Developing departmental practice and culture to improve teachers’ confidence when addressing the reasoning component of the new secondary maths curriculum Wi fi Comfort Coffee To escape To remember everything

Programme 9.30 – 9.45 Session 1 – Reflection on gap task 3 9.45 – 10.45 Session 2 – Developing the scheme of work 10.45 – 11.30 Session 3 – Departmental Report – time to complete the report in your pair (and have coffee.) Share findings from NCP4 with another school. 11.30 – 12.15 Session 4 – ‘Lesson Study’ evaluation 12.15 – 13.00 Lunch and individual evaluations 13.00 – 13.20 Session 5 – Metaphor in teaching 13.20 – 14.30 Session 6 – Evaluation of impact and next steps

This is the final workshop of this year’s NCP4 This is the final workshop of this year’s NCP4. There is funding to continue this WG into 2016/17. Have a think about what format this might take throughout today’s session. Your completed reports enable the hub to evaluate the effectiveness of various aspect of the WG and this will result in improvements for future WG’s. RW

Session 1: Reflection on Gap Task 3 “How does comparing and discussing others’ proofs to a problem develop a student’s own ability to reason?” Prompts: What were you looking for? What did you see? What did this tell you about pupils’ reasoning?

Session 2: Developing a scheme of work Using the generic structure shown in workshop 2. In pairs choose one of the suggested contexts and complete as much of the template as possible Exchange templates. Can you add to what others have already suggested? Returning to the Generic Reasoning Task Each pair of teachers has copy of template for generic structures- see documents section Workshop 4 folder WGL to have generated some possible contexts in different areas of the curriculum for teacher pairs to use Generic structures with Flour context on screen. WGL to suggest new context instead of flour context (or each pair come with own)- contexts spread amongst pairs Teachers work in pairs to complete as much of the template as they can for the new context chosen. Compare/share - Divvy them up across the room? (don’t have to be completed) Discussion – how useful is the resource? How useful is this as a PD activity?

Session 2: Strengthening the scheme of work Using the generic structure shown in workshop 2. In pairs choose one of the suggested contexts and complete as much of the template as possible Exchange templates. Can you add to what others have already suggested? Returning to the Generic Reasoning Task Each pair of teachers has copy of template for generic structures- see documents section Workshop 4 folder WGL to have generated some possible contexts in different areas of the curriculum for teacher pairs to use Generic structures with Flour context on screen. WGL to suggest new context instead of flour context (or each pair come with own)- contexts spread amongst pairs Teachers work in pairs to complete as much of the template as they can for the new context chosen. Compare/share - Divvy them up across the room? (don’t have to be completed) Discussion – how useful is the resource? How useful is this as a PD activity?

Which ‘structures’ lend themselves to reasoning with your students? Using the generic structure shown in workshop 2. Does this help to make it easier to generate a reasoning resource? Which ‘structures’ lend themselves to reasoning with your students? Does this have the potential to be part of a departmental ‘toolkit’ for increasing teacher’s repertoire of approaches to improve teaching and learning of reasoning? Is ‘resource development’ useful as a type of professional development? Returning to the Generic Reasoning Task Each pair of teachers has copy of template for generic structures- see documents section Workshop 4 folder WGL to have generated some possible contexts in different areas of the curriculum for teacher pairs to use Generic structures with Flour context on screen. WGL to suggest new context instead of flour context (or each pair come with own)- contexts spread amongst pairs Teachers work in pairs to complete as much of the template as they can for the new context chosen. Compare/share - Divvy them up across the room? (don’t have to be completed) Discussion – how useful is the resource? How useful is this as a PD activity?

Session 3: Departmental reports 20 mins to complete report & drink tea Timed pair share – split into pairs (not the same school) and choose Task 1 (scripts.) First person has 3 mins to discuss/explain their responses to this task. The other person then feeds back for 1 min extracting the main points. Swap and repeat. Repeat for the remaining 3 sections; Task 2, Task 3 and Department report

Session 4:Lesson Study Led by Jen Shearman

Individual evaluations and lunch

Session 5: Metaphor in teaching Do we need methods to help students overcome difficulties?

Success Criteria – can we improve on this?? Level Description 6 Interpret, discuss and synthesise information presented in a variety of mathematical forms 7 Justify generalisations, arguments or solutions Appreciate the difference between mathematical explanation and experimental evidence 8 Reflect on lines of enquiry when exploring mathematical tasks Distinguish between practical demonstration and proof; know underlying assumptions, recognising their importance and limitations, & the effect of varying them

Session 6: Evaluation of impact Which aspects of the programme of learning most resonated with your professional needs, interests and aspirations? Groups of 4 Flipchart sheets. One for each question. Post-its Each question is asked to the groups – they answer for themselves on post-its in silence – then in turn read out aloud, stick in their section, and then 3 or 4 minutes is given to the group to decide on their collective response to sit in the middle section.

Session 6: Evaluation of impact 2. How have students been influenced by the learning you have been engaged in? Groups of 4 Flipchart sheets. One for each question. Post-its Each question is asked to the groups – they answer for themselves on post-its in silence – then in turn read out aloud, stick in their section, and then 3 or 4 minutes is given to the group to decide on their collective response to sit in the middle section.

Session 6: Evaluation of impact How has this learning affected the work of your colleagues within school and beyond? Groups of 4 Flipchart sheets. One for each question. Post-its Each question is asked to the groups – they answer for themselves on post-its in silence – then in turn read out aloud, stick in their section, and then 3 or 4 minutes is given to the group to decide on their collective response to sit in the middle section.

Session 6: Evaluation of impact 4. What have you changed in your practice as a result of being involved in this project? Groups of 4 Flipchart sheets. One for each question. Post-its Each question is asked to the groups – they answer for themselves on post-its in silence – then in turn read out aloud, stick in their section, and then 3 or 4 minutes is given to the group to decide on their collective response to sit in the middle section.

Session 6: Evaluation of impact 5. What do you feel are the next steps for you and this project and what support would you need? Funding available for next year More resources Reasoning project reaches wider into department Reasoning project reaches deeper into department Groups of 4 Flipchart sheets. One for each question. Post-its Each question is asked to the groups – they answer for themselves on post-its in silence – then in turn read out aloud, stick in their section, and then 3 or 4 minutes is given to the group to decide on their collective response to sit in the middle section.

Hub group report Leading to national report Work group lead – National Collaborative Project evaluation. Thank you for handing in your WGS reports. Summaries of the data and comments will be used anonymously to complete a hub report (which is basically in a similar format to your WGS report) which along with the other hub reports will inform a report on NCP4 this year as a whole. In this way your efforts and feedback will help refine the WG for use with a new cohort of schools next year. Funding will be available to each hub to do this. Your experience gained this year and that of your department is potentially a valuable resource. With this in mind there will also be funding next year for those schools who wish to continue their involvement with developing their teaching of reasoning by being part of a NCP4 part 2 WG. This would continue to offer some further key reasoning activities to different parts of the curriculum and explore department approaches to sustain impact. However participating schools will have more flexibility in shaping the WG to meet their needs. It is very much hoped that some of you will want to continue to be part of this.

NCP4 Hub report A Hub: WGL HEI Date: Impact on teacher PD Knowledge Summarise key points teachers made with regard to the impact on their knowledge and classroom practice Summarise some of the aspects teachers felt helped achieve this? – give reasons and make reference to barriers Summarise some of the key actions teachers said they would do next to further develop practice Knowledge Classroom practice Task 1:- Questioning scripts   1 2 3 4 % Task 2: - Generic structures Task 3 Listening to teachers proofs Overall comments

NCP4 Hub report B Hub: WGL HEI Date: Impact on department practices Summarise some of the key points departments made in relation to: Summarise what aspects of NCP4 departments felt helped achieve this and why?   Summarise key actions departments said they would take to further develop department practice Professional practice Department resources & Sow Task 1:- Questioning scripts Task 2: - Generic structures Task 3 Listening to teachers proofs Overall impact grade any further comments 1 2 3 4 %

Where next? Case studies Informal feedback Next year…. Flip chart split in to 3 sections. As a department answer each question and place in the flip chart