via GIPHY

Assessment for learning (AFL), also known as formative feedback, has taken an increasingly prominent place in the primary classroom since the 1990’s (Clarke, 2005). The essential element of AFL is that it focuses on eliciting pupils’ current understanding of the learning taking place at a deeper level than that merely performance based assessment. This is then used to inform future planning to address misconceptions or gaps in their knowledge, whilst giving the pupils’ more independence and understanding over their own learning needs (Hondrich et al 2016; Panayiotis and Mary, 2014; Clarke, 2005). Clarke (2005) aligns herself with the framework established by Black and William (1998) which proposes formative assessment as the effective use of:

• Sharing learning goals
• Effective questioning
• Self and peer evaluation
• Effective feedback (Black and William, 1998; Clarke, 2005, p5)

Courtesy of Flickr. Link here

However, research has found embedding these practices effectively and consistently within teaching can pose a challenge for teachers (Hondrich et al 2016; Panayiotis and Mary, 2014)

Whilst on placement I saw evidence of all the above elements of AFL taking place within my classroom.

Learning goals/objectives were shared with the class for every lesson followed by a set of success criteria. These were called WAGOLLs (what a good one looks like). The teacher would go through these with the class whilst modelling the activity, such as a group write, before their independent tasks. They would also encourage the children to feedback whether they thought they had met the criteria during mini plenaries, asking them to ‘wagoll’ in their seats if they felt they has achieved each one. This allowed the teacher to quickly gauge the differing progress of the class and highlight those they made need more support. However, I would argue that the effectiveness of this was inconsistent as often the children merely enjoyed being able to have a wiggle in their seats and it did not reflect their understanding or achievement. I was working with a mixed year 1/2 class and this behaviour was noticeably more prevalent in the year 1 pupils.

However, the teacher would use peer talk with self/peer evaluation during the input and plenary as a tool to address this issue. The children were given ‘learning partners’ each term which paired a year 1 child with a year 2 child. I believe this to be a useful tool as it allowed social learning to take place, with the year 2 child often modelling the desired learning behaviour to their year 1 partner. I observed the effectiveness of this within my own teaching through the difference in responses I received when I used peer talk before eliciting a response to my question. As supported by the theories of Clarke (2005), the occasions I utilised this technique provided much more thought out and articulate responses, allowing me to gauge their level of understanding much more effectively.

The teacher would often ask some of the children to share their work with the class. They would then either explain how they thought they had met the WAGOLLs or the class would offer feedback. This can pose a challenge as the children might take their peer’s evaluation negatively. However, I did not observe this within my class as the culture of sharing and learning from each other and our mistakes was clearly embedded. It was clear the children felt safe and secure following this structure.

The WAGOLLs produced by my class

I included the use of these strategies within my own teaching, however thus far the WAGOLLs I had observed had been created by the teacher rather than the children themselves. Clarke (2005, p52) states that,

“children need to be involved in the generation of success criteria in order to most effectively own and access them”.

Therefore, for the sequence of literacy lessons I taught, I planned the lessons to enact this philosophy. I believe it was effective as more children (especially in year 1) had a clearer understanding of what was expected from them, which was reflected in the conversations they shared and the work they produced.

During my placement I could see that the use of AFL was clearly embedded in the design of the teaching within my classroom. However as I continue on my path to become a teacher I must be aware that every group of children may respond differently to AFL techniques and simply using them does not ensure their success in improving attainment (Bennett, 2011). However Spendlove (2009) argues that increased attainment falls second to promoting the love for learning and the development of independent learning AFL promotes. Either way, AFL is something that needs to be carefully planned with purpose to be successful (Clarke, 2005) and I aim to develop my ability to do this successfully throughout my next placement.

References:

Bennet, R,E. (2011) Formative assessment: a critical review, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18:1, 5-25

Black and William (1998) quoted in Clarke, S. 2005. Formative Assessment in Action, London: Hodder Education

Clarke, S. 2005. Formative Assessment in Action, London: Hodder Education

Hondrich A, L.,Hertel, S., Adl-Amini, K., Klieme, E. (2016) Implementing curriculum-embedded formative assessment in primary school science classrooms, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23:3, 353-376

Panayiotis, A., Mary, J. (2014) Exploring formative assessment in primary school classrooms: Developing a framework of actions and strategies, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26:153–176

Spendlove, D. (2009) Putting Assessment for Learning into Practice, London: Continuum

via GIPHY

The national curriculum for computing stipulates the need to focus on more than just knowing how to use technology but to also understand how it works (DfE, 2013). In key stage 1 children are expected to demonstrate understanding of algorithms and how they are used to control what computers and other devices do successfully, whilst beginning to create their own programs following these principles (DfE, 2013). This develops pupil’s computational thinking skills, allowing them to develop their own problem solving skills and gain greater awareness of digital technology (Turvery et al, 2016; Berry, 2014). As Berry (2014, p2) states in his ‘Guide to Computing in the National Curriculum’, “computers are now part of everyday life” therefore development of these skills will better prepare children to deal with the technological demands they will experience.

Whilst on placement I taught a computing lesson to my mixed year1/2 class. I began by asking them whether they thought computers or people were smarter. I found it interesting almost all of them thought computers were smarter than people, reinforcing the need for pupils to understand how computers work as outlined in the national curriculum (DfE, 2013). We then discussed how computers know what to do and I introduced the term ‘programmer’ and asked for their ideas about what a programmer might make, such as their computer games. I then went on to introduce the concept of ‘code’ as a language and the importance of ‘sequence’, like following instructions (See PowerPoint slide 2). Whilst doing this I made links to real life instances where it is important to do things in the correct order and asked for their ideas as well, as this element is key when developing algorithmic thinking (Turvey et al, 2016).

As a class we then developed our own code to program our TA as a robot. I used questioning to get them to think logically about how this should be represented. When stepping forward, for instance they needed to think about which foot to move first. I then introduced the use of bee-bots and how we could use our code to program them to reach our desired destination. I then split the children into small groups and challenged them to write their own code to program the bee-bots and each other, stating that we will share some of their written codes at the end.

Courtesy of Flickr. Link here

Berry (2014, p7) states that, “the best way for pupils to learn what an algorithm is, and how it can be implemented as a program, is to write some programs themselves”. Through these activities the children were engaged with their learning and by working in small groups were able to explore their ideas and work together to find and fix mistakes in their code. I placed a success criteria on the board (see PowerPoint slide 4) to help keep them and remind them of the aims of their activities. I believe this set up allowed meaningful learning (Berry, 2014) to take place as whilst moving around the groups I could see that they were engaged and enjoying physically having a go and discussing their ideas. The success criteria gave a learning intention, however they each had a choice about how to create their ‘programs’. I was also able to question each group about their ideas and help them to question where their programs had gone wrong and what they needed to consider to fix them. This also showed during the plenary as the children were a lot more confident in their responses and explanation of the new terminology they had learned.

Example of code written by year 2 child

We worked through some examples of their work, using the visualiser, to program our robot (TA) again, and they were able to assess whether they worked or suggest how to change them.

Previous to this lesson, the class has had very little experience of computing in school and I feel they benefited from it. Their interest in technology was clear and I believe this also helped their engagement and fed their want to learn during this lesson.

Technology is continually changing around us today, and in order to be able to teach our pupils what they need to know it is imperative we as teachers ensure our ability to reflect this in our teaching. The computing education I received whilst in school was very limited and I was initially nervous about delivering this lesson. Yet, through giving them some basic information and modelling this in action the pupils were able to take control of their own learning through exploration. However, as Turvey et al (2016) note, teachers need to take responsibility to ensure their own professional development in order to become more confident in the area of computing. This is something I endeavour to do throughout the rest of my training and beyond.

References:

Berry, M. 2014. Computing in the National Curriculum: A guide for primary teachers. [pdf] Computing at School. Available at: http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/CASPrimaryComputing.pdf [Accessed 11/01/17]

DfE, 2013. Computing programmes of study: key stages 1 and 2. [pdf] Department for Education. Available at: http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/primary_national_curriculum_-_computing.pdf [Accessed 11/01/17]

Turvey, K., Potter, J., Burton, J., Allen, J., Sharp, J. 2016. Primary Computing and Digital Technologies. 7th ed. London: Sage

Image courtesy of Flickr. Link Here.

As part of Goswami’s (2015, p24-25) conclusion to her report ‘Children’s Cognitive Development and Learning’ she highlights how “learning in young children is socially mediated” plus how the use of “language is crucial for development”. Whilst on placement, I have witnessed how these two areas are intrinsically linked and how the teachers’ pedagogy in relation to them positively impacted upon the pupil’s learning.

Language acquisition enables children to begin to understand the world around them and explore the meaning behind their experiences and therefore their perception of both human behaviour and the physical world (Goswami, 2015). From birth it is our social influences that construct our language development in the form of our families. When in the classroom environment it is then the responsibility of the teacher to create opportunities for this to develop further. Vygotsky’s cognition theory supports collaborative learning as a tool which enables children to increase their capacity for learning and development (Pollard, 2014). Furthermore, the national curriculum (DfE, 2014) dictates that pupils are expected to develop their language skills to express reasoned and critical thought verbally, which in turn supports their writing skills.

The ability to communicate through reasoned discussion forms the basis of our democratic society. Therefore the use of ‘talk’ in the classroom should be engineered whereby it facilitates exploration and debate of pupils’ own ideas whilst enhancing their learning (Husbands and Pearce, 2012; Alexander, 2010). However, to be effective this needs to be enacted alongside support from the adults within the teaching environment. This provides guidance through modelling of language and structure whilst using scaffolding techniques to build upon and address knowledge acquisition and ensure progressive learning takes place (Cekaite et al, 2014). This concept is known as dialogic teaching and is recommended by government funded research as a pedagogy for effective teaching (Husbands and Pearce, 2012).

Image courtesy of Flickr. Link here.

I would argue that my teacher’s pedagogical stance reflected the ideologies of dialogic teaching. Peer talk was a part of every lesson and the children were encouraged to discuss their ideas in response to the stimulus given. Children would then be selected or encouraged to offer their ideas to the class. The teacher would use open questioning to help the children deepen their thinking and develop their meta-cognition. Then the children were guided through the process of considering each idea in terms of the task at the hand and debating which idea was most suitable or how it could be adapted. This was particularly effective during group write sessions.

By modelling this process with the children it developed their use of language, vocabulary and also how to construct reasoned, thoughtful arguments and answers. It also gave them a structure to begin to consider when they were then sent to their tables to complete the task. I witnessed a range in grouped, paired or individual work, but the children were always encouraged to support each other and discuss their ideas with others on their table. This developed their independence and empowered them to take control over their own learning.  It also allowed the adults to be able to move freely around the groups and offer support and address misconceptions, discussing with groups or individuals their ideas. This provided further opportunities to scaffold and model and also adapt the explanation to the specific needs of the children. I noticed that the children were confident when asking for help from each other or an adult and willing to engage in discussion with each other.

Image courtesy of Flickr. Link here.

When leading the class I aimed to embed this process in my teaching however Pollard (2014, p 10) states, “It is not only the values we go into teaching with that matter, but how we feel able to put these into practice”. To embed dialogic teaching practices requires the teacher to have a comprehensive understanding of the principles and research behind it and takes considered planning and development over time to become truly effective (Husbands and Pearce, 2012). I have seen it delivered consistently and with positive effect in my teacher’s practice and will endeavour to continue to develop my ability to do so as I progress as a trainee teacher.

References:

Alexander, R., 2010. Speaking but not listening? Accountable talk in an unaccountable context. Literacy, 44(3) pp.103-111 [online] Available at: http://www.robinalexander.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/UKLA-http-authorservices.wiley_.com-bauthor-onlineLibraryTPS.asp_DOI10.1111-j.1741-4369.2010.00562.xArticleID7470671.pdf [Accessed 09/01/2017]

Cekaite, A., Blum-Kulka, S., Grøver, V., Teubal, E., 2014. Children’s peer talk and learning: uniting discursive, social, and cultural facets of peer interactions. In: A. Cekaite, S. Blum-Kulka, V. Grøver, E. Teubal, ed. 2014. Children’s Peer Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

DfE, 2014. Statutory Guidelines, National Curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4. London: Department for Education. [pdf] Available at: 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 [Accessed 09/01/2017]

Goswami, U. 2015. Children’s Cognitive Development and Learning; Report for the Cambridge Primary Review Trust. [online] Available at: http://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/COMPLETE-REPORT-Goswami-Childrens-Cognitive-Development-and-Learning.pdf [Accessed 09/01/2017]

Husbands, C., Pearce, J. 2012. What makes great pedagogy? Nine claims from research. London: National College for School Leadership. [pdf] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329746/what-makes-great-pedagogy-nine-claims-from-research.pdf [Accessed 09/01/17]

Pollard, A. 2014. Reflective Teaching in Schools. 4^th ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic

Courtesy of Flickr. Link here

The idea that schools play a significant part in the effective wider safeguarding of children is not a new one, and has become increasingly formalised since the 1980’s (Daniel, 2000). Despite this, in 2000 the NSPCC reported that schools still felt they needed more support concerning safeguarding from the government, particularly due to the multi-agency nature of reporting concerns (Baginsky, 2000). The government responded and the current Department for Education guidelines (DfE, 2015) stipulate the importance of sharing information and emphasises empowering staff to reporting their concerns. They have addressed this by highlighting and insisting on regular up-to-date safeguarding and child protection training for all staff members working within schools (DfE, 2015). Yet this concern is an ever-evolving one so keeping on top of current issues and ensuring there is frequent enough training available for staff is a key issue. This begs the question how regular is regular?

Courtesy of Flickr. Link here

One area where this is notably prevalent is online safety. Turvey et al (2016) discuss how the speed of development of online technologies, whilst bringing new learning opportunities, also bring new and rapidly changing risks. The NSPCC produced a report this year which supports this ideology (Bentley et al, 2016) and a local newspaper went as far as to print the headline “Internet can be a playground for Paedophiles” (Argus, 2016) in recent months. As obtuse as this headline may seem, the article goes on to state that Childline reported they had seen a 24% increase in children reporting concerns over online sexual abuse since last year. The graphs below show similar trends concerning online safety identified by the aforementioned NSPCC report. (See image 1 and 2). It is unclear whether there has been an increase in incidents or whether more are reported but I would argue that either way, these findings show that schools need to be equipped to deal with this evolving trend.

Image 1

Image 2

A report commissioned by CEOP by the PSHE Association (2016) noted how the classroom setting has often been utilised to promote preventative action against risks to child protection such as, alcohol, drugs etc. Turvey et al (2016) also comment on the role and opportunity teachers have to facilitate awareness of online safety issues within their classrooms. Despite a lack of research into effective strategies specific to online safety, the aforementioned report argued that the techniques identified within other risk areas could be applied to online safety. The following are some of the strategies identified:

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Link here

1. A whole-school approach
2. Combination of action-based and information-based teaching techniques
3. A developmental programme which engages pupils from a young age
4. A positive approach, avoiding ‘scare tactics’ or confrontational strategies
5. Community, parent and pupil engagement

(PSHE Association, 2016)

I chose to share these areas as I believe these elements work together to show how we as teachers can best empower children in beginning to take responsibility for their own safety online, a pedagogical stance reflected by Turvey et al (2016).

In a recent E-Safety day I attended at school the trainer repeatedly put the onus on the children, telling them that “they are their greatest protector”. He also introduced the CEOP reporting system of “Zip It, Block It, Flag It, Report It”. It was interesting to observe pupil’s engagement and discussions.

Technology is developing all the time, and the websites/apps/social media that children are using and the risks these may impose are developing alongside it. If we can get pupils engaged and involved in the subject of online safety they will be better equipped to deal with situations as they arise. Within school, really listening to the children, as advised by Turvey et al (2016), and developing teaching around online safety based on their needs is paramount. Furthermore, safeguarding training needs to be updated with each technological evolution and the regularity of training needs to reflect this in order to continue to provide effective preventative action.

References:

Argus (2016) Internet can be a playground for Paedophiles 19^th sep online: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/national/14750751.Internet_can_be_playground_for_paedophiles__warns_NSPCC_as_abuse_figures_rise/ (accessed 13/11/16)

Baginsky, M. (2000) Child Protection and Education, London: NSPCC

Bentley, H., O’Hagan, O., Raff, A. and Bhatti, I. (2016) How safe are our children? [online] Available at: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/how-safe-children-2016-report.pdf (Accessed 13/11/16)

Daniel, B. (2000) Foreword in Baginsky, M. (ed.) Safeguarding Children and Schools, London: Kingsley

DfE, (2015) Keeping children safe in education, HMSO: London [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education–2 (Accessed 13/11/16)

InternetMatters (2016) Online Issues [online] Avaialble at: https://www.internetmatters.org/issues/ (accessed 13/11/16)

PSHE Association (2016) Key Principles of Effective Prevention Education April 2016 [online] Available at: https://www.thinkuknow.co.uk/Documents/PSHE%20Association%20report%20to%20CEOP%20April%202016.pdf (Accessed 13/11/16)

Turvey, K., Potter, J., Burton, J., Allen, J. and Sharp, J. (2016) Primary Computing and Digital Technologies (7^th Ed) London: Sage

Images:

Image 1:

Bentley, H., O’Hagan, O., Raff, A. and Bhatti, I. (2016) How safe are our children? Downloadable for free Online https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/how-safe-children-2016-report.pdf pg41 (Accessed 13/11/16)

Image 2:

Bentley, H., O’Hagan, O., Raff, A. and Bhatti, I. (2016) How safe are our children? Downloadable for free Online https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/how-safe-children-2016-report.pdf pg41 (Accessed 13/11/16)