Welcome Educators!

An Inclusive approach to education responds to difference differently to provide equal opportunities. Difference is ordinary! We practice in classes of individuals, with multiple identities and myriad needs and wants. We adapt teaching and learning strategies to meet varied learning needs.

Imagine this hexagon as an inclusion model for a class. ‘Needs’ could include all these individual personalities as well as differences which affect how a child can participate in learning, such as being ‘Disadvantaged’ or accessing Pupil Premium funding; having a presenting Special Educational Need or Disability (SEND); Gender; Ethnicity; Religion; English as an Additional Language (EAL); Higher or lower skill level in a given lesson; Memory issues; Behaviour needs and challenges… not to mention how a child learns best. There’s a lot to respond to in the rich diversity of a classroom and lots of learning barriers to smash!

The below video draws on wide research to simplify beneficial elements of an inclusive environment.

Let’s return to a more theoretical level. Through a longitudinal study across three primary classes, Florian found that it is not what formative assessing we do, but how we do it that makes a difference in children’s learning.

By introducing listening time for purposeful feedback from the children about their learning and using recording equipment to better notice pupil comments, a teacher saw progress in learning and motivation as the children became ‘co-agents’ in the learning process. For example, the teacher used open questioning to extend the usual ‘what have you learned?’ plenary question by adding ‘is there anything else you’d like to share?’. It was at this affirming moment that a previously disruptive child was able to communicate his frustrations verbally about needing further challenge. The teacher had planned to create opportunities for thoughtful self-assessment, resulting in a change to the following lesson to meet this child’s needs. It is clear how these crucial reciprocal moments between teacher and pupil could spread and become the norm in a classroom. Allowing time for listening to the ‘pupil voice’ facilitated divergent practice in which assessment directly informed planning in the short term. Being listened to was evident to the children as the next lesson was adapted to their needs. All teachers in the experiment noted progress and so became more aware of and more motivated to listen to and act on pupils’ views.

“In adopting divergent modes of formative assessment, Sally shows how she relinquished the role of expert… Sally showed us how she was able to accept the participation of pupils in pedagogic decisions.” (Florian, L. 2017)

Divergent formative assessment is a practice which holds a key to the inclusive learning environment because it allows all students to genuinely participate in the direction and success of their own learning. A sensibility to celebrate diversity and believe that all learners are capable co-agents in their learning underpins the development of knowledge and skills required for Inclusion.

I have seen much convergent formative assessment in schools, but truly divergent formative assessment has appeared less planned for and more incidental. The ethos is there but not always the complete cycle. Overall, this observation highlights a tension between theory and practice. While we know that when learning is led by them children are more motivated, the benefits of listening to pupil voice can often be at odds with school environment pressures.

I believe a teacher is best placed as a co-facilitator of knowledge and this ethos underpins inclusive practice because it supports awareness of all pupils’ needs to facilitate them being met. I have found children respond well to getting to know adults on a personal level – they feel more secure and interested in you and what they can learn from you. If this is mirrored by your interest in them, the seeds of a mutually respectful and constructive relationship for learning have been planted. Black and William (1998) highlight how relationships are at the heart of pedagogy.

High expectations and ambitious targets for all are highlighted in the National Curriculum.

“Teachers should set high expectations for every pupil. They have an even greater obligation to plan lessons for pupils who have low levels of prior attainment or come from disadvantaged backgrounds. ” (2014, section 4.1)

A central learning point for me during my first term training has been the power of consistent high expectations for learning.

A child in my class (Chd X) is diagnosed with Dyslexia and repeated tests have shown poor auditory memory. Chd X’s behaviour in the previous class was approached mainly as the communication of a need. Chd X was supported with many strategies including 1:1 support in class, use of a ‘time out busy box’ regularly, was ‘cued in’ to every input to remind Chd X to listen out for pertinent information, visual aids and sand timers were used to support learning or manage transitions, green pastel paper and task lists were used during learning, the child was in intervention groups to improve progress for reading, writing and maths – to name only some strategies. This was in year 2. Chd X’s problematic behaviour was that s/he would be seemingly impulsively violent to other children but not adults. S/he would also fervently deny any involvement when clear evidence showed otherwise. In year 3, support was dramatically reduced and expectations increased. Sand timers, green paper and visual aids are still used to good effect, but firm, consistent boundaries and high expectations of this pupil have been prioritised.

I have watched this child’s self-esteem and progress grow in an environment where s/he is expected to make as much effort as everyone else. Aggressive behaviour has stopped, and lying behaviour is gradually being replaced with some thoughtful honesty. The balance we need to strike between adapting to varied needs in the diversity of our classroom versus supporting a decided learning ‘need’ has presented itself to me as an important consideration. Overall, I believe this example shows the power of high expectations within the diverse classroom. Perhaps the class teacher involved here holds a firm belief that capabilities come first. S/he did not see deficit first, but capability. S/he sees SEND through a ‘Transactional Model’ (Tussler, S. 2015). In the end, s/he had the confidence to change approach almost completely based on one simple belief. Children are capable.

References:

Department for Education (2014) National curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4. 

Available < https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4#inclusion > [Accessed 17 January 2018].

Florian, L. and Beaton, M. (2018) “International Journal of Inclusive Education”, Inclusive pedagogy in action: getting it right for every child, (Discussion), 22, pp. 870-884.

Trussler, S. (2015)  “Understanding special educational needs, disability and inclusive education”, in Trussler, S. and Robinson, D. Inclusive practice in the primary school: a guide for teachers, London: Sage.

Welcome Educators!

This blog will critically evaluate some of Professor Usha Goswami’s conclusions about child development, thinking and learning. I will note aspects of Formative Assessment I’ve observed and consider all theory in light of my first term’s experiences as a student teacher.

Goswami concludes first and foremost that learning is language based, active and social.

“Knowledge gained through active experience, language, pretend play and teaching are all important for the development of children’s causal explanatory systems.”

(Goswami, U. 2015, p. 25)

“Piaget and Vygotsky are important for understanding how the activities of the child and the parent/sibling/peer/teacher enrich and develop… cognitive representations into a sophisticated cognitive system” (p. 24)

The ability to collaborate is key in a classroom environment conducive to formative assessment. I observed a sequence of literacy lessons culminating in children creating a newspaper article which demonstrated how well children engage in socially mediated learning.

First, the children were offered newspapers and sticky notes in groups, to show and share their prior knowledge of newspaper article key features. The buzz of eager talk quickly spread across the classroom while the children were linking knowledge to their own experiences through discussion with each other.

Next, the children generated their own success criteria after comparing and annotating two different but successful examples, setting a standard for the children’s work (Sadler, 1989).

Professor Paul Black agrees with Goswami and much widespread current opinion that knowledge is actively constructed and socially mediated.

Children were undoubtedly engaged throughout this collaborative lesson. However, independent work produced much variation. This leads me to question how far the benefits of social/active/dialogic learning can reach, to reduce individual differences?

Regarding theories of intelligence, Goswami suggests parts of intelligence are fixed. Like a spider’s web, cognitive areas of the brain are linked, and learning moments vibrate accross multiple areas. Goswami suggests that learner’s do have biological limitations in learning, but these can be offset through the learning environment.

“Strong heritability is now accepted… genetic research shows substantial genetic overlap between broad areas of cognition…within the average child, genes are ‘generalist’ in their effects…the fact that genes influence development makes it even more important to provide optimal early learning environments for all children.” (p. 23)

Conversely, other contemporary neuroscientists assert our brains are hard wired to be able to learn in some core curriculum areas. That it is not our nature but our nurture that limits us.

Central to a Formative Assessment ethos is a genuine teacher belief that all can achieve.

“Emphasise the fact that, given enough time, input and effort, all pupils can achieve success across the board and that ability is not a fixed idea…” (Clarke, S. 2005, p.12)

Concurrently, Goswami supports the idea of a ‘growth mindset’ and draws on the work of Dweck to appreciate how affective the culture of a classroom can be.

“Children’s own theory of intelligence greatly affects their ability to learn…The kind of feedback offered in the classroom is very important for the child’s self-esteem and for their view of themselves as a learner. Furthermore, teachers’ expectations can be transmitted to the social brain implicitly, without conscious intent”. (p. 24)

I have observed consistent high expectations having a significant impact on the self-esteem, metacognitive development and behaviour of a child with ADHD, Dyslexia, inhibitory control, poor auditory memory and social and communication needs this term.

At the beginning of year 3 the child (A) would often show impulsive violence during playtimes, and often lie fervently about his/her involvement, even when clear evidence to the contrary was presented to A. During year 2 many of A’s needs had been actively met to support a change in behaviour. Visual time tables and teaching aids, social stories, frequent time out with a sensory box, scaffolded and differentiated tasks were all used. However, in this instance, meeting the child’s needs proved to have little effect on behaviour. In A’s new class, a strong message was consistently sent of the same high expectations for behaviour and academic effort as everyone else and support strategies were dramatically reduced. A’s aspirations and metacognition skills must have raised, because by the end of term, they had shown no violent behaviour for one month. The child had even demonstrated inhibitory control to the extent that s/he had resisted goading from other children to get them into trouble. Key word instructions and a visual timer to support learning needs are all that seem to be required now. Other factors at play have included time and some growth mindset input and conversational style whole class discussions resolving social issues over break, but otherwise environmental factors have not changed.

Seeing the difference in this child’s attainment and social and emotional wellbeing has changed my outlook on how to help children be their best. The experience has illuminated the power of high expectations and given me the courage to scaffold less and expect more.

References:

Clarke, S. (2005) ‘Defining formative assessment’, Chapter 1 in “Formative Assessment in Action; Weaving the elements together”. London: Routledge.

Goswami, U. (2015) “Children’s cognitive development and learning”. Report for the Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

Available: <http://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/COMPLETE-REPORT-Goswami-Childrens-Cognitive-Development-and-Learning.pdf> Accessed [3rd January 2019].

Welcome. Today I will reflect on a computing activity. Throughout I will consider the importance of ‘computational thinking’, how children respond to solving problems in computing and what strategies can be used to support their learning.

I undertook two ‘Hour of Code’ sessions in the ‘Angry Bird Classic Maze’ game with year 3 to observe how the children responded to problem solving in computing. I chose this activity because it included opportunity to practise programming and computational thinking skills. I checked my chosen activity with my school Computing co-ordinator to ensure it was age/ability appropriate.

Pupils need programming skills to develop their digital literacy, so they feel confident using a range of systems, thereby enabling creativity. ‘Computational thinking’ can be described as “logical thought processes that transform ideas into reality”  (Turvey et al, 2016, p.116).

Computational thinking requires children to make their implicit thought processes explicit and solve complex problems by breaking them down into smaller solvable problems (‘decomposition’). These are valuable, transferable thought processes.

“A high quality computing education equips pupils to use computational thinking and creativity to understand and change the world”  (Computing Programme of Study, 2013)

A new Programme of Study brings new and exciting opportunities:

Courtesy of Simon Peyton-Jones TedExeter (2014)

The below video illustrates particular skills involved in computational thinking – it demands a focus on precision of language (‘abstraction’) and sequential thinking. We are talking to a computer after all!

I wanted to give the children opportunity to have a visual record of their decomposition of the problem to support the sequencing and debugging process (Turvey et al, 2016) To scaffold the children’s learning I created an enactive and ‘unplugged’ board tool.

The board tool included a grid on which to physically move their ‘Angry Bird’ character around the board, avoiding obstacles. The board helped them to engage in the ‘debugging’ process by transferring their movements on screen and recording them with a white board pen in steps to allow them to transfer the information back to the screen.
Common ‘bugs’ included sequencing, precision and rotation algorithms – we unfortunately had some issues with our ‘rights and lefts’! I had not anticipated these learning needs and so physical strategies including role play were employed to scaffold.

To guide the children’s problem solving I explained to them at the beginning of the sessions that our learning objective was to use the ‘debugging’ process. I modelled step by step ‘decomposition’ using the board tool.
So how did the children respond?

• Some children would use quite illogical trial and error repetitions to try to reach their goal independently, rather than ask for help. They got very frustrated! I reminded these children to practise their ‘debugging’ skills and used the grid tool with them, asking questions throughout to create develop their thinking like, “how did you do that?” and “what will happen if…?” or “what did you ask Angry Bird to do?” or “why hasn’t it worked?”. Berry et al state we are looking for “planned debugging of code rather than trial and error” (2013, p.9)

• The children were clearly experienced in the benefits of collaboration in problem solving as one of them asked “Miss, can we talk to our friends?”. I used this as an opportunity to reinforce the benefits of collaboration in the ‘debugging’ process, explaining that professional programmers always collaborate as sometimes we are blind to our own mistakes (Berry et al, 2013).

• The children demonstrated visualisation and counting to help them reach their goal, pointing at the screen and shifting in their seats. I gave them time to explore options and then encouraged them to use the board tool to help themselves.

• The board tool worked effectively in supporting the children to ‘debug’! I believe this is because it was a physical tool that they could use to record their decomposition process, step by step. And importantly, they could do this by themselves.

“…it is rarely helpful for you to fix a bug for pupils until they have worked through the stages of debugging themselves. Debugging a code develops valuable learning skills that are transferable right across the curriculum, such as independence, resilience and persistence” (Berry, 2013, p.8).

To improve the lesson in future I would; use my formative assessment information to set an appropriate challenge level for each pair, build some prior learning about correct rotation instructions and show the children the ‘Jam Sandwich’ video clip to help them link what they were doing to a familiar concept.

References:

‘Angry Bird Classic Maze’ image [online] Available: https://kyleliberia.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/an-hour-of-code/ [Accessed 30th October 2018]

Berry et al (2013) ‘Computing in the New Curriculum. A Guide for Primary Teachers’, Bedford: Newnorth Print Ltd.

DfE (2013) ‘Computing Programmes of Study: key stages 1 and 2’ [online] Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239033/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Computing.pdf [Accessed 30th October 2018]

Peyton-Jones (2014) TedExeter ‘Teaching Creative Computer Science’  video clip in Cizmadia et al (2015) ‘Computational Thinking: A Guide for Teachers‘ [online] Available: http://tedxexeter.com/2014/05/06/simon-peyton-jones-teaching-creative-computer-science/

Turvey, Potter, Burton (2016) ‘Computational Thinking and Programming’ in ‘Primary Computing and Digital Technologies; Knowledge, Understanding and Practice’, London: Sage, Learning Matters.

Safeguarding is an inherent part of teaching.

Two key challenges facing teachers regarding the safeguarding of children and their well-being include:

How do we effectively identify, respond to and report risk?
How do we keep pace with the fast-changing nature of online risks?

We should continually ask ourselves questions about the children in our care. Some children may be particularly vulnerable to risk, including children with SEND. I worked with a 6 year old child on the Autism Spectrum who had minimal speech and understanding for their age. Safeguarding this child’s welfare was paramount as s/he didn’t have the capacity to communicate. The staff team would follow school policy daily to report concerns such as; any sudden mood shifts, weight loss/gain, unexplained absences or marks on the child’s body, parental comments/engagement levels, food/clothes/equipment provision…all these aspects helped to build the jigsaw puzzle of information around this child.

“Any child may benefit from early help, but all school and college staff should be particularly alert to the potential need for early help for a child who…has special educational needs (whether or not they have a statutory Education, Health and Care Plan)” 

(Keeping Children Safe In Education, 2018, p. 7)

First and foremost, we can respond to risk with efficiency by simply listening. Trusting relationships with children are key – to their learning and their protection. Asking open questions like ‘…And then what happened?’ will help a child to share information. We should never guide a child or promise to keep information a secret. Instead we must explain to the child that we need to share information to keep them safe.

We know that developing a class culture of celebrating differences and fostering caring relationships enriches all – but social harmony acts as a powerful protective factor when considering safeguarding. Social isolation can leave children vulnerable to abuse and is a risk factor in itself.

If a teacher has concerns they should speak with a Designated Safeguarding Lead staff member first, and immediately. The teacher should follow school policy at all times. A decision can then be made, alongside previous information about that child as to the safeguarding category in which they fit and what needs to be done:

(‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’, 2018, p.13)

If a teacher discovers Female Genital Mutilation has been carried out on a child we have a mandatory requirement to report it to the Police immediately (Keeping Children Safe in Education Part 1, 2018, p.11). Observing confidentiality is an integral part of safeguarding and we can refer to the ‘7 Golden Rules of Information Sharing’ for guidance (Information Sharing, 2018, p.2).

Responding to risk offline all stems from knowing our procedures and our children. Collaborating with parents is particularly important when considering online safety. We live in an Information Age. The virtual landscape changes fast. Consequently, our approach to online safeguarding needs to be rigorous, persistent and adaptable.

Online safety risks include cyber bullying, grooming leading to abuse and exposure to inappropriate sexual or hateful material. The opportunities and risks that online exploration presents to children, grows with them. For example, at nursery age, 48% of children are already using YouTube. By Key Stage 2, 81% use YouTube and 23% have a social media profile.

(‘Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report’, 2017, p.2)

To enable children out there in the online world, we need a balanced approach. It is important to avoid risk aversion, as this may limit children’s opportunities when using the internet. Research shows that potential risks are closely correlated with potential benefits. (Byron, 2008)

“It is important to support children’s capacity to cope themselves, thereby building resilience for digital citizens.” (Livingstone et al, 2011, p.6)

So how do we keep up with the fast-changing nature of online interaction?

Byron highlights the risks of a ‘digital divide’:

“There is a generational digital divide which means that parents do not necessarily feel equipped to help their children in this space – which can lead to fear and a sense of helplessness. This can be compounded by a risk-averse culture where we are inclined to keep our children ‘indoors’ despite their developmental needs to socialise and take risks”  (2008, p.5)

The cruel irony here is that risk averse attitudes and the ‘digital divide’ can cause parents to unwittingly collude in pushing their child into a riskier online situation.

So can we adapt? Of course we can! As parents and teachers we can collaborate and get involved. At school level we can educate ourselves and children about risks and benefits and critical use of the internet, sharing expertise for everyone’s benefit. It is within our power to regularly meet parents outside school hours to share information, offering advice on new apps/sites being used and how to manage potential risk at home.  Goodwin Academy near Dover are doing just that:

Courtesy of ‘Ofstednews’, 2018)

‘Internet Matters’ provides a useful video for parents to help manage online safety at home. This kind of resource could easily be shared by schools as part of a sustained strategy of collaboration:

(Courtesy of ‘Internet Matters’, 2015)

References
Livingstone, Haddon, Gorzig and Olaffson (2011) ‘EU Kids Online: Final Report’ [online] Available:http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45490/1/EU%20Kids%20Online%20final%20report%202011%28lsero%29.pdf [Accessed 7th October 2018]
Byron (2008) ‘Safer Children in the Digital World. Report of the Byron Review’ [online] Available:http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110208124742/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/Safegauardingchildren/Page3/DCSF-00334-2008 [Accessed 7th October 2018].
DfE (2015) ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’, London: HMSO. [online] Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education–2 [Accessed 7th October 2018]
Turvey, Potter, Burton (2016) ‘Safety; Online and Off’ in ‘Primary Computing and Digital Technologies; Knowledge, Understanding and Practice’, London: Sage, Learning Matters.
‘E Safety Tips for Parents. Learn about it/Talk about it/Deal with it’ [online film] Available: https://www.internetmatters.org/advice/6-10/ [Accessed 7th October 2018]

‘Online Safety and How Schools and Parents Work Together’ [online film] Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMNOF2JlPnY

Welcome to your brand new blog at University of Brighton Blog Network.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit our comprehensive support site and check out our Edublogs User Guide guide.

You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.