Intro & Context – what were our questions?

1. Intro & Context – what were our questions? With classes that you feel are really on track, what is still getting in the way between teaching and learning? Why do we still feel we’re working harder than students? Why are students looking to us to assess their work? Why can’t students motivate themselves to do tasks? These questions fitted in with our SDIP targets of promoting independence in all learners, with a particular focus on SEND, Pupil Premium and the vulnerable

2. Evidence Collection Methods • Our aim was to find teaching strategies which would encourage students to become self-regulated learners, and methods of collecting evidence of self-regulation, which were simple but not simplistic, and would sit alongside our current teaching practices. • Short tasks, activities, questionnaires, 1:1 conversations, group discussions, transcripts from filmed evidence, and modified resources were employed to encourage students to see themselves as agents in their own learning and to gather evidence of progression, ‘affective’ barriers, self-regulation, target-setting, behaviour, engagement, attitudes, and accountability. • We both kept journals which documented critical events and significant findings and used our shared knowledge to plan and design further elements of the study.

3. 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 (currently) KS3 French - KT Year 9 strategies in lessons ‘how do you feel about the task? Staff – KT & JAH Trainee Teachers and 2012 cohort of NQTs – strategies in behaviour INSETs

4. Initial fact-finding - Cycle 1Asking the question – What gets between ‘Teaching and Learning’? Altering our practices Cycle 2 In this cycle the focus was to integrate into our existing practice, strategies designed to improve cognitive, meta-cognitive and affective skills Refining our practices Cycle 3 Using gained knowledge and understanding of SRL the third 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

5. Cycle 1 – Fact-finding By posing the question ‘What gets in the way between the smooth flow of teaching into learning?’ lots of interesting answers and similarities emerged across key stages of students and also in fellow members of staff. This established a rationale for making small changes to the way we taught as there were clearly three types of factor interfering in the journey of our teaching to the students’ learning. These could be grouped as follows: Cognitive factors – students’ capacity to learn Meta-cognitive factors – students’ understanding of how to learn what they were learning – but better! Affective factors – how the students’ feelings about themselves impacted on their capacity for success

6. Cycle 2 – Modifying our Practices The first cycle really changed the way we thought about planning our lessons and so, based on Claxton’s (2007) concept of ‘split-screen thinking’ 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 - example • Inside My French Mind I didn’t do any revision for the exam apart from what we did in lessons. I attempted to learn my written piece but I had no way of remembering any of it. This is because I have a bad memory for languages and I don’t think I have the capability to do well in exams. I used a dictionary and just improvised what wrote, I got quite far down the list but I didn’t manage to finish it. This is because I was improvising what I was writing and didn’t know what to write.

8. Cycle 2 - example • Inside My French Mind I ran out of time at the end so I didn’t do anything to improve my mark. This is because I spent too much time trying to improvise what I was writing. I would’ve gone done the list and answered the questions. If I had finished I would’ve checked spelling. During the test I felt panicky and just wrote whatever I could in French in order to get a ‘decent’ mark.

9. Cycle 2 - example • ‘Creative Risk-Taking’ in Year 8 Status lesson Question – What do we mean by ‘risk-taking’ in drama? • Doing something different and not being afraid to be someone else... • It’s about ‘going out there’ even if you’re shy... • Makes me kind of anxious, wondering if it’s going to work or not... Question – How has risk-taking helped you improve your work? • By taking risks we’re doing something we don’t normally do...and it’s boosted our confidence... • We worked harder as a group – we bonded - we improvised and we knew what we were doing...

10. Cycle 2 - example • Year 10 GCSE Dance – Changing the Language of Learning A dancer with debilitating perfectionist tendencies revealed that her ballet teacher did not allow for experimentation or failure – We had a 1:1 conversation about ‘ not being right all the time’ and ‘forgetting moves’ as essential elements of the learning journey even for professional dancers. This resulted in this student breaking through her performance anxiety, achieving a higher standard and opting to develop her performance piece to include more challenging work. The phrase ‘practising to make it good’ cut through the students reluctance to perform ‘work-in-progress’ before receiving feedback from peers Students started to use the same ‘growth mindset’ language... Overheard...”Come on...It doesn’t have to be perfect...we’re just learning!...Let’s do it again and see what we can change”

11. Cycle 3 – 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.

12. Cycle 3: 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.

13. Cycle 3 – 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.

14. Cycle 3: example

15. FINDINGS: PROJECT OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS • Student empowerment when ‘group-feelings’ are articulated -leading to a common consensus • Students’ ‘language of learning’ changed • 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 • Students reflective practice improved and they displayed less defensive attitudes when learning tasks stalled or failed • Increased ownership of learning and co-ownership of learning developed in group tasks • Some affective barriers to learning were diminished or removed completely and there was increased resilience • Increasing number of student questions were asked regarding how to improve the quality and quantity of their work • More student accountability – both student-teacher, and student-student

16. FINDINGS • PROJECT OUTCOMES FOR TEACHERS • Formal requirements, such as quality end-products and academic grades were still taken into account, but student attitudes towards learning to action plan, reflecting and setting new self-determined targets, reviewing their own and other’s B4L, co-creating positive SRL learning environments, and identifying which elements of the learning journey had resulted in success or failure, changed considerably. • There appeared to be a cross-curriculum link and a pastoral-curriculum link in student responses. There is evidence of some pupils’ learning-attitudes being transferred between our subjects, and from pastoral interventions to subjects. • Our ‘teaching-language’ developed and we became increasingly focused on the efficacy and impact of brief verbal interventions which encouraged students to review their emotional responses to challenge • Our ‘split-screen-thinking’ became more contextually linked to the learning intention/objective of lessons and it was often re-designed in the light of teaching and learning outcomes. • It became clear that a SRL-focused cascade of increasingly defined strategies and interventions sat comfortably alongside the ‘curriculum-content-cascade’ and by the end of the project we both found we were automatically planning ,and designing resources, for the promotion of SRL • There was a very positive outcome when consideration was given to ‘affective barriers’ to stress points such as tests, performances, and feedback sessions.

17. Discussion Significant changes to our ‘teaching-mindset’ • The problematic nature of adding SRL elements to our existing teaching load and the requirement to provide time and opportunity for our students to engage meaningfully in this project led to two outcomes: • Firstly, our interventions became more focused, structured, informed and curriculum-content linked, whilst allowing opportunities for the co-creation of SRL environments • Secondly, 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 socially constructed co-learning mid-section of the lessons where students’ and teachers’ work could be differentiated by outcome, need, task, and formative assessment.

18. Discussion Significant changes to our ‘teaching-mindset’ • A continual use of the imagery of a ‘learning journey’ linked to a ‘destination’ and ‘future travel’ gave a clear indication of the following: • The teacher’s inspirational expectations for the students [inspiring positive self-belief] • Relevance of learning linked to ‘Skills for Life’ agenda of the school [Relevance] • Student agency in the pace and type of progress achieved [Accountability] • The opportunity to progress regardless of the starting point [Progress] • The upward spiral of reflective learning [Building learning as a skill] • The advantages of ‘planning the journey’ [Action Planning] • The importance of ‘visualising the destination’ [Goal-setting] • The acquisition of transferable skills [Learning skills for different contexts] • The role of all participants in the teaching and learning process [Social context]

19. Discussion Potential Obstacles • Teachers’ understanding & knowledge of SRL • The need for epistemic change • This may affect the structure of lessons and schemes of work; challenging content-driven teaching and developing co-constructed knowledge • There will demands on teachers’ own SRL attitudes and beliefs

20. Conclusion By developing strategies and resources within the existing curriculum it is possible to create a ‘safety-net’ of support for students to become agents in their own learning. The integration of SRL-focused ‘split-screen-thinking’ into our lessons resulted in clear lessons structures, high expectations, and opportunities for students to take ownership of their learning without the unsettling effects which might result from a ‘free-or-all’ unstructured approach. Many of our students’ self-regulation had improved and they were moving towards a position of independence by the conclusion of the project.

21. References Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the Classroom; A perspective on Assessment and Intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2005, Vol. 54 (2), pp. 199-231 Buff, A., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Pauli, C. (2011). Activating positive affective experiences in the classroom: “Nice to have” or something more? Learning and Instruction, Vol. 21, (2011) pp. 452-466 Claxton, G. L.(2007). Expanding Young People’s Capacity to Learn. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.55, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 1-20 D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, Vol. 22, (2012) pp. 145-157 Graham, S. (1991). A Review of Attribution Theory in Achievement Contexts. Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 3, No. 1. (1991) Nichols, J. D., & Zhang, G. (2011). Classroom environments and student empowerment: An analysis of elementary and secondary teacher beliefs. Learning Environment Research, Vol. 14, (2011), pp. 229-239 Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical Background, Methodological Developments, and Future Prospects: American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, 9Mar., 2008), pp. 166-183