“I believe that work of excellence is transformational. Once a student sees that he or she is capable of excellence, that student is never quite the same. There is a new self-image, a new notion of possibility. There is an appetite for excellence. After students have had a taste of excellence, they’re never quite satisfied with less; they’re always hungry.” (page 8, ‘An Ethic of Excellence’ by Ron Berger)
One feedback strategy I have found helped enhance the writing of my students so far this year was the use of ‘gallery critique‘. The initial inspiration came from Ron Berger, whose ‘Ethic of Excellence‘ provided inspiration in the pursuit of motivating students. Like any teaching and learning strategy, it is far from flawless, but I think that having trialled it extensively with different groups, from students to teachers themselves, in staff training, it was well worth nominating.
After having selected the ‘gallery critique‘ strategy to meet the #blogsync brief of identifying a strategy that elicits motivation, it transpired that David Didau then wrote a peerless summary of the strategy here. This synthesis of research, expressed so skilfully, did make me think that my post had become rather redundant, but I wanted to explore some of the evidence base for the effectiveness of the strategy – particularly my specific use with my GCSE class.
More broadly, the evidence base for the effectiveness of feedback and assessment for learning is sound and thorough. Feedback has the greatest impact in John Hattie’s seminal synthesis of research, ‘Visible Learning‘; although, of course, feedback itself is a broad term. Dylan Wiliam is lauded as a guru in this particular area. He defined the five key areas of effective assessment for learning as follows:
– clarifying and understanding learning intentions and criteria for success
– engineering effective classroom discussions, questions and tasks that elicit evidence of learning
– providing feedback that moves learners forward
– activating students as instructional resources for each other, and
– activating students as owners of their own learning
The “big idea” that ties these together is that we use evidence of student learning to adapt teaching and learning, or instruction, to meet student needs.
(From ‘Excellence in Assessment‘ by Dylan Wiliam)
The strategy of ‘gallery critique‘ is so appealing because, done well, it addresses each of the five areas of effective assessment for learning. I have learnt, through experience of trailing the strategy, that clarifying the success criteria is essential if students are going to create work worthy of a gallery. Each time I now use the ‘gallery critique‘ method I make sure I have used multiple models of high quality work matching their task as a precursor. Also, equally crucial, is having the highest expectations of behaviour when undertaking the gallery reflection and feedback. It can be an off putting strategy if you have a challenging group, given you expect students to walk around the classroom, but, like anything in the classroom, they need training until this strategy just becomes a ‘new normal’ for how they would learn on a regular basis. Of course, it is about being explicit about exactly how students should move about the room. I demand silence during the gallery reflection stage, verbally celebrating students who are undertaking the task with particular focus. I ensure students have a scaffold for their responses using the ‘ABC’ feedback model (they write on their large post it notes – either A for ‘Agree with…’, B for ‘Build upon…’ and C for ‘Challenge…’). I also articulate tight time-frames to ensure students are focused on the job. I then select exemplars that have multiple examples of feedback and talk through them with the class, huddled around in an arc facing the work, questioning students appropriately. Students follow up the ‘gallery critique’ with some sustained ‘dedicated improvement and reflection time‘, whilst I attempt to remedy any misapprehensions with individual students.
In terms of evidence, I focused upon using the strategy with my Y10 group preparing for an ‘Of Mice and Men’ controlled assessment. I regularly identified distinct improvements to drafted paragraphs based on using the ‘gallery critique‘ method; however, I am suspect about my own instincts here, because as Hattie states, almost every teaching intervention makes some form of improvement. That being said, we repeated this method of formative assessment, with the second batch of model paragraphs being distinctively better than the first (I included more exemplar models the second time around). I couldn’t grade this improvement, as it was part of the controlled assessment process, so any marking of drafts isn’t allowed (much to the annoyance of students who are used to this being the case), but the paragraphs were clearly better. I did want the ‘soft data’ of student voice evidence, so I undertook a student voice activity with my trial group. I did undertake the questionnaire just before their controlled assessment so they were nervous and lacking in confidence somewhat (by the end of the lesson I had a different response to their ‘confidence level’ question – with more than half of the group feeling more confident).
The evidence from the questionaries from my Y10 GCSE group is certainly not a ringing endorsement of the strategy! What clearly came through the questionnaire was that 82% of students in my GCSE group preferred teacher assessment over peer or self assessment. Only 18% favoured peer assessment. Of course, students are always dependent and reassured by teacher assessment, for good or ill, but it does draw into question whether this strategy enhances motivation, or whether it is simply defers the true gratification for students that is teacher assessment. One complication is that students know I will not, and cannot, mark a draft of their work, as the controlled assessment process prohibits this, so their annoyance may translate to their views on the questionnaire. 27% of students evaluating that the ‘gallery critique’ method was “not useful at all”; 32% thought it was useful at times; 18% deemed it useful and 18% thought it was very useful. Their reflective opinion did appear to clash with the quality of their written outcomes, but it is an interesting piece of evidence (arguably, watching videos would receive a high percentsge for its usefulness but I would be rightly sceptical of their judgement!). Interestingly, 64% of the group thought that reading the work of others was “useful at times”. Clearly, the desire for teacher led assessment predominates and is indeed the dominant model for education – why wouldn’t students be conditioned to be reliant upon it? Does the strategy motivate students undertaken in this specific manner in the English classroom? Clearly not as much as I thought.
The next crucial question: does it work? The proof will inevitably be in the summative pudding of the controlled assessment mark. I will be able to equate it with their previous reading assessment, not ideally as there are differences. I will also be able to compare their performance with other groups (again, recognising that a host of variables are at play) to ensure there is some hard data to supplement the student voice and my teacher observations of progress.
It is the case with assessment for learning, like most teaching strategies, a balanced variety of well honed approaches will work best to help students make progress. Peer assessment that is well scaffolded and modelled, and conducted with well chosen groupings, can be highly effective formative assessment, as the evidence suggests, but striking a delicate balance of assessment for learning is key. Students often dislike self-assessment, but that self-regulating skill is key to success, therefore we must persevere, ensuring our pedagogy scaffolds the assessment to make it purposeful and have impact.
It is only appropriate to end with the inspirational words of Ron Berger when thinking about the value of the ‘gallery critique’ strategy:
“Most discussions of assessment start in the wrong place. The most important assessment that goes on in a school isn’t done to students but goes on inside students. Every student walks around with a picture of what is acceptable, what is good enough. Each time he works on something he looks at it and assesses it. Is this good enough? Do I feel comfortable handing this in? Does it meet my standards? Changing assessment at this level should be the most important assessment goal of every school. How do we get inside students’ heads and turn up the knob that regulates quality and effort.” (P103, ‘An Ethic of Excellence’)
In summary, ‘Gallery critique’ is one very useful formative assessment strategy for getting students to better ‘turn up the knob that regulates quality and effort’, making their work worthy of a gallery.
Firstly, let me dismiss the notion that there is any one universal panacea which will have a transformative impact upon education. Sadly, we cannot uproot the Finnish education system and replant it in our green and pleasant land; its roots are bound in a rich local context. That being said, I am interested in the root of the word panacea and its relevance to our current predicament. The word panacea derives from the Greek: ‘panákeia‘, equivalent to ‘panake-‘, with the stem of ‘panakḗs‘, meaning ‘all-healing‘. I am particularly interested in the healing aspect. Our education system is fractured and in need of healing; our policy is driven by polarising ideology and each tier of our system is at destructive logger-heads. As a profession we are in dire need of some restorative healing. My palliative, alas, not an ‘all-healing’ panacea, is to our Department FOR Education, and indeed the current, and subsequent, British governments, to realign what it values and to work in cooperation with the teaching profession. I see cooperation and interdependence as the core values which will help improve our education system and begin the healing.
The idea of ‘investment‘ I am interested in spans broader borders than just monetary value. As Warren Buffett said, ‘price is what you pay, value is what you get’. What would have an enduring impact upon schools in the coming years is that each Department FOR Education begins to truly value state education, school leaders and teachers; not pay mere lip service to valuing education either, but displaying this conviction through policy and investment. This policy needs to be depoliticised like never before and professionalised like never before. We can better professionalise our education system through a concerted commitment to research and development. What we need is a relentless focus upon what works in education, not a rigorous defence of ideology at all costs.
As the media and the government will tell you, we are in dire need of cuts. Cut fast, cut deep…cut pretty much anything. Of course, there is an attempt to hold onto what is valued. Much was made by our current coalition government about education budgets being retained, but the reality is one of harsh cuts, with capital expenditure particularly slashed:
“Over the period covered by the 2010 Spending Review, the state-funded school population in England is expected to grow from 6.95 million in 2010–11 to 7.14 million children by 2014–15.4 Furthermore, the education leaving age will be gradually increased from 16 to 18 starting in 2013. Once phased in, this will eventually require students to stay in some form of full-time or part-time education or training until the age of 18 (instead of 16 as currently). As a result, the declines in education spending over the next few years will be spread over an increasing population, so that resources per head will probably decline by even more than total spending.
In summary, education spending experienced relatively robust growth during the 2000s. By the end of the decade, education spending as a share of national income stood close to its highest level for at least fifty years. However, over the next four years, almost all of this growth will be reversed. Having grown historically quickly during the 2000s, it is now set to fall historically fast during the early 2010s.”
Institute for Fiscal Studies report: http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn121.pdf
Of course, in austere times we must spend near aligned with our means, but by devaluing education we will inevitably stifle the very innovation that will drive our small nation back towards success, especially when faced with the rise of vast Brick nations in our changing global economy. It may not be short term enough to fit political cycles (a key issue with the politicisation of policy), but it will be enduring and transformative. Many arguments are made to sustain spending in different government sectors, such as defence spending, but evidence leads to the fact that it is a high quality education system which generates jobs, innovation and wealth creation. This American research gives some intriguing evidence to compare state spending and job creation: US education spending creating jobs – University of Massachusetts research.
I am particularly intrigued by the global comparisons of state spending on education and defence. Perhaps it is a universal example of the endemic of governments spending on the ‘cure’ (defence spending) and not the ‘prevention’ (education spending). In Britain, we have spent an estimated £83.5 billion on an outdated Cold War Defence system in Trident, when the annual education budget is an estimated £99 billion. We must get our values right – which will take a significant realignment. One other facet of the education and defence spending comparison is that of ‘research and development‘. Defence RandD spend stands at £2 billion annually. There is no real equivalent budget for RandD for schools! Higher education funding is being slashed and no ‘Big Society’ substitute will do this significant undertaking. This is at a time when Gove and Clegg seek such a valuable evidence base from the likes of the Education Endowment Foundation, showing they are aware of the impact of such rigorous research evidence, but they are tinkling with the issue. Not only that, there is significant current research being wholly ignored by the DfE.
What would be the scope if we invested £2 billion in evidence based research in Education? Higher Education funding stands at a fraction of current military RandD spending and currently the link between Universities and schools is being severed, due to the change in the teacher training model, so such quality research is becoming ever more difficult. What we must do is connect not fracture: universities and particularly Teaching School Alliances can work like a solar system, drawing together schools and practitioners in rich collaboration, rather than work in corrosive competition. The OECD have explored the striking disconnect that sees government ignoring research and development for education, preferring to base policy upon baseless ideology:
“It is striking that there is generally little public funding for educational research. Private businesses do not seem to invest heavily in knowledge that can be applied to the formal education sector, and policy makers do not seem to have a clear strategy for stimulating business investment in education R&D. On average, OECD countries allocated 15.5 times more of their public budgets to Health research than to Education research, but only 1.2 times more of their public expenditure to education than to health.”
Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century LESSONS FROM AROUND THE WORLD, Edited by Andreas Schleicher, OECD 2012
Value Driven Solutions
– Coordinate a substantial, world-renowned R&D programme
– Establish a Royal College of Teachers
– Make teaching a Masters level study profession
– Retain national pay agreements and attract the best candidates
– Systematically link Teaching School Alliances
– Go further than ever before with planning, preparation and research time
It is about time we explored the palliative investments required to heal our fractured Education system. We need our current Coalition, and future governments, to end the cycle of botched and rehashed top-down initiatives, and instead root reform bottom up, through the profession, and focused upon evidence that always accounts for the central importance of teaching and learning. How do we source the best evidence that can create policy without a political criteria? We need to create a Royal College of Teachers that coordinates a substantial RandD budget with schools and universities (John Hattie should be employed immediately as a key leader!). With the recent merging of the Teaching Agency and the National College of School Leadership there is an overt recognition that there needs to be a powerful, respected and well resourced body that hones in on the key factor which improves any education system – the quality of teachers and teaching and learning. The core purpose of the college would be to drive the engine of evidenced based policy, independent of politicians and the short-termism of the political cycle. The real problem is that mergers come and go, new bodies and quangos fly by night, strangled by Whitehall mandarins and politicians hungry to put their name onto the latest set of changes. Any such Royal College must have a truly independent mandate, substantial funding and a strong media voice.
In tandem with that body, teaching would be raised back to the status of true professionalism, with a high bar of entry requirements and a requirement for Masters level study. In Finland, new teachers are expected to be fully versed with a knowledge base of educational development, but they also are required to write a research based thesis as a final requirement for their Masters degree. The rationale is clear: teachers should be classroom practitioners and undertake disciplined inquiry into the impact of pedagogy etc.
The research that outlines that teacher impact trumps every other factor in education is now incontrovertible, and frankly little more than common sense. With that in mind, the palliatives outlined above will help raise the status of teachers and teaching, exhibiting that the government values Education and is investing in the people that will drive its improvement. Teacher pay, particularly performance related pay (all the evidence stacks up against it!), isn’t my priority, as I happen to believe the vast majority of teachers are driven by public service and not the profit motive; however, if we are to professionalise and raise the standard of the profession to be the highest it can be, creating the rigour so celebrated by politicians, then national pay agreements will help retain those high standards. A North/South pay divide in teaching would only provide a further fracturing and enfeebling of the entire school system, leaving school leaders to pillage their budgets still further.
A further investment in people is providing teaching professionals with the greatest of commodities: time. In successful Asian nations, like Japan, South Korea and Singapore (all lauded by Michael Gove), teachers are given substantial time to plan lessons, respond to assessment and to develop their pedagogy. It is that time, and not class size, which is invariably large, which is the most significant shift from our approach. What would be obvious would be to make that time synchronised with the aforementioned programme for RandD: focusing upon teacher quality and great pedagogy. Networks of teaching schools would be synchronised with Universities well versed in research, but with a concerted focus upon practice in the classroom. Also, in Japan, ‘jugyou kenkyuu‘, translated as research lessons, are a crucial part of the developmental learning culture. Every teacher periodically prepares a best possible lesson that demonstrates strategies to achieve a specific goal in collaboration with their fellow colleagues. Rooted in their culture is that highly professional skill of reflection and a research based methodology.
The cooperative model of ‘jugyou kenkyuu‘ brings me back to my central point about a shift in values from our Department FOR Education towards working with the professionals on the front line. Like ‘jugyou kenkyuu’, we learn and improve through dialogue, not by dictat. We need to move towards a cooperative model, where schools and teachers are encouraged to collaborate and school interdependence is engendered, rather than a culture of fearful and corrosive competition. Autonomy can still flourish in a climate of embedded and systematic collaboration: indeed, a remodelled OFSTED could have a core purpose of supporting schools to raise standards of pedagogy, rather than being simple a punitive measure. We need to move towards a revalued model of education that places autonomy and authority back into the hands of teachers, with the highest expectations of research driven pedagogy.
In his ‘Precepts’ Hippocrates (a Greek physician: 460 BC – 377 BC) states: “Healing is a matter of time, but it is sometimes also a matter of opportunity.” Let’s collaborate to seize to opportunity to demand better values from our politicians and to demand the best from ourselves as professionals.