This section retains its focus on my four-day teaching experience at Hillside Primary School , but reflects critically on how I would improve planning for inclusive learning if I were to get a second opportunity to teach the four-day P3/4 series of lessons. I will evaluate my actual planning against Lindsay MacDougall's guidelines and consider ways of improving it on that basis.
MacDougall emphasises the importance of responsive, child-centred planning based on observation. She sees planning as an eight-step process.
Step One deals with prior learning elicited from the class teacher, pupil records and observation of children. MacDougall poses such planning questions as:
With regard to question one, my prior discussions with Jane elicited the following information about the P3/P4 class and the status of their learning on the Vikings topic:
• There are 19 pupils in the class of which 12 are roughly-speaking at the expected level of attainment for their age
• Three pupils are below the expected level of attainment for their age, one of which is estimated at P1 level of attainment
• Four pupils are above the expected level of attainment for their age
• One pupil has in-class support for behavioural issues
• The class has recently begun work on the Vikings topic, with some general information given about where the Vikings came from and an art and crafts lesson building models of Viking ships
I observed the P3/4 pupils for one morning in the week prior to our series of lessons and also knew some of the pupils, including Daniel, from a period of observation in the previous school year. I had no access to pupil records.
More targeted questions to Jane prior to my teaching period, would have given me a better understanding of how the children learn best (question two). I should have asked for examples of Jane's worksheets to establish what worked well, and I should have shown her some examples of my own materials to check for appropriateness. I failed to ask the fundamental question as to how she felt the pupils learned successfully. My justification for these statements (question three) is based on my trust in Jane's experience with the class and my sense throughout the teaching period that my planning lacked focus and was too driven by what Thomas and Vaughan describe as “amorphous good intentions”.
My main assumption (question four) was that I would be able to deliver an inclusive and effective learning driven by cooperative learning, my own pedagogical skills and integrated formative assessment. In planning the topic again with these aims in mind, I would reduce content.
With regard to knowledge and skills (question five), the pupils seemed to enjoy the team-building activities, but cooperative learning skills demand more input, patience and nurturing than I had first assumed.
Rather than focus on the four capacities (question six), I chose to target three of the principles of curriculum design: providing challenging and enjoyable learning as well as breadth and depth in learning. I was partially successful with the first of these, and tried to provide breadth by working on various aspects of the Viking age. The degree to which I provided depth of learning was perhaps limited by the amount of time I had with the class.
Step Two of MacDougall's guidelines relates to curricular links. MacDougall invites us as practitioners to consider how we can relate the national curriculum, and in particular the principles of curriculum design, to the individual children in our classroom. She advises us to focus on no more than one or two Curriculum for Excellence outcomes for a particular lesson. So, for instance, in the first lesson I was more interested in developing social skills and team-building than knowledge of the Vikings topic itself, so my main curricular link was to social wellbeing: “I make full use of and value the opportunities I am given to improve and manage my learning and, in turn, I can help to encourage learning and confidence in others.” (HWB 1-11a)
Step Three focuses on learning intentions. MacDougall poses such crucial questions as:
• What do you hope the children will learn/develop?
• Is it knowledge and understanding?
• Is it skills?
• Is it attitude?
• Is it all of the above or a combination?
• What is your rationale for this choice?
The planning for my four-day teaching period at Hillside Primary was intended to cover all of questions 2-5. I wanted to broaden and deepen the pupils' knowledge and understanding of the Vikings topic. Each of the five teams had a separate topic related to the Vikings age. It was my intention that the individual team members would facilitate the learning of the team as a whole and also that the teams would learn from other teams in the class. In practice, I misjudged the time for interaction and sharing of knowledge between teams and would seek to reduce content and activities to allow more time for team interaction in a future series of lessons.
The main skills to be fostered were in team cooperation, with a focus on speaking quietly and listening, and also on providing encouragement to others in the team. The pupils had had prior practice of speaking quietly and listening and were able to apply this in my series of lessons. The use of encouragement was limited to a theoretical recognition of its value. I also wanted to promote a positive attitude towards the value of teamwork, in particular the idea that a team of learners is more effective than an individual learner. The pupils responded positively to the notion of teamwork, but more work is necessary for the students to internalise the rationale for this method of learning. With regard to learning intentions, Kyriacou stipulates that “the content, methods and structure of the lesson selected are appropriate for the pupil learning intended”. Here, the link between content and intended learning was clearer for the skills to be practised (cooperative learning) than for the knowledge to be acquired – each P3/4 team had a specific Vikings topic, but there was nonetheless a lack of specificity about knowledge to be gained. The lessons were structured into beginning, middle and end, to incorporate teacher presentation, class activities and review. The methods suffered from an over-reliance on resources that proved, on occasion, inappropriate.
Step Four focuses on success criteria. MacDougall poses such questions as:
• What should the pupils learn?
• How?
• How well?
• Which AfL strategies should be employed to measure success?
The P3/4 pupils were to broaden and deepen their knowledge of the Vikings age. Here, the process (how) was as important as the outcome (what) because the process also incorporated the teamwork and cooperative skills that will be important far beyond the Vikings topic. In retrospect I feel that there was too little consideration of question three (how well) in my original planning. This issue could have been addressed by looking for differentiation by outcome as well as by support. In the original plan, there was an attempt to use the AfL element of giving pupils plenty of time to reflect upon learning through flexible questioning. Pupils' answers provided me with some assessment input, but I would also like to include more assessment-related discussion and constructive feedback in a future series of lessons.
Step Five involves learning activities and use of teaching time. I was conscious of ensuring that each lesson had a clear beginning, middle and end. MacDougall emphasises the importance of linking to previous learning, constructing learning intentions and success criteria. Of these, I was able to make links to previous learning (through an initial teacher presentation) and construct learning intentions at the beginning of each teaching day (through teacher presentation and class discussion), and would seek to be clearer about success criteria in a future series of lessons. At the end of the lesson, I summarised content and gave the pupils the opportunity to identify next steps.
Step Six involves resources. With my P3/4 Vikings project, I assumed the resources and the activities would drive the learning, a mistake highlighted by the MacDougall presentation. I gave the P3/4 pupils something to do, without being clear enough about what I wanted them to learn. With one or two exceptions (a word search, and some Viking images downloaded from the Internet), I created all my own resources. Sometimes the resources were unsuitable or confusing, which caused me to review and adapt materials for a subsequent lesson. There was generally enough time to work with resources and complete activities and alternative material was available for pupils who finished quickly. There were no significant issues with space, although a colleague asked me to lower my voice when issuing instructions, as our classrooms were separated by little more than a bookshelf. In respect of resourcing, Kyriacou advises that “materials, resources and aids are well prepared and checked in good time”. Materials and resources were indeed checked and well prepared and also revised (for subsequent lessons) if they were found to be confusing or otherwise inappropriate.
Step Seven involves evaluation of learning and next steps. Success criteria were identified (step five), but a clearer definition of how well the pupils should learn would facilitate evaluation of learning in a future series of lessons. Evidence of learning was contained in the pupils' performance of activities and successful (or otherwise) use of resources, but a clearer definition of the learning intentions themselves would improve evaluation. Step Seven did successfully feed into Steps Three and Four of a subsequent task, as I was able to see what worked well and adapt materials where necessary.
Step Eight involves the evaluation of teaching and next steps. MacDougall poses such questions as: Have you identified criteria from which to evaluate your teaching? Have you ensured that your criteria are specific and measurable? My criteria are linked to the three aims set out in part one: cooperative learning, formative assessment and pedagogy. The first criterion (cooperative learning) was measurable by what I observed in class and by the extent to which individuals demonstrated skills and acquired knowledge through cooperative learning. The second criterion (use of formative assessment) was measurable by my observation of discussions and pupils' response to questioning. I would seek to employ more constructive feedback in future lessons. The third criterion (pedagogy) involves Kyriacou's discussion of Kounin's ideas about “withitness”, “momentum” and “smoothness”. I was able to evaluate these by pupils' responses in class. I was able to assess my own correct or faulty judgement of pupil understanding when they responded appropriately or when they told me they did not understand what was expected.
In summary, my planning over-emphasised and was over-reliant on content and resources and would have benefited from reduced content and closer focus on the structural elements outlined in the guidelines discussed above.
THOMAS, G. and VAUGHAN , M., (2004), p.40
Learning and Teaching Scotland (Undated). Curriculum for Excellence. Available: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/healthandwellbeing/outcomes/mentalemotionalsocialphysical/socialwellbeing/index.asp
[Date Accessed: 09/12/2009]
KYRIACOU, C., (1998). Essential Teaching Skills. 2 nd ed. Nelson Thornes Ltd, pp.10-11
An overview of the Vikings project is available at: http://www.linguaservice.biz/vikings.htm