Thinking Hard @thinkinghard12 Ensuring high challenge for all students Simon Hardwick – Deputy Headteacher; Dartford Grammar School for Girls @thinkinghard12

In today’s session… Key question: How can we ensure that all students we teach are Thinking Hard and challenged beyond their learning comfort zone? Key objective: To introduce you to ‘high challenge; low preparation’ thinking and questioning techniques that can be used across a range of subjects

Explain a time in a lesson recently when students had to think hard Explain a time in a lesson recently when students had to think hard. What was it about the activity that caused deeper thinking?

“Learning happens when people have to think hard” Prof. Robert Coe – Durham University http://www.cem.org/attachments/publications/ImprovingEducation2013.pdf

Getting Students to Think…Hard Think Hard Process:  Knowledge, understanding, analysis, evaluation and flexibility of thinking Effective explanations: analogy, role modelling, worked examples. Think-pair-share: questioning technique to get students thinking, engaged and talking. Assessment and feedback: including test, feedback, retest. These are the 4 key strategies designed to support thinking in the classroom. We will focus on 1. and 3. This is important particularly in the context of a changing, more demanding reformed GCSE curriculum.

Getting Students to Think…Hard Think Hard Process:  Knowledge, understanding, analysis, evaluation and flexibility of thinking Effective explanations: analogy, role modelling, worked examples Think-pair-share: questioning technique to get students thinking, engaged and talking Assessment and feedback: including test, feedback, retest. These are the 4 key strategies designed to support thinking in the classroom. We will only focus on 1. and 3. This is important particularly in the context of a changing, more demanding GCSE curriculum.

Once upon a time a tawndy rapsig named Gub found a tix of pertollic asquees. So chortlich was he with his discovery that he murtled a handful to show Kon, a cagwitzpat. “Pagoo!” cried Kon. “With these you could treeple a frange!” “No,” smiled Gub, “I think I'll just paible a catwicine.” What did Gub find? How was Gub feeling with his discovery After Kon cries “Pagoo”, what does he suggest to Gub? This is a nonsense paragraph that highlights one of the possible issues of a regular diet of comprehension questions. Students can successfully complete the answers to these questions but without understanding. How can we ensure that our activities promote thinking and understanding? Colleagues can complete these questions in order to make the point. Gross-Glenn, K., Jallad, B., Novoa, L., Helgren-Lempesis, V., & Lubs, H. A. (1990). Nonsense passage reading as a diagnostic aid in the study of adult familial dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 161–173.

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development “The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance. Vygotsky believed education’s role is to give children experiences that are within their zones of proximal development, thereby encouraging and advancing their individual learning. "The zone of proximal development defines functions that have not matured yet, but are in a process of maturing, that are currently in an embryonic state; these functions could be called the buds of development rather than the fruits of development, that is, what is only just maturing."

The Abyssinian Crisis Background: This crisis stems back to the previous century – Italy had tried and failed to invade Abyssinia in 1896. Mussolini wanted revenge for the humiliating defeat and wanted the fertile lands and mineral wealth of Abyssinia for the Italian empire. Ultimately he aimed to restore the Roman Empire. In December 1934 there was a dispute between Italian and Ethiopian troops 80km inside Abyssinia– Mussolini claimed that it was Italian territory and began preparing for an invasion. Both Ethiopian and Italian servicemen were killed and it became known as the ‘Wal-Wal Incident’. Abyssinian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League for help. Phase 1: January 1935 to October 1935 – League plays for time: During this time Mussolini was supposed to be negotiating with the league, but at the same time he was shipping his vast army to Africa and creating ‘war fever’ among the Italian people. Initially Britain and France did not take the situation seriously, they played for time in the desperate attempt to keep good relations with Mussolini due to his friendship with Adolf Hitler. In 1935 the League signed the ‘Stresa Pact’ which formalised a protest against German rearmament, at the meeting they did not even discuss the issue of Abyssinia and many believed that GB and France agreed to turn a blind eye is Italy signed the ‘Stresa Pact’. However as the years went on the public outcry meant the issue could not be ignored. A ballot was taken in Britain in 1935, it showed that the majority of people believed military action should be taken against Italy. British politicians decided it was time to ‘get tough’ and at the assembly British Minister, Hoare made a grand speech about “COLLECTIVE SECURITY” to the delight of League members (particularly smaller nations). Despite the talking not much was done and the League did nothing to discourage Mussolini. On 4th September the League decided no one was responsible for the ‘Wal-Wal incident’ and put forward a plan to give Mussolini part of Abyssinia – he rejected it. Phase 2: October 1935 to May 1936 – sanctions or not? In October 1935, Mussolini’s army was ready and he launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia. Despite resistance Abyssinia could not fend off the attack due to Italy’s military and technology superiority. It was a clear case of ‘a larger nation attacking a smaller nations’ – an issue the League was designed to deal with. There was no doubting the seriousness of the issue, and the Covenant had made clear the sanctions to put in place against the aggressor. However sanctions would only work if put in quickly and decisively – the League placed a ban on all arms sales to Italy, all imports from Italy and all exports to Italy. However it took them two months to decide whether to ban oil exports as it fear America would not join in the sanction and Britain would lose out economically. Also the Suez Canal (owned by GB) was not closed to Mussolini’s supply ships due to fear of war with Italy allowing Mussolini a direct route to Abyssinia. The League was severally damaged by GB and France’s failure to act, and even more so by their secret dealings with Italy. In December 1935 Hoare (GB Minister) and Laval (French Minister) were hatching a plan to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia if he called off the invasion. Laval told GB if they did not agree the French would no longer support Italian sanctions. The plan was leaked however and both Hoare and Laval were removed. The discussions delayed action further and by February 1936 an oil ban was finally put in place. By then it was too late and Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia. Outcome: On 7th March 1936 the fatal blow was delivered – Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland breaking the treaty of Versailles. All hope of French support against Italian sanctions dropped as they now looked to Italy as an ally due to fear of Germany and happily gave up Abyssinia. Italy continued to defy the League’s orders and by May 1936 Mussolini had taken the Abyssinia capital of Addis Ababa – Haile Selassie was forced into exile and Abyssinia was annexed by Italy. The League watch helplessly as ‘collective security’ failed.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Low thinking options Make notes Highlight important points The Abyssinian Crisis Background: This crisis stems back to the previous century – Italy had tried and failed to invade Abyssinia in 1896. Mussolini wanted revenge for the humiliating defeat and wanted the fertile lands and mineral wealth of Abyssinia for the Italian empire. Ultimately he aimed to restore the Roman Empire. In December 1934 there was a dispute between Italian and Ethiopian troops 80km inside Abyssinia– Mussolini claimed that it was Italian territory and began preparing for an invasion. Both Ethiopian and Italian servicemen were killed and it became known as the ‘Wal-Wal Incident’. Abyssinian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League for help. Phase 1: January 1935 to October 1935 – League plays for time: During this time Mussolini was supposed to be negotiating with the league, but at the same time he was shipping his vast army to Africa and creating ‘war fever’ among the Italian people. Initially Britain and France did not take the situation seriously, they played for time in the desperate attempt to keep good relations with Mussolini due to his friendship with Adolf Hitler. In 1935 the League signed the ‘Stresa Pact’ which formalised a protest against German rearmament, at the meeting they did not even discuss the issue of Abyssinia and many believed that GB and France agreed to turn a blind eye is Italy signed the ‘Stresa Pact’. However as the years went on the public outcry meant the issue could not be ignored. A ballot was taken in Britain in 1935, it showed that the majority of people believed military action should be taken against Italy. British politicians decided it was time to ‘get tough’ and at the assembly British Minister, Hoare made a grand speech about “COLLECTIVE SECURITY” to the delight of League members (particularly smaller nations). Despite the talking not much was done and the League did nothing to discourage Mussolini. On 4th September the League decided no one was responsible for the ‘Wal-Wal incident’ and put forward a plan to give Mussolini part of Abyssinia – he rejected it. Phase 2: October 1935 to May 1936 – sanctions or not? In October 1935, Mussolini’s army was ready and he launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia. Despite resistance Abyssinia could not fend off the attack due to Italy’s military and technology superiority. It was a clear case of ‘a larger nation attacking a smaller nations’ – an issue the League was designed to deal with. There was no doubting the seriousness of the issue, and the Covenant had made clear the sanctions to put in place against the aggressor. However sanctions would only work if put in quickly and decisively – the League placed a ban on all arms sales to Italy, all imports from Italy and all exports to Italy. However it took them two months to decide whether to ban oil exports as it fear America would not join in the sanction and Britain would lose out economically. Also the Suez Canal (owned by GB) was not closed to Mussolini’s supply ships due to fear of war with Italy allowing Mussolini a direct route to Abyssinia. The League was severally damaged by GB and France’s failure to act, and even more so by their secret dealings with Italy. In December 1935 Hoare (GB Minister) and Laval (French Minister) were hatching a plan to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia if he called off the invasion. Laval told GB if they did not agree the French would no longer support Italian sanctions. The plan was leaked however and both Hoare and Laval were removed. The discussions delayed action further and by February 1936 an oil ban was finally put in place. By then it was too late and Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia. Outcome: On 7th March 1936 the fatal blow was delivered – Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland breaking the treaty of Versailles. All hope of French support against Italian sanctions dropped as they now looked to Italy as an ally due to fear of Germany and happily gave up Abyssinia. Italy continued to defy the League’s orders and by May 1936 Mussolini had taken the Abyssinia capital of Addis Ababa – Haile Selassie was forced into exile and Abyssinia was annexed by Italy. The League watch helplessly as ‘collective security’ failed. Low thinking options Understand ? Able to revise from notes  Thinking and challenge ?? Option 3 Comprehension questions

High thinking, low preparation Increase amount of thinking for all without increasing my workload…

The Abyssinian Crisis Background: This crisis stems back to the previous century – Italy had tried and failed to invade Abyssinia in 1896. Mussolini wanted revenge for the humiliating defeat and wanted the fertile lands and mineral wealth of Abyssinia for the Italian empire. Ultimately he aimed to restore the Roman Empire. In December 1934 there was a dispute between Italian and Ethiopian troops 80km inside Abyssinia– Mussolini claimed that it was Italian territory and began preparing for an invasion. Both Ethiopian and Italian servicemen were killed and it became known as the ‘Wal-Wal Incident’. Abyssinian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League for help. Phase 1: January 1935 to October 1935 – League plays for time: During this time Mussolini was supposed to be negotiating with the league, but at the same time he was shipping his vast army to Africa and creating ‘war fever’ among the Italian people. Initially Britain and France did not take the situation seriously, they played for time in the desperate attempt to keep good relations with Mussolini due to his friendship with Adolf Hitler. In 1935 the League signed the ‘Stresa Pact’ which formalised a protest against German rearmament, at the meeting they did not even discuss the issue of Abyssinia and many believed that GB and France agreed to turn a blind eye is Italy signed the ‘Stresa Pact’. However as the years went on the public outcry meant the issue could not be ignored. A ballot was taken in Britain in 1935, it showed that the majority of people believed military action should be taken against Italy. British politicians decided it was time to ‘get tough’ and at the assembly British Minister, Hoare made a grand speech about “COLLECTIVE SECURITY” to the delight of League members (particularly smaller nations). Despite the talking not much was done and the League did nothing to discourage Mussolini. On 4th September the League decided no one was responsible for the ‘Wal-Wal incident’ and put forward a plan to give Mussolini part of Abyssinia – he rejected it. Phase 2: October 1935 to May 1936 – sanctions or not? In October 1935, Mussolini’s army was ready and he launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia. Despite resistance Abyssinia could not fend off the attack due to Italy’s military and technology superiority. It was a clear case of ‘a larger nation attacking a smaller nations’ – an issue the League was designed to deal with. There was no doubting the seriousness of the issue, and the Covenant had made clear the sanctions to put in place against the aggressor. However sanctions would only work if put in quickly and decisively – the League placed a ban on all arms sales to Italy, all imports from Italy and all exports to Italy. However it took them two months to decide whether to ban oil exports as it fear America would not join in the sanction and Britain would lose out economically. Also the Suez Canal (owned by GB) was not closed to Mussolini’s supply ships due to fear of war with Italy allowing Mussolini a direct route to Abyssinia. The League was severally damaged by GB and France’s failure to act, and even more so by their secret dealings with Italy. In December 1935 Hoare (GB Minister) and Laval (French Minister) were hatching a plan to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia if he called off the invasion. Laval told GB if they did not agree the French would no longer support Italian sanctions. The plan was leaked however and both Hoare and Laval were removed. The discussions delayed action further and by February 1936 an oil ban was finally put in place. By then it was too late and Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia. Outcome: On 7th March 1936 the fatal blow was delivered – Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland breaking the treaty of Versailles. All hope of French support against Italian sanctions dropped as they now looked to Italy as an ally due to fear of Germany and happily gave up Abyssinia. Italy continued to defy the League’s orders and by May 1936 Mussolini had taken the Abyssinia capital of Addis Ababa – Haile Selassie was forced into exile and Abyssinia was annexed by Italy. The League watch helplessly as ‘collective security’ failed.

Thinking Hard Process Knowledge and understanding Analysis and application Flexibility of thinking It’s important to construct our lessons and schemes of work around these goals. To pass their A levels students must, of course, have secure knowledge & understanding. To attain top grades, they must be able to analyse. To be sure of A* grades and to prepare for university study they must develop flexibility of thinking. This is fairly obvious. The question is how to develop these abilities. The Thinking Hard Process provides some simple devices to support lesson planning and delivery to ensure high challenge for all students.

Shared language about thinking Reduce Transform Deconstruct Derive Prioritise Categorise Criticise Trends and patterns Practise Make connections Compare Extend 12 Thinking Hard devices These are the 12 Thinking Devices that support the Thinking Hard Process. The key messages are: supporting, providing questions and activities that require student to do something with the information. low teacher planning; high student thinking.

The Thinking Hard Process Knowledge and understanding Reduce Transform Deconstruct Derive Analysis and application Prioritise Categorise Criticise Trends and patterns Practise Flexibility of thinking Make connections Compare Extend These are the 12 Thinking Devices that support the Thinking Hard Process. The key messages are: supporting, providing questions and activities that require student to do something with the information. low teacher planning; high student thinking.

Knowledge and understanding Flexibility of thinking Reduce Transform Derive Deconstruct Analysis Prioritise Categorise Criticise Trends and patterns Application Practise Flexibility of thinking Compare Make connections Extend

Knowledge and understanding Flexibility of thinking Reduce Transform Derive Deconstruct Analysis Prioritise Categorise Criticise Trends and patterns Application Practise Flexibility of thinking Compare Make connections Extend

Knowledge and understanding Flexibility of thinking Reduce Transform Derive Deconstruct Analysis Prioritise Categorise Criticise Trends and patterns Application Practise Flexibility of thinking Compare Make connections Extend

Understanding and knowledge Reduce Explain phase 1 of the Italian invasion. You have 12 words MAXIMUM. The Abyssinian Crisis Background: This crisis stems back to the previous century – Italy had tried and failed to invade Abyssinia in 1896. Mussolini wanted revenge for the humiliating defeat and wanted the fertile lands and mineral wealth of Abyssinia for the Italian empire. Ultimately he aimed to restore the Roman Empire. In December 1934 there was a dispute between Italian and Ethiopian troops 80km inside Abyssinia– Mussolini claimed that it was Italian territory and began preparing for an invasion. Both Ethiopian and Italian servicemen were killed and it became known as the ‘Wal-Wal Incident’. Abyssinian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League for help. Phase 1: January 1935 to October 1935 – League plays for time: During this time Mussolini was supposed to be negotiating with the league, but at the same time he was shipping his vast army to Africa and creating ‘war fever’ among the Italian people. Initially Britain and France did not take the situation seriously, they played for time in the desperate attempt to keep good relations with Mussolini due to his friendship with Adolf Hitler. In 1935 the League signed the ‘Stresa Pact’ which formalised a protest against German rearmament, at the meeting they did not even discuss the issue of Abyssinia and many believed that GB and France agreed to turn a blind eye is Italy signed the ‘Stresa Pact’. However as the years went on the public outcry meant the issue could not be ignored. A ballot was taken in Britain in 1935, it showed that the majority of people believed military action should be taken against Italy. British politicians decided it was time to ‘get tough’ and at the assembly British Minister, Hoare made a grand speech about “COLLECTIVE SECURITY” to the delight of League members (particularly smaller nations). Despite the talking not much was done and the League did nothing to discourage Mussolini. On 4th September the League decided no one was responsible for the ‘Wal-Wal incident’ and put forward a plan to give Mussolini part of Abyssinia – he rejected it. Phase 2: October 1935 to May 1936 – sanctions or not? In October 1935, Mussolini’s army was ready and he launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia. Despite resistance Abyssinia could not fend off the attack due to Italy’s military and technology superiority. It was a clear case of ‘a larger nation attacking a smaller nations’ – an issue the League was designed to deal with. There was no doubting the seriousness of the issue, and the Covenant had made clear the sanctions to put in place against the aggressor. However sanctions would only work if put in quickly and decisively – the League placed a ban on all arms sales to Italy, all imports from Italy and all exports to Italy. However it took them two months to decide whether to ban oil exports as it fear America would not join in the sanction and Britain would lose out economically. Also the Suez Canal (owned by GB) was not closed to Mussolini’s supply ships due to fear of war with Italy allowing Mussolini a direct route to Abyssinia. The League was severally damaged by GB and France’s failure to act, and even more so by their secret dealings with Italy. In December 1935 Hoare (GB Minister) and Laval (French Minister) were hatching a plan to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia if he called off the invasion. Laval told GB if they did not agree the French would no longer support Italian sanctions. The plan was leaked however and both Hoare and Laval were removed. The discussions delayed action further and by February 1936 an oil ban was finally put in place. By then it was too late and Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia. Outcome: On 7th March 1936 the fatal blow was delivered – Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland breaking the treaty of Versailles. All hope of French support against Italian sanctions dropped as they now looked to Italy as an ally due to fear of Germany and happily gave up Abyssinia. Italy continued to defy the League’s orders and by May 1936 Mussolini had taken the Abyssinia capital of Addis Ababa – Haile Selassie was forced into exile and Abyssinia was annexed by Italy. The League watch helplessly as ‘collective security’ failed.

Understanding and knowledge Transform Change this information into four pictures or images. No words allowed. Reduce Explain phase 1 of the Italian invasion. You have 12 words MAXIMUM. The Abyssinian Crisis Background: This crisis stems back to the previous century – Italy had tried and failed to invade Abyssinia in 1896. Mussolini wanted revenge for the humiliating defeat and wanted the fertile lands and mineral wealth of Abyssinia for the Italian empire. Ultimately he aimed to restore the Roman Empire. In December 1934 there was a dispute between Italian and Ethiopian troops 80km inside Abyssinia– Mussolini claimed that it was Italian territory and began preparing for an invasion. Both Ethiopian and Italian servicemen were killed and it became known as the ‘Wal-Wal Incident’. Abyssinian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League for help. Phase 1: January 1935 to October 1935 – League plays for time: During this time Mussolini was supposed to be negotiating with the league, but at the same time he was shipping his vast army to Africa and creating ‘war fever’ among the Italian people. Initially Britain and France did not take the situation seriously, they played for time in the desperate attempt to keep good relations with Mussolini due to his friendship with Adolf Hitler. In 1935 the League signed the ‘Stresa Pact’ which formalised a protest against German rearmament, at the meeting they did not even discuss the issue of Abyssinia and many believed that GB and France agreed to turn a blind eye is Italy signed the ‘Stresa Pact’. However as the years went on the public outcry meant the issue could not be ignored. A ballot was taken in Britain in 1935, it showed that the majority of people believed military action should be taken against Italy. British politicians decided it was time to ‘get tough’ and at the assembly British Minister, Hoare made a grand speech about “COLLECTIVE SECURITY” to the delight of League members (particularly smaller nations). Despite the talking not much was done and the League did nothing to discourage Mussolini. On 4th September the League decided no one was responsible for the ‘Wal-Wal incident’ and put forward a plan to give Mussolini part of Abyssinia – he rejected it. Phase 2: October 1935 to May 1936 – sanctions or not? In October 1935, Mussolini’s army was ready and he launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia. Despite resistance Abyssinia could not fend off the attack due to Italy’s military and technology superiority. It was a clear case of ‘a larger nation attacking a smaller nations’ – an issue the League was designed to deal with. There was no doubting the seriousness of the issue, and the Covenant had made clear the sanctions to put in place against the aggressor. However sanctions would only work if put in quickly and decisively – the League placed a ban on all arms sales to Italy, all imports from Italy and all exports to Italy. However it took them two months to decide whether to ban oil exports as it fear America would not join in the sanction and Britain would lose out economically. Also the Suez Canal (owned by GB) was not closed to Mussolini’s supply ships due to fear of war with Italy allowing Mussolini a direct route to Abyssinia. The League was severally damaged by GB and France’s failure to act, and even more so by their secret dealings with Italy. In December 1935 Hoare (GB Minister) and Laval (French Minister) were hatching a plan to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia if he called off the invasion. Laval told GB if they did not agree the French would no longer support Italian sanctions. The plan was leaked however and both Hoare and Laval were removed. The discussions delayed action further and by February 1936 an oil ban was finally put in place. By then it was too late and Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia. Outcome: On 7th March 1936 the fatal blow was delivered – Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland breaking the treaty of Versailles. All hope of French support against Italian sanctions dropped as they now looked to Italy as an ally due to fear of Germany and happily gave up Abyssinia. Italy continued to defy the League’s orders and by May 1936 Mussolini had taken the Abyssinia capital of Addis Ababa – Haile Selassie was forced into exile and Abyssinia was annexed by Italy. The League watch helplessly as ‘collective security’ failed.

Analysis and evaluation Transform Change this information into four pictures or images. No words allowed. Reduce Explain phase 1 of the Italian invasion. You have 12 words MAXIMUM. The Abyssinian Crisis Background: This crisis stems back to the previous century – Italy had tried and failed to invade Abyssinia in 1896. Mussolini wanted revenge for the humiliating defeat and wanted the fertile lands and mineral wealth of Abyssinia for the Italian empire. Ultimately he aimed to restore the Roman Empire. In December 1934 there was a dispute between Italian and Ethiopian troops 80km inside Abyssinia– Mussolini claimed that it was Italian territory and began preparing for an invasion. Both Ethiopian and Italian servicemen were killed and it became known as the ‘Wal-Wal Incident’. Abyssinian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League for help. Phase 1: January 1935 to October 1935 – League plays for time: During this time Mussolini was supposed to be negotiating with the league, but at the same time he was shipping his vast army to Africa and creating ‘war fever’ among the Italian people. Initially Britain and France did not take the situation seriously, they played for time in the desperate attempt to keep good relations with Mussolini due to his friendship with Adolf Hitler. In 1935 the League signed the ‘Stresa Pact’ which formalised a protest against German rearmament, at the meeting they did not even discuss the issue of Abyssinia and many believed that GB and France agreed to turn a blind eye is Italy signed the ‘Stresa Pact’. However as the years went on the public outcry meant the issue could not be ignored. A ballot was taken in Britain in 1935, it showed that the majority of people believed military action should be taken against Italy. British politicians decided it was time to ‘get tough’ and at the assembly British Minister, Hoare made a grand speech about “COLLECTIVE SECURITY” to the delight of League members (particularly smaller nations). Despite the talking not much was done and the League did nothing to discourage Mussolini. On 4th September the League decided no one was responsible for the ‘Wal-Wal incident’ and put forward a plan to give Mussolini part of Abyssinia – he rejected it. Phase 2: October 1935 to May 1936 – sanctions or not? In October 1935, Mussolini’s army was ready and he launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia. Despite resistance Abyssinia could not fend off the attack due to Italy’s military and technology superiority. It was a clear case of ‘a larger nation attacking a smaller nations’ – an issue the League was designed to deal with. There was no doubting the seriousness of the issue, and the Covenant had made clear the sanctions to put in place against the aggressor. However sanctions would only work if put in quickly and decisively – the League placed a ban on all arms sales to Italy, all imports from Italy and all exports to Italy. However it took them two months to decide whether to ban oil exports as it fear America would not join in the sanction and Britain would lose out economically. Also the Suez Canal (owned by GB) was not closed to Mussolini’s supply ships due to fear of war with Italy allowing Mussolini a direct route to Abyssinia. The League was severally damaged by GB and France’s failure to act, and even more so by their secret dealings with Italy. In December 1935 Hoare (GB Minister) and Laval (French Minister) were hatching a plan to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia if he called off the invasion. Laval told GB if they did not agree the French would no longer support Italian sanctions. The plan was leaked however and both Hoare and Laval were removed. The discussions delayed action further and by February 1936 an oil ban was finally put in place. By then it was too late and Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia. Outcome: On 7th March 1936 the fatal blow was delivered – Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland breaking the treaty of Versailles. All hope of French support against Italian sanctions dropped as they now looked to Italy as an ally due to fear of Germany and happily gave up Abyssinia. Italy continued to defy the League’s orders and by May 1936 Mussolini had taken the Abyssinia capital of Addis Ababa – Haile Selassie was forced into exile and Abyssinia was annexed by Italy. The League watch helplessly as ‘collective security’ failed. Prioritise Underline the three most important sentences here. Rank 1-3. briefly explain number 1. Cross out the least important sentence.

Analysis and evaluation Transform Change this information into four pictures or images. No words allowed. Reduce Explain phase 1 of the Italian invasion. You have 12 words MAXIMUM Categorise Sort this information into three categories. Highlight and think of a suitable title for each category. The Abyssinian Crisis Background: This crisis stems back to the previous century – Italy had tried and failed to invade Abyssinia in 1896. Mussolini wanted revenge for the humiliating defeat and wanted the fertile lands and mineral wealth of Abyssinia for the Italian empire. Ultimately he aimed to restore the Roman Empire. In December 1934 there was a dispute between Italian and Ethiopian troops 80km inside Abyssinia– Mussolini claimed that it was Italian territory and began preparing for an invasion. Both Ethiopian and Italian servicemen were killed and it became known as the ‘Wal-Wal Incident’. Abyssinian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League for help. Phase 1: January 1935 to October 1935 – League plays for time: During this time Mussolini was supposed to be negotiating with the league, but at the same time he was shipping his vast army to Africa and creating ‘war fever’ among the Italian people. Initially Britain and France did not take the situation seriously, they played for time in the desperate attempt to keep good relations with Mussolini due to his friendship with Adolf Hitler. In 1935 the League signed the ‘Stresa Pact’ which formalised a protest against German rearmament, at the meeting they did not even discuss the issue of Abyssinia and many believed that GB and France agreed to turn a blind eye is Italy signed the ‘Stresa Pact’. However as the years went on the public outcry meant the issue could not be ignored. A ballot was taken in Britain in 1935, it showed that the majority of people believed military action should be taken against Italy. British politicians decided it was time to ‘get tough’ and at the assembly British Minister, Hoare made a grand speech about “COLLECTIVE SECURITY” to the delight of League members (particularly smaller nations). Despite the talking not much was done and the League did nothing to discourage Mussolini. On 4th September the League decided no one was responsible for the ‘Wal-Wal incident’ and put forward a plan to give Mussolini part of Abyssinia – he rejected it. Phase 2: October 1935 to May 1936 – sanctions or not? In October 1935, Mussolini’s army was ready and he launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia. Despite resistance Abyssinia could not fend off the attack due to Italy’s military and technology superiority. It was a clear case of ‘a larger nation attacking a smaller nations’ – an issue the League was designed to deal with. There was no doubting the seriousness of the issue, and the Covenant had made clear the sanctions to put in place against the aggressor. However sanctions would only work if put in quickly and decisively – the League placed a ban on all arms sales to Italy, all imports from Italy and all exports to Italy. However it took them two months to decide whether to ban oil exports as it fear America would not join in the sanction and Britain would lose out economically. Also the Suez Canal (owned by GB) was not closed to Mussolini’s supply ships due to fear of war with Italy allowing Mussolini a direct route to Abyssinia. The League was severally damaged by GB and France’s failure to act, and even more so by their secret dealings with Italy. In December 1935 Hoare (GB Minister) and Laval (French Minister) were hatching a plan to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia if he called off the invasion. Laval told GB if they did not agree the French would no longer support Italian sanctions. The plan was leaked however and both Hoare and Laval were removed. The discussions delayed action further and by February 1936 an oil ban was finally put in place. By then it was too late and Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia. Outcome: On 7th March 1936 the fatal blow was delivered – Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland breaking the treaty of Versailles. All hope of French support against Italian sanctions dropped as they now looked to Italy as an ally due to fear of Germany and happily gave up Abyssinia. Italy continued to defy the League’s orders and by May 1936 Mussolini had taken the Abyssinia capital of Addis Ababa – Haile Selassie was forced into exile and Abyssinia was annexed by Italy. The League watch helplessly as ‘collective security’ failed. Prioritise Underline the three most important sentences here. Rank 1-3. briefly explain number 1. Cross out the least important sentence.

Flexibility of thinking Transform Change this information into four pictures or images. No words allowed. Reduce Explain phase 1 of the Italian invasion. You have 12 words MAXIMUM. Categorise Sort this information into three categories. Highlight and think of a suitable title for each category. The Abyssinian Crisis Background: This crisis stems back to the previous century – Italy had tried and failed to invade Abyssinia in 1896. Mussolini wanted revenge for the humiliating defeat and wanted the fertile lands and mineral wealth of Abyssinia for the Italian empire. Ultimately he aimed to restore the Roman Empire. In December 1934 there was a dispute between Italian and Ethiopian troops 80km inside Abyssinia– Mussolini claimed that it was Italian territory and began preparing for an invasion. Both Ethiopian and Italian servicemen were killed and it became known as the ‘Wal-Wal Incident’. Abyssinian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League for help. Phase 1: January 1935 to October 1935 – League plays for time: During this time Mussolini was supposed to be negotiating with the league, but at the same time he was shipping his vast army to Africa and creating ‘war fever’ among the Italian people. Initially Britain and France did not take the situation seriously, they played for time in the desperate attempt to keep good relations with Mussolini due to his friendship with Adolf Hitler. In 1935 the League signed the ‘Stresa Pact’ which formalised a protest against German rearmament, at the meeting they did not even discuss the issue of Abyssinia and many believed that GB and France agreed to turn a blind eye is Italy signed the ‘Stresa Pact’. However as the years went on the public outcry meant the issue could not be ignored. A ballot was taken in Britain in 1935, it showed that the majority of people believed military action should be taken against Italy. British politicians decided it was time to ‘get tough’ and at the assembly British Minister, Hoare made a grand speech about “COLLECTIVE SECURITY” to the delight of League members (particularly smaller nations). Despite the talking not much was done and the League did nothing to discourage Mussolini. On 4th September the League decided no one was responsible for the ‘Wal-Wal incident’ and put forward a plan to give Mussolini part of Abyssinia – he rejected it. Phase 2: October 1935 to May 1936 – sanctions or not? In October 1935, Mussolini’s army was ready and he launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia. Despite resistance Abyssinia could not fend off the attack due to Italy’s military and technology superiority. It was a clear case of ‘a larger nation attacking a smaller nations’ – an issue the League was designed to deal with. There was no doubting the seriousness of the issue, and the Covenant had made clear the sanctions to put in place against the aggressor. However sanctions would only work if put in quickly and decisively – the League placed a ban on all arms sales to Italy, all imports from Italy and all exports to Italy. However it took them two months to decide whether to ban oil exports as it fear America would not join in the sanction and Britain would lose out economically. Also the Suez Canal (owned by GB) was not closed to Mussolini’s supply ships due to fear of war with Italy allowing Mussolini a direct route to Abyssinia. The League was severally damaged by GB and France’s failure to act, and even more so by their secret dealings with Italy. In December 1935 Hoare (GB Minister) and Laval (French Minister) were hatching a plan to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia if he called off the invasion. Laval told GB if they did not agree the French would no longer support Italian sanctions. The plan was leaked however and both Hoare and Laval were removed. The discussions delayed action further and by February 1936 an oil ban was finally put in place. By then it was too late and Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia. Outcome: On 7th March 1936 the fatal blow was delivered – Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland breaking the treaty of Versailles. All hope of French support against Italian sanctions dropped as they now looked to Italy as an ally due to fear of Germany and happily gave up Abyssinia. Italy continued to defy the League’s orders and by May 1936 Mussolini had taken the Abyssinia capital of Addis Ababa – Haile Selassie was forced into exile and Abyssinia was annexed by Italy. The League watch helplessly as ‘collective security’ failed. Prioritise Underline the three most important sentences here. Rank 1-3. briefly explain number 1. Cross out the least important sentence. Extend Write down three questions you’d like to ask a Professor of Modern History about this event.

Reduce Extend Transform Categorise Prioritise Understanding and knowledge Analysis and synthesis Flexibility of thinking Transform Change this information into four pictures or images. No words allowed. Reduce Explain phase 1 of the Italian invasion. You have 12 words MAXIMUM. Categorise Sort this information into three categories. Highlight and think of a suitable title for each category. The Abyssinian Crisis Background: This crisis stems back to the previous century – Italy had tried and failed to invade Abyssinia in 1896. Mussolini wanted revenge for the humiliating defeat and wanted the fertile lands and mineral wealth of Abyssinia for the Italian empire. Ultimately he aimed to restore the Roman Empire. In December 1934 there was a dispute between Italian and Ethiopian troops 80km inside Abyssinia– Mussolini claimed that it was Italian territory and began preparing for an invasion. Both Ethiopian and Italian servicemen were killed and it became known as the ‘Wal-Wal Incident’. Abyssinian Emperor Haile Selassie appealed to the League for help. Phase 1: January 1935 to October 1935 – League plays for time: During this time Mussolini was supposed to be negotiating with the league, but at the same time he was shipping his vast army to Africa and creating ‘war fever’ among the Italian people. Initially Britain and France did not take the situation seriously, they played for time in the desperate attempt to keep good relations with Mussolini due to his friendship with Adolf Hitler. In 1935 the League signed the ‘Stresa Pact’ which formalised a protest against German rearmament, at the meeting they did not even discuss the issue of Abyssinia and many believed that GB and France agreed to turn a blind eye is Italy signed the ‘Stresa Pact’. However as the years went on the public outcry meant the issue could not be ignored. A ballot was taken in Britain in 1935, it showed that the majority of people believed military action should be taken against Italy. British politicians decided it was time to ‘get tough’ and at the assembly British Minister, Hoare made a grand speech about “COLLECTIVE SECURITY” to the delight of League members (particularly smaller nations). Despite the talking not much was done and the League did nothing to discourage Mussolini. On 4th September the League decided no one was responsible for the ‘Wal-Wal incident’ and put forward a plan to give Mussolini part of Abyssinia – he rejected it. Phase 2: October 1935 to May 1936 – sanctions or not? In October 1935, Mussolini’s army was ready and he launched a full scale invasion of Abyssinia. Despite resistance Abyssinia could not fend off the attack due to Italy’s military and technology superiority. It was a clear case of ‘a larger nation attacking a smaller nations’ – an issue the League was designed to deal with. There was no doubting the seriousness of the issue, and the Covenant had made clear the sanctions to put in place against the aggressor. However sanctions would only work if put in quickly and decisively – the League placed a ban on all arms sales to Italy, all imports from Italy and all exports to Italy. However it took them two months to decide whether to ban oil exports as it fear America would not join in the sanction and Britain would lose out economically. Also the Suez Canal (owned by GB) was not closed to Mussolini’s supply ships due to fear of war with Italy allowing Mussolini a direct route to Abyssinia. The League was severally damaged by GB and France’s failure to act, and even more so by their secret dealings with Italy. In December 1935 Hoare (GB Minister) and Laval (French Minister) were hatching a plan to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia if he called off the invasion. Laval told GB if they did not agree the French would no longer support Italian sanctions. The plan was leaked however and both Hoare and Laval were removed. The discussions delayed action further and by February 1936 an oil ban was finally put in place. By then it was too late and Mussolini had already taken over large parts of Abyssinia. Outcome: On 7th March 1936 the fatal blow was delivered – Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland breaking the treaty of Versailles. All hope of French support against Italian sanctions dropped as they now looked to Italy as an ally due to fear of Germany and happily gave up Abyssinia. Italy continued to defy the League’s orders and by May 1936 Mussolini had taken the Abyssinia capital of Addis Ababa – Haile Selassie was forced into exile and Abyssinia was annexed by Italy. The League watch helplessly as ‘collective security’ failed. Prioritise Underline the three most important sentences here. Rank 1-3. briefly explain number 1. Cross out the least important sentence. Extend Write down three questions you’d like to ask a Professor of Modern History about this event.

Categorise Reduce Transform Extend Prioritise Explain how this painting makes you feel? Reduce Change this painting into six words. Categorise How is this painting similar to Picasso’s other works? How is it different? Extend Write down three questions you’d like to ask Picasso about his masterpiece. Prioritise The three most important techniques used by Picasso

Categorise Reduce Prioritise Transform Change this diagram into four words. No diagrams allowed. Categorise Sort the functions of this engine into three stages. Highlight and label. Reduce Explain how this engine works. You have 12 words MAXIMUM. Extend Write down three questions you’d like to ask James Watt about his engine. Prioritise Explain three reasons why this design was so innovative and important.

Prioritise Prioritise Categorise Transform Extend Which of these questions is the most difficult? Explain why. Categorise Group together questions that require the same technique. Highlight in three different colours. Extend One of these questions cannot be solved. Which one is it and why? Transform Make a ‘three step guide’ for Year 10 students to help them answer these questions. Prioritise Which question is easiest? Why?

Living conditions in 19th Century cities Pollution: coal was used to heat houses, cook food and heat water to produce steam to power machines in factories. The burning of coal created smoke, which led to terrible pollution in the cities. Overcrowding: due to large numbers of people moving to the cities, there were not enough houses for all these people to live in. Low wages and high rents caused families to live in as small a space as possible. Sometimes whole families lived in one room. Disease: typhus, typhoid, tuberculosis and cholera all existed in the cities of England. Cholera reached England for the first time in 1830, and there were further major epidemics in 1832 and 1848. Overcrowding, housing of a low standard and poor quality water supplies all helped spread disease. Waste disposal: gutters were filled with litter and the streets were covered in horse manure, collected by boys to sell to farmers. Human waste was discharged directly into the sewers, which flowed straight into rivers. In London, Parliament had to stop work because the smell from the Thames became too much. Poor quality housing: houses were built very close together so there was little light or fresh air inside them. They did not have running water and people found it difficult to keep clean. Houses often suffered from damp due to their thin walls and roofs made out of cheap materials. Many households had to share a single outside toilet that was little more than a hole in the ground. Lack of fresh water: people could get water from a variety of places, such as streams, wells and stand pipes, but this water was often polluted by human waste. Source: BBC BiteSize

Living conditions in 19th Century cities Silently read this detailed information Pollution: coal was used to heat houses, cook food and heat water to produce steam to power machines in factories. The burning of coal created smoke, which led to terrible pollution in the cities. Overcrowding: due to large numbers of people moving to the cities, there were not enough houses for all these people to live in. Low wages and high rents caused families to live in as small a space as possible. Sometimes whole families lived in one room. Disease: typhus, typhoid, tuberculosis and cholera all existed in the cities of England. Cholera reached England for the first time in 1830, and there were further major epidemics in 1832 and 1848. Overcrowding, housing of a low standard and poor quality water supplies all helped spread disease. Waste disposal: gutters were filled with litter and the streets were covered in horse manure, collected by boys to sell to farmers. Human waste was discharged directly into the sewers, which flowed straight into rivers. In London, Parliament had to stop work because the smell from the Thames became too much. Poor quality housing: houses were built very close together so there was little light or fresh air inside them. They did not have running water and people found it difficult to keep clean. Houses often suffered from damp due to their thin walls and roofs made out of cheap materials. Many households had to share a single outside toilet that was little more than a hole in the ground. Lack of fresh water: people could get water from a variety of places, such as streams, wells and stand pipes, but this water was often polluted by human waste. Prioritise: Neatly cross out the least important problem. What are the three most serious problems here. Rank 1-3. Highlight your no. 1 most serious problem. Transform: Change the most serious problem here into an image. No words allowed! Label your partner’s image. Why do you think that this problem is so serious?

Thinking Hard: ‘No prep-quick win’ strategies for thinking in lessons Arts-Humanities: complex text Science-Mathematics: worksheet of Qs Identify three messages contained in this text. Explain each message in 15 words max. Transform the argument of paragraph 2 into an image. No words allowed. Break this text into five chunks. Explain why the information in each chunk might be true/criticise each chunk. Underline the three most important sentences. Briefly explain your no. 1. Cross out the least important sentence here. Explain your thinking. Sort this information into three categories. Highlight and think of a suitable title for each category. Write down three questions you’d like to ask a professor about this text. Make a flow-chart to show the steps required to complete Q4. What are the two most difficult questions here? Why are they so hard? Answer the most difficult. Which is the easiest question here? Why is it so easy? Which skills will you require to answer these questions? Group together questions that require the same technique. Highlight in three different colours. One of these questions cannot be answered. Which one and why? Make a five-step guide to support a Year 12 student encountering these questions for the first time. Write your own exam question and mark-scheme for this topic.

Think-Pair-Share Think: Reflect on what you have just heard about the 12 Thinking Devices. Consider a lesson you taught this week. How could you have increased challenge by using one of the Devices? Pair: Share your thoughts and ask questions to clarify understanding Share: What is your best point to share with the group?

12+ simple devices to plan questions and increase thinking Knowledge and understanding Reduce Transform Deconstruct Derive Analysis and application Prioritise Categorise Criticise Trends and patterns Practise Flexibility of thinking Make connections Compare Extend + Reflect

SATNAV Feedback? Describing navigation as a "use-it-or-lose-it" skill, he warned: "If we do not cherish them, our natural navigation skills will deteriorate as we rely ever more on smart devices.

Reflect: Metacognition Before a Task – How does this link to previous learning? Is this similar to a previous task? What do I want to achieve? What should I do first? During The Task – Am I on the right track? What can I do differently? Who can I ask for help? After a Task – What worked well? What could I have done better? Can I apply this to other situations? What was the most difficult aspect of this work? What made it difficult? How did I overcome this?

Thinking break…

Thinking break…

Questioning and Think-Pair-Share Transform your classroom approach Creating a climate for Thinking Hard: the importance of high quality student talk and expert questioning

Questions that unlock thinking

Questions that unlock thinking Evidence - How do you know that? What evidence is there to support that position? Clarification - Can you put that another way? Can you give me an example? Can you explain that term? Explanation – Why might that be the case? How would we know that? Who might be responsible for…? Linking and extending - Can you add to what X just said? How does this idea support/challenge what we explored earlier in the lesson? Hypothetical – What might happen if…? What would be the potential benefits/impact of X? Summary and synthesis – What remains unsolved/uncertain? What else do we need to know or do to understand this better/be better? Metacognition – What was the most difficult part of that task? How would you do it differently next time? How could you approach this question?

Socratic Questioning Question type Examples 1. Questions for clarification: Get students to think more about what exactly they are thinking about. Prove the concepts behind their argument. Use basic 'tell me more' questions that encourage deeper thinking. Why do you say that? How does this relate to our discussion? What exactly does this mean? What is the nature of ...? What do we already know about this? Can you give me an example? Are you saying ... or ... ? Can you rephrase that, please? 2. Questions that probe assumptions: Probing students’ assumptions makes them think about the presuppositions and unquestioned beliefs on which they are founding their argument. This is shaking the bedrock and should get them really going! What could we assume instead? How can you verify or disapprove that assumption? You seem to be assuming ... ? How did you choose those assumptions? Please explain why/how ... ? What would happen if ... ? Do you agree or disagree with ... ? 3. Questions that probe reasons and evidence: When students give a rationale for their arguments, dig into that reasoning rather than assuming it is a given. People often use un-thought-through or weakly-understood supports for their arguments. Why is that happening? How do you know this? Show me ... ? What do you think causes ... ? What is the nature of this? Are these reasons good enough? Would it stand up in court? How might it be refuted? How can I be sure of what you are saying? Why is ... happening? Why? (keep asking it -- you'll never get past a few times) What evidence is there to support what you are saying? On what authority are you basing your argument?

Socratic Questioning Question type Examples 4. Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives: Most arguments are given from a particular position. So attack the position. Show that there are other, equally valid, viewpoints. Why it is ... necessary? Who benefits from this? What is the difference between... and...? Why is it better than ...? What are the strengths and weaknesses of...? How are ... and ... similar? What would ... say about it? What if you compared ... and ... ? How could you look another way at this? 5. Questions that probe implications and consequences: The argument that they give may have logical implications that can be forecast. Do these make sense? Are they desirable? What generalisations can you make? What are the consequences of that assumption? What are you implying? How does...affect...? How does...tie in with what we learned before? Then what would happen? How could ... be used to ... ? What are the implications of ... ? Why is ... important? What is the best ... ? Why? 6. Questions about the question: Turning the question in on itself. What was the point of this question? Why do you think I asked this question? How does...apply to everyday life? Am I making sense? Why not? What else might I ask? What does that mean?

Small Change, Big Impact What is the difference between: “Stephen…what is the difference between X and X” AND “What is the difference between X and X? (Pause for 5 seconds)…Stephen…. “What is the difference between X and X? (Pause for 5 seconds). Discuss in your pairs for 30 seconds.” “Stephen what did Michael suggest? Do you agree?”

Effective Questioning Making thinking… …visible …audible

A B B A A

What does it do? Wait time to allow thinking. Opportunity to try out and experiment with ideas with another. Deepens thinking. Allows the teacher to hear thinking taking place (immediate classroom feedback). Allows the teacher to select a student(s) to respond in a safe environment. The teacher has to plan questions in advance to deepen thinking. Questioning becomes part of planning.

Hinge Activity A hinge activity is based on the important concept in a lesson that is critical for students to understand before you move on in the lesson or series of lessons. The question should fall about midway during the learning. You must be able to collect and interpret the responses from all students in quickly You need to be clear on how many students you need to get the right answer in advance.

Characteristics of a Hinge Question A hinge question is based on the important concept in a lesson that is critical for students to understand before you move on in the lesson. The question should fall about midway during the lesson. Every student must respond to the question within two minutes. You must be able to collect and interpret the responses from all students in 30 seconds You need to be clear on how many students you need to get the right answer in advance – 20-80% depending on how important the question is David Didau – Learning Spy

What’s between the water molecules? Hydrogen bonds???

no forces are pushing or pulling on the ball. The ball sitting on the table is not moving. It is not moving because: no forces are pushing or pulling on the ball. gravity is pulling down, but the table is in the way. the table pushes up with the same force that gravity pulls down gravity is holding it onto the table. there is a force inside the ball keeping it from rolling off the table

English Where would be the best place to begin a new paragraph? No rules are carved in stone dictating how long a paragraph should be. However, for argumentative essays, a good rule of thumb is that, if your paragraph is shorter than five or six good, substantial sentences, then you should reexamine it to make sure that you've developed the ideas fully. A Do not look at that rule of thumb, however, as hard and fast. It is simply a general guideline that may not fit some paragraphs. B A paragraph should be long enough to do justice to the main idea of the paragraph. Sometimes a paragraph may be short; sometimes it will be long.  C On the other hand, if your paragraph runs on to a page or longer, you should probably reexamine its coherence to make sure that you are sticking to only one main topic. Perhaps you can find subtopics that merit their own paragraphs. D Think more about the unity, coherence, and development of a paragraph than the basic length. E If you are worried that a paragraph is too short, then it probably lacks sufficient development. If you are worried that a paragraph is too long, then you may have rambled on to topics other than the one stated in your topic sentence.

History Why are historians concerned with bias when analysing sources? People can never be trusted to tell the truth People deliberately leave out important details People are only able to provide meaningful information if they experienced an event firsthand People interpret the same event in different ways, according to their experience People are unaware of the motivations for their actions People get confused about sequences of events

Quick multiple choice question Short paragraph Tweet (140 characters) Sketch/cartoon Spot the mistake Odd one out Make the connection Think about your last taught lesson… If you used a hinge question or activity explain it in full to your partner. If not, how could you have used one – at what point could you have used it? What could you have asked students to do to check understanding?

“The ‘Washing Hands’ of Learning” Read the article Reduce the argument of this article to two sentences. Prioritise: Highlight or underline the single most important section in this article. Extend: Identify a point with which you agree or disagree. In the margin, briefly explain your thinking. Now share your thoughts in pairs.

...USA refused to join the League of Nations Thinking break Get from... ...USA refused to join the League of Nations to ...start of WW2 in six steps Making connections... Use: 4, b, +, =, +, 3, 12, b ...to get to b=4 Get from...Mozart to...Marley in six steps Get from... Picasso to...Obama in six steps Get from...Lennie (OMAM) to...Atticus (TKAMB) in six steps

Variations on Think-Pair-Share Think-Pair-Share Perspectives Think-write/draw-share Think-Pair-Listen Think-Pair-Square Think-Pair-Silent Share

Final reflection What have you enjoyed during this session? What have you especially agreed with? What have you disagreed with? What have you found challenging? What actions will you take forward to enhance your classroom teaching tomorrow?

Thinking Hard – Planning Sheet The Thinking Hard Process Questions that unlock thinking Explanation – Why might that be the case? How would we know that? Who might be responsible for…? Hypothetical – What might happen if…? What would be the possible benefits/impact of X? Evidence - How do you know that? What evidence is there to support this view? Clarification - Can you put that another way? Can you give me an example? Can you explain that term? Linking and extending - Can you add to what X just said? How does this idea support/challenge what we explored earlier in the lesson? Summary and synthesis – What remains unknown at this point? What else do we need to know or do to understand this better? Metacognition – What was the most difficult part of that task? How would you do it differently next time? How could you approach this question? The Thinking Hard Process Knowledge and Understanding: Reduce Reduce the key argument into a tweet (140 characters) OR 12 words. Reduce the paragraph to three key points Reduce this paragraph to 6 words. In pairs compare your words, add to of the best to your list Explain … in a maximum of 12 words Knowledge and Understanding: Transform Change this image into six words/a paragraph. Transform this paragraph into a diagram/chart/sketch. No words allowed. How does this text/image/performance make you feel? Change this idea/event/character into a model. Analysis: Prioritise Change the most serious problem here into an image. No words allowed! Label your partner’s image. Why do you think that this problem is so serious? Diamond Nine activity. Justify your top three choices. Any ranking exercise and justification of top and bottom responses. Which of these questions is the most difficult/easiest? Explain why. Underline the most important/thought provoking/surprising/ shocking statement. Neatly cross out the least important point. Explain your thinking. Analysis: Categorise Sort this information into three categories. Highlight and think of a suitable title for each category. Group together questions that require the same technique to answer. Highlight in three different colours. Flexibility: Extend Write down three questions you would like to ask…about…. Flexibility: Making connections How is this question/text/image similar to X? How is it different? Flexibility: Deconstruct Write a three-step guide for a Year 12 student to answer these types of question. Think-Pair-Share Teacher asks a question Students are given time to think about their responses Students pair up and discuss their responses Think-Pair-Share Various Perspectives State a question and ask pairs to “think” in terms of a different perspective e.g. A character in a story, a particular scientist or thinker, a person from history. Etc… Think-Pair-Share (Listen) – When students are sharing ideas in their pairs remind them to listen to their partner’s ideas. When are asked to share, students share the idea of their partner not their own. Think-Pair-Silent Share – The students share their ideas as a silent written dialogue in the form of a spider diagram. This allows students to deepen thinking by taking time to present information in a written form. Think-Pair-Square – Students share with two other students after they have completed Think-Pair-Share (4-square). Think-Write/Draw-Share – Students write or draw their own ideas paired discussion with a partner. This allows ideas to be developed more before sharing.