From 1989 until 1996, the British Education Research Association (BERA) formed a group of voluntary professors to engage in a project that would challenge the methods of assessing in schools. The group continued from 1996 as the Assessment Reform Group (ARG) after BERA cancelled their connection. Since ARG have ended after being continued by the Nuffield Foundation, their work and research stands relevant in current classrooms, with statements in agreement such as:

• Clark (2003, p.2) agreeing “formative assessment is a powerful tool for focusing effective learning.”;
• Wragg (2001, p.84) arguing “if assessment and learning are ever divorced, then the former will become a barren bureaucratic exercise and the latter will be much the poorer for its detachment.”and;
• Hull and Burke (2003, p.17), supported also by Keogh, Dabell and Naylor (2008, p.5), agree that from the research of ARG members from 1998, a focus on finding a well-balanced assessment approach has been apparent.

In 2010, ARG created a poster which breaks down their assessment for learning into ten principles that teachers, schools, and tutors may refer to (image 1).

An example of the 10 Principles poster created by ARG (Image 1) Accessed 8^th December 2016: https://www.tes.com/teaching-resource/assessment-for-learning-10-principles-6027146

Briggs et Al argue in a recent study (2009, p.2) that there are three main concepts of assessment:

• “Assessment FOR learning (formative assessment);
• Assessment AS learning (self-assessment, peer-assessment);
• Assessment OF learning (summative assessment).”

A system in place at Lyndhurst Infant School is the ‘Two stars and a wish’ marking system, of which the teacher finds two positives to say about their work and, if any, one error that needs addressing. The positives are in green pen and the ‘wish’ is in orange. This feedback gives the child a chance to ‘up-level’ their work. For a child to partake in up-leveling, they must acknowledge the feedback and the wish and proceed to correct their mistake. This was done in purple pen to highlight the correction. From this continuing system, I could witness that ‘assessment for learning’ is successful as a concept. From time to time, children were given the opportunity to mark each other’s work and exchanging constructive criticism to their peers which was extraordinary to observe five-year-olds perform.

Target Tracker is a programme used at Lyndhurst Infant School as updatable database for teachers to check the levels of the pupils in their class. From evidence gained from assessments in the lesson such as pupil voice, worksheets and photographs, teachers can ‘click-off’ statements set for the child by the National Curriculum. This gives the teacher a colour-coordinated, pinpoint accuracy of a child’s capability and in which areas the child needs to explore and evidence to continue their individual development. From these sessions, I saw how the teacher researched previous assessment and the systematic process to have a magnified view of the child’s learning, therefore I understand ‘assessment of learning’ also plays a necessary part in a classroom.

An example of Target Tracker. (Image 2: Accessed 9^th December 2016 http://www.eesforschools.org/targettracker)

It was apparent that all three concepts of assessment Briggs et Al claim were used at Lyndhurst Infant School.

Nevertheless, the strategies have not avoided criticism from the media and from teachers in the United Kingdom. The problems appear when workload in put into the spotlight. Richardson (2016) analysed the Education Policy Institute’s recent research and found teachers work 60-hour weeks with the result being portrayed as the result of teachers taking work home with them every night to assess. Tidd (2016) puts forward the case that “all too often, time required for vital lesson planning is swallowed up by writing copious comments that won’t help pupils to learn.” Tidd concludes that “every time a teacher corrects or praises a child, it should be considered as feedback and that the feedback should not need to be documented to verify it occurred.“ School Standards Minister Nick Gibb has been reported by BBC (2016) to have reflected upon the research by stating “teachers are wasting time on marking with coloured pens” of which, from my experience I argue that altering pens was a not big issue during assessment.

With the recent research gathered by The Guardian (2016), Lightfoot argues that because “98% [of teachers] are under increasing pressure”, “43% of teachers in England plan to leave” with “82% say their workload is unmanageable”. This provocative poll result suggests that, although I personally felt marking and assessment in school was effective, the richness and constant fixation with school data, leagues and performance is forcing the teachers to a point where they feel they cannot continue in the profession, a pressure I may yet to feel. Richardson responded (2016) to the recent Educational Policy Institute research by concluding “Many teachers ‘working 60-hour week’” and this assumption is thought to be a result of ‘take-home work’ for teachers.

Teachers hold a responsibility to be reflective (Teacher Standards, 2013) and if the teacher feels they cannot retain that enthusiasm and accountability of their work, something is wrong with the current system. In terms of balance, the debates and arguments continue for now.

BBC Education. (2016) Teachers ‘wasting time on marking with coloured pens’ [online], London: BBC. Available: < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37705385 >[Accessed 7th December 2016].
Black, P. et Al (2005) Assessment for Learning: Putting it to practice    , Open University Press: England.

Clarke, S. (2003) Enriching Feedback in the Primary Classroom: Oral and Written Feedback from Teachers and Children, Hodder Murray: London.

Department for Education (2016) Teaching Standards [online]. Available:< https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/301107/Teachers__Standards.pdf > [Accessed 6th December 2016].

Gardner, J. [ed] (2012) Assessment and Learning, Sage Publication Ltd: London.

Hall, K. and Burke, W.M. (2003) Making Formative Assessment Work: Effective Practice in the Primary Classroom, Open University Press: Berkshire.

Keogh, B., Dabell, J. & Naylor, S. (2006) Active Assessment in English: Thinking, Learning and Assessment in English, Routledge: London.

Lightfoot, L. (2016) ‘Nearly half of England’s teachers plan to leave in the next five years’ [online], London: The Guardian. Available:

< https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/22/teachers-plan-leave-five-years-survey-workload-england > [Accessed 8th December 2016].

Nuffield Foundation. (2016) The Assessment Reform Group [online]. London: Nuffield Foundation. Available: < http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/assessment-reform-group > [Accessed 8th December 2016].

Richardson, H. (2016) Many teachers ‘working 60-hour week [online], London: BBC. Available: < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37585982 > [Accessed 8th December 2016].
Tidd, M. (2016) Here’s some feedback: marking isn’t essential [online], London: TES. Available: < https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/heres-some-feedback-marking-isnt-essential > [Accessed 9th December 2016].

Wragg, E.C. (2001) Assessment and Learning in the Primary School, Routledge: London.

Before I began planning for my year one Computing lesson that was assigned the ‘logging onto a school computer’ learning objective, I was curious to see at what age parents generally start to introduce ICT into the lives of their children. In October 2012, OFCOM gathered research about children in the ‘digital world’ and found that “9% of 3-4 year olds use a tablet at home, according to their parents.” This is the age where children are still developing their cognitive skills such as throwing, jumping and mental skills such as a wider scale of emotions, understanding basic instructions and imitation (WebMD, 2016) and so to be using a tablet at this age is an interesting observation for the development of their fine motor skills.

While I shall not go into the importance of internet safety that this research is leaning towards, I took the information that children do start young when using digital equipment in terms of computing and therefore my expectations of mostly all the pupils completing the learning objective was high. I also received information that the children had taken part in this activity in their Reception year which led me to reason this objective should not be a problem to achieve.

The lesson was not as successful as I presumed. Most children were confused from the beginning: the keyboard letter placement; the relationship between the cursor and touchpad; and on occasions I had to explain that they did not swipe left or right as some children began running their fingers over the netbook screen like a tablet. The one thing I did not consider was the format of their initial computing experiences and that their home use would be vastly different to what Computing in a Primary School entails. Ager (p.23, 2003) suggested that “what needs to be done in primary schools is to teach children the technical skills to use the computer packages and subsequently teach them how they can use the teaching packages as tools to help them develop their highest-level thinking skills.” From this statement, we can assume Ager would be content with what the National Curriculum have renamed ‘Computing’ from Information Communication Technology in the latest update. For education in England, Key stages 1 and 2 now follow these aims;

“… to ensure that all pupils:

• can understand and apply the fundamental principles and concepts of computer science, including abstraction, logic, algorithms and data representation
• can analyse problems in computational terms, and have repeated practical experience of writing computer programs in order to solve such problems
• can evaluate and apply information technology, including new or unfamiliar technologies, analytically to solve problems
• are responsible, competent, confident and creative users of information and communication technology.” (www.gov.uk, 2013)

As a teacher, just like any other subject that they teach, their subject knowledge of Computing must continually develop to ensure that their teaching is effective and present. Beauchamp (p.1, 2012) suggests “as part of their development, teachers have had to develop practical ICT skills both during their training and throughout their career. As software and hardware develop, the skills required also change and any books which deals with specific hardware resources or software packages is often out of date very quickly.” But Beauchamp continues to acknowledge the technology changes, the process and pedagogic-thinking.

A short video from 1991 called ‘Learning Matters – Computers and Multimedia in the Classroom’ (Learning Matters, 1991) showed me that although the technology in the video was old, the teaching and the use of the technology has not changed as dramatically as I initially believed. The lesson planned by the teacher Jaqueline Killingsworth would not look out of place in a modern primary school lesson on Computing.

Although Computing is not always necessarily fun: Microsoft Word; Calendars; Logging on and off for examples, the pupils will find that these lessons learnt during their computing education at school are tools and experiences which will set the foundation to their multimedia future and it will unlock a vast, open, and creative digital world for them to explore as they desire: whether it be the on a laptop, desktop, phone or tablet, they may create, edit, write, draw, learn, explore, watch and discover a mass of interesting and exciting things.

However, they will need to log on first.

Ager, R. (2003) “Information and Communications Technology in Primary Schools: Children or Computers in Control?” David Fulton Publishers Ltd: London.

Beauchamp, G. (2012) “ICT in the Primary School: From Pedagogy to Practice” Pearson Education Limited: Essex.

Department of Education (2013) “National Curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study [online]”

Available: [ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study ] accessed 29^th November 2016.

Learning Matters (1991) “computers and multimedia in the classroom [online]” Learning Matters.

Available: [ https://archive.org/details/LearningMatters1991-07-18 ] accessed 29^th November 2016.

OFCOM (2013) “Protecting Your Child in the Digital World [online]” www.ofcom.org.uk

Available: [ https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/7107/managemedia.pdf ] accessed 29^th November 2016.

WebMD (2016) 3 to 4-year-old: Developmental Milestones [online]” WebMD, LLC.

Available: [ http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/3-to-4-year-old-milestones#1 ] accessed 29^th November 2016.

On the second day of my PGCE course I was instructed to write a paragraph on ‘How do children learn?’ to generate my initial response to the term ‘Pedagogy’. I answered;
“Children learn through exciting and motivating teaching, activities and connections. Children are assisted in learning through visual aids, resources and guidance. Children learn through practising.”
This answer is somewhat correct; however, it merely scraps the surface on what is a complex answer in comparison to the studies of Pedagogy from Gotswami. Gotswami (p.25, 2015) agrees that thinking, reasoning and understanding can be extended through imaginative scenario but improves my point by suggesting that the teacher of the class must provide scaffolding to the learning for the task to be beneficial to the children. I used ‘guidance’ loosely in my answer but essentially this can branch off into many subheadings such as;

• Knowledge of the children – creating suitable but challenging activities that includes every child in the classroom;
• Behaviour management – providing a fair and focused environment;
• Purpose – creating objectives for children to coincide with the National Curriculum;
• Assessment – providing formative assessment throughout the activity to motivate and engage children whilst correcting misinterpretation and
• Time and space – Evaluate the time needed for each activity and awareness of space for practicality and safety.

Gotswami concurs with my initial ideology that children learn with ‘practising’ by indicating that they think in the same way adults do but have a lack of experience. However, Gotswami found that children need diverse learning opportunities to develop a self-reflective conception of their work. Skemp put forward two concepts of understanding for Mathematics which can be applied across the spectrum of teaching; Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding. In my initial Pedagogy paragraph, I was instigating learning by practising (I soon discovered that this method fell into Skemp’s Instrumental Understanding) I felt was perhaps the best way children learnt was repetition, easy to understand material and success being instantaneous. However, Skemp writes that Relational Understanding has the benefits of;

• It is more adaptable to tasks;
• It is easier to remember;
• Relational knowledge can be effective as a goal itself and
• Relational schemes are organic in quality. (p.9-11, 1995)

A Relational Understanding of education – in Skemp’s circumstance the focus was within Mathematics – is said to have long-term benefits for the learner as it will create a deeper meaning to the learning. For Instrumental Understanding, the learning could be soon forgotten and, although effective for the short-term learner, it may need to be address again in the future.

Eaude (p.62, 2011) had a similar breakdown of how children acquire knowledge as Skemp and addressed it in two methods called Propositional Knowledge, meaning factual information, and Procedural Knowledge, meaning the knowledge of ‘how’ before writing that Experimental and Emotional Knowledge is considered later in the child’s development. Eaude claims that learning in both methods is helpful by addressing a builder as an example, claiming “My builder could not have mixed the concrete properly without propositional knowledge of how much sand, cement and water to use. And it would be little help to know what bricks were best if he did not know how to lay them correctly.” If we called the two methods ‘skills’ and ‘content’, I concur with Eaude in that skills and content must work together mutually to become useful for activities, cultures and structures of intellectual, social and emotional support (p.63, 2011).

Hayes puts forward Bloom’s dated 1976 Taxonomy from which coincides Skemp, Gotswami and Eaude’s classifications of learning and knowledge by indicating that his three domains of learning;
“

• Cognitive: mental skills (knowledge)
• Affective: growth in feelings or emotional areas (attitude or self)
• Psychomotor: manual or physical skills (skills)” (Clark, 2015)

are organised as a series of levels or prerequisites that must be introduced to the learner stage by stage to create a strong foundation of knowledge (p.114, 2011).

I relax on the idea that there is no right or definite way of learning or how to teach as children because we as humans are so varied in ability and intelligence that a teacher must adapt to what they believe is best individually, which I must prepare for myself. To discover the depth of knowledge and to have a clearer understanding of the learning has broadened my own mindset and the start of forming my own teaching.

References:

Clark, D. (2015) Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains [online] Washington, USA.

Available: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html [Accessed 28th October 2016]

Eaude, T. (2011) Thinking Through Pedagogy for Primary and Early Years, Exeter, UK: Learning Matters Ltd.

Hayes, D. (2011) The Guided Reader to Teaching and Learning, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Gotswami, U. (2015) Children’s cognitive development and learning [online], Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

Available: < http://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/COMPLETE-REPORT-Goswami-Childrens-Cognitive-Development-and-Learning.pdf> [Accessed: 25^th October 2016]

Skemp, R (1995) Mathematics in the Primary School, London: Routledge.

Other Reading:

Gotswami, U. (1998) Cognition in Children, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Gotswami, U. (2009) Cognitive Development: The Learning Brain, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

The Head teacher of my school placement was quick to jump onto the word ‘discipline’ when we were discussing the behaviour policy in the school. She stressed that the word discipline should not be used within the school and that we refer to the practice as ‘behaviour management’. This immediately diffused the idea that the school was run as a strict ‘those out-of-line shall be punished’ and instead creates a notion of working individually to gain the best outcome for the child.

I have attended ‘Team Teach’ training, a de-escalating and positive handling system for my own, the child and other children’s safety. This included physical training for working with children that had a history of violent behaviour and how to approach the situation. The ‘Risk and Restraint’ module provided safe ways to de-escalate children when that is the only option or in emergencies. However, working closely with children to create a mutual respect and understanding of each other can provide many opportunities to de-escalate the situation prior to any child restraining actions. At Palatine Primary School, as a Teacher Assistant, I worked with a child with a complex diagnosis which created them to have aggressive and dangerous meltdowns from unknown triggers. This employment led to the immediate training of ‘Team Teach’. As my relationship with the child grew stronger, we created a setting whereby he could discuss his feelings to me confidently, warn me that something or someone is starting to trigger him and de-escalating the situation before it became aggressive. On a few occasions, I received distress calls from my colleagues about the child turning aggressive and ask for back-up, usually turning to me for my strength as this child was very strong. In most occasions, I used my relationship with the child talk to him, discuss the trigger and to reassure him. Once he was calmer, we discussed consequences and people he may need to apologise to.

The most interesting aspect was that I could have used ‘Team Teach’ strategies to physically control him and used stern, vocal communication in an attempt to over-ride his anger by waiting in a locked position. However, my prior knowledge and relationship to the child created a calm, thought-provoking environment that saw the child independently apologise for his actions which created a reward motive for his positive manner and completion of work.

Teachers should not expect to walk into a classroom and be showered with awe, respect and positivity. There must be a mutual respect so that both teachers and students excel in the classroom. It has been noted that “many qualities define a positive relationship and pave ways on how to create powerful student teacher relationships. These can be seen to include good communication, a safe learning environment and mutual respect, a positive and patient attitude, student equality and timely praise” (Lee, 2016) which needs to instigate promptly into meeting a child.

Although this approach is a fine start for respect, this will not stop a child behaving badly and a simple to follow, consistent system needs to be in place. In Lyndhurst Infant School, they use ‘Pragmatic Behaviourism’ of which Porter explains “… employ rewards and punishments to encourage compliance and, if their methods do not succeed at suppressing disruptive behaviour, teachers are advised simply to apply more of the same class intervention (that is, more consequences.)” (2014, p61). Lyndhurst have created a fluid, ‘traffic light’ Behaviour Policy that all teachers and students follow for consistency around the school. This use of this system is believed to be effective by some because it promotes the notion of demonstrating a behavioural change. Lee notes that some believe these systems in schools motivate “… young people to change and mature to take their place in a highly complex society and that is best achieved through countering the negative pressures that exist for children by providing inclusive environments and stable, positive classroom climates.” (2007, p1)

One certain theme that connects behavioural management topics is calmness, whether it is approaching a situation differently to avoid secondary behaviours (Rogers, 2011) which develop from an avoidable situation, or dealing with specific behavioural traits that are disrupting the lesson (Delaney, 2009).

Delaney,K. (2009) What can I do with the kind who…: A Teacher’s Quick Guide to dealing with disruptive pupils (and their parents), Great Britain: Worth Publishing Ltd.

Lee, C. (2007) Resolving Behaviour Problems In Your School, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Porter, L. (2014) Behaviour in schools: theory and practice for teachers, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Rogers, B. (2011) Classroom Behaviour: A Practical Guide to Effective Teaching, Behaviour Management and Colleague Support, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Lee, K (2016) 4 Timeless Elements of Strong Student-Teacher Relationships[online], USA: Teachthought.

Available:< http://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/student-engagement/4-timeless-elements-strong-student-teacher-relationships/ > [Accessed 01/10/2016].

To ‘safeguard’ is to be protecting from danger, harm and damage with guidelines and suitable procedures. In 2004, ‘Every Child Matters’ created an agenda that the Teacher Standards and the National Curriculum soon coincided with. Knowles, G. (2009), Cheminais, R. (2006) and Baginsky,M. (2008) list that “…children and young people want to:

• be safe
• be healthy
• enjoy and achieve
• make a positive contribution; and
• achieve economic well-being“

which was mirrored from the Department for Education in 2004 (DfES, 2004b). All of these writers agreeing on the same principles as the DfES shows me the sincere care for justice for children, a strong message becoming a legal necessity and the importance of the inclusion in the National Curriculum. Since Every Child Matters formed an agenda, every service that are in contact with a child’s health, wellbeing and education have united to promote the system. Schools are obliged to get all children through the education system with all of the five outcomes successfully met, because like the agenda reads – every child matters.

Everyone employed in an educational establishment, Teachers and Teaching Assistants in particular, have a vital role in safeguarding and a child’s wellbeing. A 21^st century Teacher with children for 30-35 hours a week will naturally create a strong relationship and trust. Teachers use this platform to promote inclusion and detecting harm or danger (Cheminias, 2006).

Teachers have an immediate responsibility to ensure their classroom covers all of the angles of inclusion, even outside the classroom. For example, as a Teaching Assistant, I ran activities in my class one morning due to the class Teacher going to create a risk assessment at a local zoo, for the inclusion of children with special educational needs as well as safety and potential risks. Assessed information was relayed back to the welfare officer and an action plan on how to avoid these risks was addressed, as well as accessibility and other additional necessities. Meanwhile, back in class, I was briefed with my own plan prior to the morning class to ensure the children were safe and productive, which included the addition of more Teacher Assistants in the classroom.

Safeguarding has been praised as being effectively trained (Ben Whitney 2004) and the Disclosure & Barring Service that is free and fast-tracked through the school is thought to be a good system. Additionally, every school has a safeguarding process with a welfare officer employed within the school. I have experienced the importance of a school’s safeguarding policy when I volunteered at a school in 2014. A handbook, that stressed the importance of safeguarding, was given to me in the initial interview. A DBS form had to be cleared before I could spend time in the classroom and I was booked into a staff group meeting about safeguarding shortly after. We, new teachers and staff of the school, explored the hard challenges of forms of abuse, neglect, health and safety, ‘team teach’ and online safety. Many meetings covered how appropriately approach such situations, where to report concerns and how to prevent situations for arising.

Broadhurst, K. et al (2009), voice their strong opinions of the government about the lack of child protection, stating the new integrated services were disappointing and this was highlighted from the tragic death of ‘Baby P’ and the story of kidnapped child Shannon Matthews. In 2016, we can now witness progression in safeguarding policies and movements. The Safeguarding Children e-Academy (2013) created a timeline that shows:

• in 2010, the ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ was released, which reflected on the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004
• in 2011, ‘A child-centered system’ was published by Prof. Eileen Munro which focused on the needs of the child
• in 2013, ‘Early Help Arrangements’ were launched, promoting togetherness in working with children; and
• in 2014, ‘The Children and Family Act’, which brings greater protection to vulnerable children, became the law.

These updates in successive years indicate that presently movements are thinking critically and more effectively about the safety of the children, not just in schools, but also coincides with home life. The consistency of progression since 2010 indicates the momentum of positive change and the importance the topic of safeguarding sits within the school setting and the push to enhance for the future is in motion. It would seem that 2004 was the ‘time of raising questions’ and 2009 was the ‘time for change’.

Knowles, G. (2009) Ensuring Every Child Matters, London, Sage Publications Ltd.
Baginsky, M. [ed] (2008) Safeguarding Children And Schools, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Broadhurst, K., Grover, C. and Jamieson, J. (2009) Critical Perspectives on Safeguarding Children West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Whitney, B.(2004) Protecting Children: A handbook for teachers and school managers (2nd edition), Oxon, RoutledgeFalmer.

Cheminais, R. (2006) Every Child Matters: A Practical Guide for Teachers, London, David Fulton Publishers.

Safeguarding Children e-Academy (2013) A history of Child Protection by the Safeguarding Children e-Academy [online], Ilkey.

Available:< http://safeguardingchildrenea.co.uk/wp-content/themes/vc_org_1/ChildProtectionTimeLine/childprotectiontimeline.html > [Accessed 16th September 2016]