary sources and trying to put together a response to a typical 7 mark question:  "What is the message of the source?"  They were given a mark scheme and were familiar with the skills and writing required so that the Black Chip could definitely be obtained; some students could do the task unaided.  It also helped that each table had a different source so that the questions couldn't be repeated.

Two groups immediately announced their desire to go for the Black Chip and trump everyone else.  One table stayed the course and completed the task in the set time but did not get the task 100% correct.  They were upset when they got no chips at all and no dollars but immediately saw the value of asking for help, even if it was to clarify their understanding.  I gave them 50 bucks for their efforts as they'd had some excellent discussion on their table and given the task a good go independently. 

Another group used up their questions in rapid succession without thought, with each individual group member asking lower level questions.  Where it really worked is at the RED CHIP level, because students began to agree on what would be said as they had to take turn to ask their question.  Using the cues on the board students were keen to maximise the value of their questions and would ask me to check their understanding as they worked through the task. 

For many of the students this was the first time that they were engaging in a conversation with me about their understanding outside our regular norms of the question / answer repartee.  This pattern of verbal exchange spread rapidly across the classroom as more and more groups realised that by working together and figuring out the answers they could gain valuable chips by checking their thinking. 

This was beginning to have an impact for two reasons: pupils were actively working together to problem solve and support each other; students were initiating discussion with me about the topic in a way which was more adult and thoughtful; it allowed me to ask follow up questions if students hadn't explained themselves.  The chip would not be handed over until any subsequent questions from me were answered.

The class drew out in our debrief the success of the strategy and identified 2 key features of the way it helped the class:

1. Forces everyone in the group to support each other and break the habit of a lifetime and ask for help in a meaningful way
2. It means the teacher isn’t doing the thinking for the pupils

Over the next three lessons we used the strategy and refined it slightly each with some phrases being added to the board.  “Am I right in thinking….”   became rather over used!

Proof of the pudding is in the normalised use

I'm sure you're wondering - what happens to the racks of chips the students have won?  We kept a spread sheet showing the totals and at the end of last term the group who had accumulated the most chips got a round of applause from the class.  There was a clamour for sweets and chocolate as a prize, which was ignored by grumpy altar ego.

More importantly is the fact that, with only a picture of a chip on the board or a quick reminder the banter quickly now turns to, "Am I right in thinking that..." and "Sir, he is seriously suggesting that x is y...  Can you come and settle an argument?"  Of course I can.

The Shape of Things to Come

The last post I wrote about hexagons did encourage a few people to use the strategy to help students develop relational thinking in a visual way.

It has fascinated me seeing the extent to which an idea can travel and be used in a such a myriad of settings.  It's also amusing to see how an idea can embody annoyance with gimmicks in teaching.

Let's see how this one pans out. It involves hexagons.  It involves cutting out.  It also involves students literally getting to grips with a topic / subject / concept.  But it is also such a flexible starting point from which you can apply to any number of subjects and topics which is interesting.

It is called variously the hexaflexagon or the trihexaflexagon or the flexahexagon or flexagon.

The basic premise is that this simple, 2D paper cut out object will be a useful way to record small pieces of information about a topic in a mildly interesting way.  It is a two sided hexagon which magically reveals a third side once folded.  When I first showed it to students at lunchtime today they cried, "Burn the witch!!", which was frankly the nicest thing  anyone has ever said to me.

The very nature of the object makes it intrinsically interesting and something your students will fiddle about with for at least 8 or 9 minutes.  If you combine the hexaflexagon with some pieces of data or information that you require the students to remember for, say, a test - then they might actually read it during that 8 or 9 minutes.  Hey presto a revision tool.

Here's an example of how it might work in a subject picked at random such as... History.  Take a topic like the League of Nations.  There may be three essential questions to learn about this topic:

• What were the successes of the League?
• What were the examples of their failures?
• What were the reasons why the League failed?

These three strands are of course, closely related.  Boil down the essential nuggets of knowledge about these strands and write them on one of the triangles of the flexagon.  Now you have a pocket sized revision guide for that topic.

What is more - you could make another one for a linked topic (The treaty of Versailles) and use them on the desk like a regular set of hexagons, building up sequences, creating links between pieces of your knowledge.

I reckon there are endless uses. Here are some templates to get you started:

Link to PDF Version with a blank
Link to Publisher Version to edit yourself

Best served just before an exam.  My next post might actually be about learning.

It would be great if you left a comment on this blog saying how you might use this in your subject!

If you really want to get your head round how it works watch this:



And here's a link to a nifty image generator.  Follow me on twitter here @clarky099

Not quite peer review

Year 12 were in limbo last week when they turned up for their History lesson with me.  Half of them were missing in action - revising or in an exam so I decided to get them to help me out.  I had a pile of Year 9 assignments to mark - pupils had created a written report based on enquiry into how the Nazis and Hitler got into power and how Jews has been persecuted in Europe prior to the 20th century.

Since Year 12 Historians are pretty much experts in the Nazi state due to their A/S studies I asked them to look over the work and provide feedback for the Year 9 students.  At first they were rather reluctant, sleepy, tired and cynical - "so we're just doing your work for you....?".

We briefly discussed what we were looking for and what they should comment on- there were clear success criteria for the format of the report and the solo taxonomy provided the framework for the level of thinking achieved in what was written. I then checked the feedback and marking with the sixth formers and added detail if it was missing.

The quality of feedback was really good - the markers tried to acknowledge the successes and then give specific, helpful feedback about what they could do to improve.  I felt this feedback from Lucy to Jack was really helpful and complimentary:

I really liked the simplicity of this feedback from Charlotte:

What was interesting was the the reflections of the sixth formers as we discussed peer assessment.   There was a clear divide between some of the sixth formers who felt that when peer assessing the work of people you knew well in your class it encouraged you to be more critical, whereas you were less likely to be "harsh" with people you didn't know.  On the other hand, some of the group felt it was a challenge to provide "feedforward" or advice for improvement to people you didn't know well as you weren't aware of the level they normally worked at and were capable of.   This is something teachers who know their students well take for granted.

The reaction of Year 9 to getting this feedback was on the whole markedly positive, there were two people who couldn't read the writing!  Mostly though Year 9 were surprised at the attention to detail; they liked the praise and some even wanted to write some notes of thanks in return!  It makes me consider how I can tap into this more and I'm now considering how we can use our classblog or perhaps Edmodo to submit work for "not quite peer review".

Assessing for Learning

I have become determined to help shape the quality of  my students writing as it is worked upon rather than relying on marking a piece and seeing the same errors time and time again.  Seems obvious, but I've fallen out of this habit.

So I used this quick technique yesterday in order to help structure some peer assessment / critique of an ongoing writing task (in an effort to try and "feed up" at least as much as "feedback" on tasks).  Year 8 students have been using their knowledge of evacuation experiences during the Second World War to write a creative diary piece which is, or should be, historically accurate.  We began the lesson by asking students to proofread a terrible piece of writing - something everyone can be successful at!

Students had completed their first draft of their diaries for homework and so they then proofread their own and then their partners writing, looking for the same sorts of common errors - punctuation and capitals, checking for sense.  Far too often students don't complete this valuable step in many areas of their work and so it was really encouraging to hear students talk about the errors, omissions and spellings they caught themselves almost getting away with as they examined their writing.

Once this was completed pupils moved up a gear and used the slips shown below to analyse key features of their drafts. (The idea came from this excellent page on the subject of drafting and showing pupils your drafting process and here is the link to the feedback rating cards.)  The idea is that students must RANK 5 features of their work from most evident skill to the least evident skill and then compare this with scores given by a partner.

Students on the whole enjoyed comparing their own ratings with their partner - and generally most pairs found some common ground, like the example shown above.  Where there was conflict over the scores this created a deeper analysis of the writing as students searched to either justify or counter the claims being made of their work.  When I then spoke to pupils as they absorbed the meaning of this analysis it became apparent that they could all, at the very least, identify which aspects of their work they needed to improve upon.

When I talked to small groups afterwards about the effectiveness and purpose of this strategy there was a difference of opinion.   Many pairs of students immediately saw the value in comparing the views of one's own writing with another person and discussing the areas they needed to improve.  However, some students, often those who had spent more time doing the self analysis before sharing their results with their partner, felt that ranking was counter-productive.  They claimed that where there were two or three really good features of their work they felt they wanted to give them a joint ranking of 2 or 3.  It took some time to help them see that thinking more deeply about their judgement was a useful exercise in proofreading.

It made me also realise that I hadn't worded the task well enough as the original author used the phrase "1= most evident skill 5 = least evident skill", whereas I had plumbed for 1=best feature.  I need to change this emphasis when I do this again and spend more time exploring the purpose and value of the activity before it begins.  Thanks for the feedback, Year 8.

Creating a "need to know"

One of the more difficult aspects for students when beginning an enquiry where they do not have a wealth of prior knowledge is deciding on what they "need to know".  Without a clear direction it can mean that enquiries become very messy during the research phase.

I have decided to try a couple of strategies to help students decide on what they needed to know, so that their research and evidence gathering would be more focussed, relevant and potentially quicker.

I should mention that I tried all these strategies with my Year 9 Project Humanities class - a set of able students.

Strategy One - Decide for yourself

As an introduction to the Project Humanities course I give the students a 2-3 lesson challenge to investigate the question - "When was it best to be a germ?" The end product would be a living graph of how germs "felt" throughout different periods of history.

A typical finished product - a living graph.

This kind of activity will be familiar to anyone who has taught the SHP Medicine Through Time course or read of the excellent strategies in the Thinking Through History resource book.  I use this challenge as a way of returning to a solid historical concept (continuity and change) and as a way of tapping into the learning habits the students have brought from Year 8.  I am keen to see how they collaborate to plan, break up the tasks and use their time effectively as well as the depth of thinking they participate at.

The challenge was introduced by watching a Domestos advert and brainstorming as a group the purposes of a germ.  Typical answers were - to multiply and spread; to survive and live a long life; to infect and make ill etc.  Next we discussed how in the modern world we deal with the threat of germs and illness and how this differed from the past.

Students were introduced to the challenge and given a chance to form their own groups and familiarise themselves with the task and the resources available - a book box from our fantastic LRC, some pre-printed sheets and if they felt it necessary - the internet.  Students had around 30 minutes during which time I observed students deciding how their group would divide the task; re-reading the challenge instructions; asking questions about the different time periods they had been asked to consider; making notes; discussing which periods they would investigate.

Interestingly, one or two groups decided to make some predictions about what they believed might be the pattern they would find using their own (pretty basic) prior knowledge of some of the periods.  Both these groups were helped enormously by engaging in this thought process - they were quicker to decide on what they needed to know, were able to visualise their end product earlier and had a sense of direction about the task.

Two groups of students made predictions before they began their research - a helpful thought process.

In the second session pupils were introduced to the success criteria for the task and I used the SOLO taxonomy to provide a structure.  Only two pupils recognised the symbols and words associated with SOLO from other lessons so I gave the students a brief overview of the meaning behind SOLO using a football analogy. We read the success criteria together and then I asked students to decide as a group on three things -

1. What do we need to know? (what would we have to find out in our research)
2. What do we need to be able to do?
3. What decisions do we need to make?  

I emphasised that the students needed to try and use the success criteria to help them decide what they wanted to know and the results were very pleasing.  A few groups took a few attempts to decipher the success criteria into the knowledge they required but all groups successfully decided on relevant avenues of enquiry and areas they wanted to find out about.  

Here are some examples of what pupils decided they needed to know...

How well did this strategy work?

Very well.  Primarily because students were actively deciphering the success criteria and explaining to each to each other and myself what they needed to know.  But it also worked well because using the SOLO success criteria invited many students to consider the kinds of knowledge they would need to effectively reach the relational and extended abstract levels.  All students were able to describe at least two pieces of information they would need to know to be able to answer the questions, for example:   "We will need to know what people thought caused the illnesses and how they treated people", "We would need to know how clean people were during this period or if they had any hygiene".

One of the completed living graphs

Detail from one of the living graphs

On reflection there are a number of important features of how the challenge was structured which also helped pupils decide on what they needed to know:

1. Some limitations - clarity about the historical periods to be investigated and the question to be answered and a time limit which was fairly challenging.
2. Using predictions and prior knowledge - students who sat and thought or discussed what they expected to find before they began any research were far more successful.
3. A chance to get to understand the problem - the first 30 minutes were spent allowing the students to go and view sources of information, see what was out there, re-read the task, discuss and ask clarifying questions.  I find that this time is essential for students to make sense of a complex task and I often only ask students to formally "plan" their enquiry after they have had this time.
4. Clear success criteria which challenged pupils to think in complex ways, not just produce "more"
5. Accessible material for all levels of ability.

Ultimately, enquiry learning can engage, inspire and challenge students but it needs careful design to make it work for all learners.

SOLO Enquiry

After spending over a year thinking about SOLO taxonomy and its application in my students learning I have finally had the push I needed to get going with a proper enquiry into its effectiveness in my classroom.


Our school has given us time to meet as part of Professional Enquiry Groups - small groups of teachers with a common interest in a particular pedagogical theme. I belong to the group on 'developing thinking' (led by @dkmead) and in the last week we were encouraged to map out an enquiry into our chosen area of interest. This was a really rewarding experience - facilitated using a structure for critiquing projects used in High Tech High.  More of this in another post.


In essence this is what my enquiry is about - can student's improve their performance by (self) referring to the SOLO taxonomy?  In particular I wanted to (a) make a display for my classroom which I could introduce the SOLO taxonomy to my students and (b) encourage students to use the display as a place for them to refer to to see how they can make improvements to their thinking and (c) where they can find copies of thinking maps / graphic organisers to use in learning activities.  


I have today enlisted some help in creating my display and it will hopefully take shape so that it eventually communicates the message contained within this slideshare (from Pam Hook)

HOT Maps and SOLO Taxonomy

View more presentations from Pam Hook

For me the first step has been to design some learning activities using the SOLO taxonomy. That way I could get to grips with my own understanding of how it works.  I created the learning outcomes for a GCSE Humanities lesson with year 10 students looking at the contentious issue of building a large dam in the Amazonian rainforest basin.  Here's a link to the outcomes.  Using the SOLO taxonomy had reminded me of the need to plan lessons and activities with a clear, explicit link between the learning intentions and the learning outcome.  


Thinking in shapes:


I decided that the main activity would be a hexagonal card sort which would allow students to classify the effects of the dam being built and compare the positive and negative effects.  The following slideshow shows the student's arrangements in response to the question: "Are we right to stop the Belo Monte Dam project?"




The shape of the hexagonal cards along with an invitation to be creative in their arrangements allowed students to create patterns and arrangements which not only showed classification (groups of effects) but some also sequenced the relationship between effects (how some minor effects of building the dam could create other effects). There was only one group of students who teetered at 'multistructural' for the most part of the activity while they tried to work out the relationship between the cards.


Benefits?


I found that all groups reached "relational" stage during the lesson.  Every group was proficient at explaining their thinking ie why they had arranged their cards the way they had and the meaning behind them.  I also asked every group "How did the cards help you to think about this topic?" and every group was unusually expressive at describing how the shape of the cards had allowed them to make creative links and bring in evidence that they might have otherwise disregarded.  I was really pleased that all groups had been capable of this type of reflection.


There were a number of benefits to using SOLO to plan this lesson - (a) it refocused my mind on planning activities which encouraged higher order thinking (b) it allowed students to demonstrate their thinking in a visible way (c) the card sort enabled students to express through talk their response to the investigation.  It also highlighted how certain groups worked at solving this type of problem and how certain groups were capable of readily demonstrating relational thinking of a complex nature.


Next steps


My mission is now to build in a number of opportunities to allow students to actively use the SOLO taxonomy as a rubric for their learning.  After that I will need to spend time exploring with students how the HOT thinking maps can be used to organise effective thinking - hopefully in preparation for written work which demonstrates the same level of thinking.






ps here's the lesson powerpoint I used...