1. Creating the optimum learning environment
Jan Avery-Harris & Kate Thirlwall
The Cherwell School – Oxford

2. Intro & Context
How do we move our students from teacher- dependency to becoming agents in their own learning?
What interventions and strategies can be developed which facilitate this shift without adding to teacher burden?
With SDIP targets of promoting independence in all
learners, with a particular focus on SEND, PP and the
vulnerable, questions such as these are significant.

3. Evidence Collection Methods
As Oxford City Learning Action Research Fellows, we were supported by Oxford University Department of Education for one year (OUDE)
We used an action research cycle: 3 months of detailed case study exploration of barriers to student learning were followed by 6 months of continuous action research development of our practices.
Methods included: video clips, reflective diaries, simple, short questionnaires, notes from interactions with students, student work, and feedback from students. These were all taken to regular meetings for further discussion with our OUDE critical friend.
Final validity testing was a meeting with our headteacher and our OUDE critical friend

4. Scope of the project KS3 Drama - JAH Year 8 ‘status lessons’
Year 9 ‘filming project’
KS4 Dance - JAH
Year 10 Dance
Year 11 Dance
Year 10 Tutor Group
KS4 French - KT Year 10 French ‘controlled assessment diaries’ Year 11 French KS3 French - KT Year 9 strategies in lessons ‘how do you feel about the task? Staff – KT & JAH Trainee Teachers and 2012/13 cohort of NQTs – strategies in behaviour INSETs

5. Case Study Asking the question: What gets in the way between ‘Teaching and Learning’?
Modifying our practices
Cycle 1
In this cycle the focus was to
integrate into our existing
practice, strategies to promote
self-regulated learning (SRL)
Refining our practices
Cycle 2
Using improved understanding
of SRL the second cycle focused
on the employment of strategies
to help students successfully
negotiate their way through the
‘stress points’ during the
completion of units of work

6. Cycle 1 – Modifying our Practices
We used Claxton’s (2007) concept of ‘split-screen thinking’ to encourage meta-cognitive awareness in students. We adapted existing activities to always include an element of self reflection or strategies which encouraged self-regulated learning (SRL). In addition, we habitually asked students how they felt about their learning at different points in the lesson and looked for evidence of SRL.
By including questions like ‘how do you feel about this task?’ ‘what is making you feel like this?’ before the tasks, we were able to discover much more about our students and therefore guide their learning more appropriately.

7. Cycle 2 – Refining our Practices
Key Stage 4
I created diaries for the controlled assessments in French which made students explain their thought processes in more detail and respond to how they were feeling about the assessment during each preparation lesson.
The diaries allowed me to give much more personalised interventions. I was able to target specific thought processes, misconceptions about how to learn and feelings that were inhibiting learning. The final grades for this controlled assessment were higher than the first time round.

8. Cycle 2: example
After my draft was complete and Miss Thirlwall graded it I was surprised that I managed to achieve 3 grades above my last one. The fact that I now knew I was capable of this was a big confidence boost and actually helped me remember the things I thought I had forgotten or couldn’t do ( e.g. Tenses).
Knowing that I can get a GCSE in French now is very encouraging and makes me want to work harder in lessons and avoid distractions.

9. Cycle 2 – Refining our Practices
Key Stage 3
By consistently asking students how they felt about tasks and asking them what they could do to address those feelings, a sense of ownership increased in the class.
Self-assessment tasks with an SRL slant were used regularly with KS3 classes post-assessment. These made learners much more accountable for their progress as they were being asked about how they approached tasks and what feelings motivated that approach.

10. FINDINGS: PROJECT OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS
Students’ ‘language of learning’ changed - increasing numbers of student questions were asked regarding how to improve the quality and quantity of their work
Calmer, more purposeful classroom working environments developed
There was a decrease in off-task behaviour in the latter stages of projects and students resolved disputes in a more positive way
Some affective barriers to learning were diminished or removed completely and there was increased resilience as students displayed less defensive attitudes when learning tasks stalled or failed
Student accountability increased – both student-teacher and student-student

11. Conclusions
Our project has created significant changes to our ‘teaching- mindset’ with two principal outcomes:
1. Our interventions became more focused, structured and curriculum-content linked, whilst allowing opportunities for the co- creation of SRL environments
2. More time was released in lessons for student-determined activity
This necessitated a shift from strong content-related lessons to content knowledge being extended within the co-learning mid- section of the lessons where students’ and teachers’ work could be differentiated by outcome, need, task, and formative assessment.