1 Let’s Think in English Cognitive Acceleration in English Laurie Smith 10 th February 2016

2 Origins of Cognitive Acceleration The Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and Science programme (1974 – 1980) analysed school students’ developing understanding of concepts in Piagetian terms – 1000 to 2000 students each year. Cognitive Acceleration in Science Education (CASE) developed by Philip Adey and Michael Shayer of King’s College for Science 1980 – 1987.

3 Principles of Cognitive Acceleration in Science (1) 8 reasoning patterns underlying scientific understanding identified, e.g. handling variables, classification, correlation, probability, etc lessons created to stimulate students to develop these reasoning patterns

4 Principles of Cognitive Acceleration in Science (2) Three concepts from Lev Vygotsky: social construction of understanding (“we become ourselves through working with others”) the more knowledgeable other (teacher, peer, parent) students challenged to work at the upper limit of their current ability (zone of proximal development) Progress assessed in terms of Piaget’s stages of cognitive development

5 Evidence of CA’s success CASE lessons used once per fortnight in Years 7 and 8 Students achieve significantly higher KS3 Science test results (1 year later) Students achieve significantly higher GCSE results (3 years later)

6 Further evidence :GCSE 1999 (1) Science Departments trained to use CASE in 11 schools of different kinds used with Years 7 and 8 one lesson per fortnight in 1994–1996 only 1999 GCSE results of these schools analysed and compared with a matched group of non-CA schools

7 Further evidence: GCSE 1999 (2) Science grades much improved compared with matched non-CA (50.8% to 77.2% A – C grades if replicated nationally) BUT Maths also much improved (48.0% to 76.6%) AND English much improved too (57.7% to 79.7%) Therefore CA enhances general thinking skills, not just scientific ones Shayer – GCSE 1999: Added-value from schools adopting the CASE intervention available at

8 Further developments in CA Developments during 1990s: Cognitive Acceleration in Maths Education (CAME) with similar results as CASE Cognitive Acceleration in Technology Education (CATE) CA programmes in Drama, Music and Visual Art CA programmes in language, Mathematics and Science in primary schools Shayer and Adey – Learning Intelligence : Cognitive Acceleration Across the Curriculum from 5 to 15 Year [Open University Press 2002]

9 CA ‘shutdown’ and revival CA squeezed out of curricula during 2000s by: National Strategies’ emphasis on particular approaches to teaching increased emphasis on detailed assessment (e.g. APP) and tracking Revival brought about by: abolition of KS3 tests (2008); discontinuation of National Strategies (March 2010); removal of APP (May 2010); National Curriculum review leading to new NC without levels (from September 2014); new higher-demand GCSEs with more open questions requiring higher thinking skills (from September 2015)

10 VISIBLE LEARNING FOR TEACHERS – JOHN HATTIE (2012) Analyses 150 influences on achievement in schools Ranks the influences in order of effect on achievement Places Piagetian programs 2 nd with effect size of 1.28 Self-reported grades / Student expectations came 1st (1.44); Response to intervention 3 rd (1.07) No other influence of the 150 exceeded 1.0

11 Toolkit of Strategies to Improve Learning (May 2012) University of Durham’s analysis for the Sutton Trust of most effective ways of spending pupil premium, updated for the Education Endowment Fund places ‘Metacognition and self-regulation strategies’ like Let’s Think as the equal most effective of the 30 strategies considered. The researchers comment: “These are substantial gains equivalent to moving a class from 50 th place in a league table of 100 schools to about 25 th. Encouragingly there is also evidence it is particularly helpful for low achieving pupils.” See strategies-to-improve-learningwww.suttontrust.com/research/toolkit-of- strategies-to-improve-learning

12 LTE Case Study 1 – Shirley High School, Croydon parallel high ability Y8 groups, common end of year Reading and Writing examinations Level 4Level 5Level 6Level 7 With LTE Without LTE Without LTE113 0

LTE Case Study 2 – Hampshire 6 schools each with 2 LTE classes and 2 comparison non-LTE classes Level gains in one year compared with non-LTE classes TA Reading TA Writing All students lowest attaining classes Level gains by two comparable low ability Y9 classes, one LTE and non- LTE TA Reading TA Writing LTE group Non-LTE group

14 LTE Case Study 3 – London (2013 – 15) Each school provided parallel LTE and non-LTE classes. Pre- and post tests taken. Expected progress between tests taken 1 year apart = +3.0 Secondary: LTE classes’ scores exceeded non-LTE by an average of +2.9 = almost an additional year Primary: LTE classes’ scores exceeded non-LTE by an average of = 10 months though the tests were taken 9 months apart

15 Some comments on LTE (1) “… pupils were challenged to discuss their ideas about a story based on very limited information. Skilful questioning probed pupils’ understanding and engaged them in quite a sophisticated debate which developed their critical thinking very well.” – Ofsted report “Teaching the LTE lessons and discussing the process with colleagues has given me a lot of confidence in setting higher aspirations for students. It has allowed me to reflect on students' learning and the impact of strategic questioning”. – London teacher “Let's Think has encouraged me to consider the impact of student responses to a variety of material. Because the emphasis is on individual opinion and how to express that articulately, this has had an impact on their ability to think critically. It has made me slow down in my teaching in their lessons, and others and consider that some detailed work on a smaller piece of text can have a bigger impact overall.” – London teacher

16 Some comments on LTE (2) “LTE has forced me to rethink the types of questions I ask during my lessons and to plan for a wider range of questions in order to elicit more thoughtful responses. I've also noticed the students have been empowered to ask more insightful questions themselves - some of which I can respond to and others which we have to investigate further, helping the students see learning as a lifelong process.” – London teacher “Love the sample lessons on your website which I have used with mixed ability KS3 group – very effective – pupils have reacted very positively as have colleagues.” – Course attendee

17 The LTE approach in practice Concrete preparation: explanation of the topic Social construction: discussion with others to establish understanding of topic Cognitive conflict: challenge to resolve a problem – requires new way of thinking; understanding of topic altered to accommodate conflict Metacognitive phase: explicit review of the thinking that has taken place Bridging: using the same kind of thinking in other contexts

18 CA/LT and AfL Dylan Wiliam and Paul Black, the originators of AfL, have said that most schools do not implement AfL effectively [ e.g. TES 13 July 2012] This is because each teacher has to create a structure for delivering AfL for themselves and then deliver it, usually without much guidance or support CA provides structure for AfL CA cannot be delivered except by using AfL techniques There is evidence that using CA gives teachers confidence to introduce AfL approaches in other lessons

19 The reasoning patterns for English Classification Frames of reference Intentions and consequences Symbolic representation Genre modelling Narrative sequencing

20 Other issues CA/LT activities need to be regular, so they can be: stand-alone lessons part of schemes of work a combination of these

21 References and materials Adey & Shayer – Really Raising Standards (Routledge 1994, reprinted 1997 and 2001] Shayer & Adey (eds) – Learning intelligence: cognitive acceleration across the curriculum 5 – 15 years (Open University Press 2002) Thinking Ahead! developing thinking through drama / music / the visual arts (GL Assessment 2006) John Hattie – Visible Learning for Teachers (Routledge 2012) – search by Let’s Think