The Gifted and Talented in Primary Education

4 Which Approach/es to Provision? The Various Pedagogies of ‘Challenge’

When exploring this aspect, student teachers should probably consider especially:

The range of approaches to provision of ‘challenge’ for able/G & T pupils.
The ways in which a palette of general teaching strategies (including differentiation), along with those contained within the DfES’ personalised learning agenda, can be applied to the needs of able/G & T pupils.
The extent to which the various pedagogies a) can usefully be applied to all pupils and b) might suggest ‘levels’ of challenge to accommodate the learning needs of all able pupils.
Some of the issues surrounding choice between these pedagogies, and whether it is possible, or desirable, to reconcile them.

By the end of this section, student teachers should appreciate that there is no one accepted (or DfES-advocated) approach to provision for able pupils: as with all other learners, teaching approaches that work with some able children may not work effectively with others. The notion of ‘challenge’ is also an area of ongoing research, debate and development; to complicate matters, many parties have a stake in pressing ‘their’ pedagogies in this area, such as independent trainers and consultants. It is important in this climate to stress that provision for the more able need not entail extra money or resources; doing something radically ‘different’ from current effective practice; or ‘adding on’ opportunities for the able outside the mainstream classroom. In fact, the OFSTED evaluation report, December 2001, and subsequent studies have re-emphasised the need for more attention to effective mainstream provision for able pupils in many schools, following the line established by the House of Commons Report, 1999: ‘It is getting the teaching right that is the key to it. This is our experience over and over again.’

A particular discovery for student teachers is likely to be that many models of effective provision for ‘able’ pupils tend to be accessible and effective for ‘other’ pupils too – indeed, to benefit all pupils, whatever their ability. Whole-school experiences in the UK and elsewhere tend to support the contention of Mike Tomlinson, ex-Chief Inspector of Schools with OFSTED, that ‘If you are willing to deal effectively with the needs of able pupils you will raise the achievement of all pupils.’ (OFSTED, 2001). For tutors and student teachers who agree with an ‘inclusive’ approach, this is heartening – although it also raises issues (see sections 4c and 4d)).

Finally, student teachers should be prepared for finding a wide range of pedagogies applied to the able in the schools they visit – from none, to one approach employed – whether effectively, or possibly too rigidly or unquestioningly - throughout a school, to a number ‘meshed’ holistically and successfully in a setting, to several picked and mixed at random, used only in certain subjects or learning contexts, or spasmodically. They should be briefed to study schools’ approaches with a critical eye, in particular asking themselves whether a) the schools’ practices are based on thoughtful discussion and decision-making amongst all colleagues and b) whether learning and teaching are regularly reviewed to ensure that an effective, whole-school approach to challenge and the needs of different learners is being maintained.

4a Towards an overview of approaches to provision: categorisation task

This task aims to give student teachers an overview, and to heighten their awareness, of:

the range of approaches to the provision of ‘challenge’ for able/G & T pupils.

First it can be suggested to them that approaches to the provision of ‘challenge’ might usefully be placed in at least four categories:

those framed around several distinct types of thinking;
those in which one type of thinking, or use of an approach through ‘philosophy’, predominates, or overarches others;
those based on learners’ dominant intelligence type/s or learning type/s; and
those employing a ‘palette’ of general teaching strategy choices.

(It should be stressed, of course, that no one approach, or category of approach, need be exclusive: a school might employ one or several approaches or types of approach – and of course might do so more or less effectively, systematically, regularly, flexibly and critically.)

Student teachers can be asked to complete the grid below as and when they encounter examples of a particular approach, whether in practice or through reading. They can add their own critical impressions of its effectiveness, from planning documents or actual lessons seen; if different approaches are encountered through descriptions in texts only, students may still speculate about their potential advantages and disadvantages, and make notes describing how they could perhaps be applied to particular lessons or other learning contexts.

If this exercise does not coincide with school experiences, student teachers should read a selection of the texts listed at the end of this section (or extracts from them), all of which outline or imply at least one approach to provision within one of the categories above

If reading time is limited, student teachers can gain a brief overview from Iley, 2005, Introduction (either volume). Further time can be saved by giving different students partial reading lists as divided up in the bullet points below this grid; if so, students should not be told which ‘category’ of provision they are investigating.

Categorisation grid, activity 4a)

Type of ‘provision of challenge’ approach	Based on several distinct types of thinking	One type of thinking, or approach through ‘philosophy’, predominates	Based on learners’ dominant intelligence type/s or learning type/s	Based on a ‘palette’ of general teaching strategy choices	Other/not sure
Details of approach; name of ‘author/s’; student comments from reading; and/or student observations on use, e.g. in planning and learning contexts in school

Students should probably place:

in the first column and category, the thinking frameworks of Bloom, deBono, Jeffers and Hancock, Iley and Primary National Strategy/DfES, plus much of Fisher’s work;
in the second, Fisher’s and Lipman’s approaches through philosophy; Wallace/Wallace et al’s ‘TASC’ problem-solving approach; Jones and Wyse’s, National Curriculum in Action’s and QCA, 2004’s emphasis on creativity and creative thinking; and the focus of Krathwohl et al and Sharp on affective thinking/emotional literacy (the latter, in particular, may need some exploration with students);
in the third, the works of Gardner on multiple intelligences, and that of Hughes, Smith, Sternberg, Garnett and many more on ‘brain-based’, ‘accelerated’ and ‘VAK’ (visual, auditory and kinaesthetic) learning;
in the fourth, QCA Handbook, 2001 and possibly Dean, Eyre, Feuerstein and Renzulli - in fact, deep-thinking students may find this reading particularly challenging: do the texts suggest a ‘category’ or not?; while
in the fifth, any experiences or observations in school that demonstrated ‘challenging provision’ whose ‘category’ was uncertain.

In a feedback session, student teachers can compare and collate their findings on to a large-format version of the grid above. They can discuss and record their criticisms and doubts about each type of provision; for example, they might argue that on the one hand, a framework of teaching approaches based on children’s dominant ‘intelligences’ or ‘learning styles’ (column 3) is likely to be accessible to all learners; on the other hand, its implementation may risk too often ‘playing to able learners’ strengths’, rather than ‘strengthening their weaknesses’.

It will be important for student teachers to critique any purportedly challenging provision, or planning for it, they have actually seen. Was it:

appropriately targeted at pupils, given their level of ability, personal interests and other factors?
received well or badly by learners (e.g. it might have been greeted as ‘just more of the same’ work, as if penalising them for finishing early)?
apparently part of everyday planning/teaching practice and a unified, whole school approach?
a ‘one-off’, or hastily designed ‘add-on’?

uncertainly or confidently designed/executed by teachers? How did teachers respond if pupils reacted to their provision unexpectedly: by seizing this assessment opportunity none the less, and with a self-critical eye to future provision, or unhappily and by ‘closing down’ or abandoning the challenge?
The resultant large grid or grids, filled in as fully and critically as possible, can be saved and stored for use in activity 4d), below.

Finally, student teachers should be made aware of Carol McGuinness’ research (1999) into how thinking skills – whatever approach/es are used from column 1 above – might be implemented in schools. She suggests that there are three possible methods:

Structured programmes on general thinking skills, introduced in addition to the existing curriculum.
Subject-specific or ‘domain-specific’ thinking skills taught through the relevant subjects or domains (e.g. ‘the expressive/creative arts’, ‘the humanities’, ‘practical subjects’) for example with the appropriate problem-solving, creative, critical thinking and emotional literacy skills taught in English/literacy.
Cross-curricular programmes that infuse thinking skills right across the curriculum.

Student teachers can then be made aware that schools will have the same three choices whichever approaches to providing ‘challenge’ they adopt, of whichever type/category suggested above. One might ask them to investigate, on their next school visit or while studying a school’s documentation, to which of McGuinness’s three options above that school’s practice most approximates in its approaches to challenge the more able; and, they may be asked, how coherently and systematically does it implement that approach, if it has one?

4b Planning challenge through general teaching strategies: ‘101 ways to revise a lesson plan’ activity

This exercise investigates some approaches that should have been included by student teachers in the blank third and fourth columns of the grid under activity 4a), above. It also allows review of, or can be meshed with, what student teachers may have already learnt about the various means of differentiation.

It asks them to investigate:

the ways in which a palette of general teaching strategies (including differentiation), and those contained within the DfES’ personalised learning agenda, can be applied to the needs of able/G & T pupils.

Student teachers can first read QCA (2001), p.6. This advocates a palette of general teaching strategies (‘five key dimensions’) in planning for the able:

‘breadth
depth
acceleration
independence
reflection.’

Considering the last two first, student teachers can usefully debate whether these are desirable aspects to incorporate into task design for any pupil. For example, when commenting on something read, all children should surely be encouraged to give their own opinions, not copy others’ or second-guess the teacher’s (independence of thought); similarly, when a piece of role play is complete, surely all participants and viewers may be invited to consider how they felt during the task and evaluate how they contributed (reflection)? Perhaps QCA intends a greater degree of independence and reflection from the more able while they are learning, or a greater extent of independence or reflection ‘built in’ to an activity rather than regarded as, in some sense, ‘extra’ or ‘a bonus’ by the teacher? QCA’s ‘dimension’ of independence needs one further qualification: able children need challenging opportunities to explore their skills of collaboration just as much as their capabilities for individual action and self-sufficiency.

Although the DfES urges more acceleration on schools, it remains an unusual, often hard to manage approach with able English/literacy primary pupils; so after this discussion, student teachers can most beneficially focus on the first two aspects listed above: ‘breadth’ and ‘depth’. They need to know that, among educationalists, precise definitions of these terms differ, along with those of ‘extension’ and ‘enrichment’, with which both are regularly associated.

Student teachers can then be issued with the three texts below. Those who could benefit from revisiting the subject of differentiation can study the third text alone. (Note that Hopkins, 2005 provides a useful brief digest/matrix of personalised learning, referred to in the texts.)

‘Breadth’: outside or within the classroom. Pursuit of the links between another

topic
resource
format for learning and/or
context for learning

and the ‘core learning experience’ of all in the class or cohort. This will go beyond the prescribed or planned curriculum – but as it were ‘sideways’, i.e. without ‘extra’ difficulty or complexity. For many, ‘breadth’ is interchangeable with the term ‘enrichment’; however, some apply the latter only to learning experiences outside the classroom, or, indeed, outside the standard school timetable or the school the able normally attend. Others blur breadth and enrichment somewhat with the concepts of ‘depth’/’extension’ (and of course they are not mutually exclusive). A key term here too is ‘study support’, i.e. the provision of supported opportunities for learning outside the timetabled day, such as homework clubs or after-school/lunchtime learning contexts. Examples of breadth might be:

asking learners to research the changing meanings of words over time and possibly into the future, as well as their current ones (a broadened topic)
briefing pupils to report back on a subject having used two kinds of text, e.g. internet and book, not just one (a broadening of resources)
inviting children to use a ‘mixed media’ format in which to present their ideas, e.g. role-played interview, Powerpoint presentation, exhibition/display with captions, while the rest of their cohort is using a stipulated word-only format (a broadening of formats)
enabling some to develop their skills/interests further through an out of class club, master classes at the local junior/secondary school, a residential course, a summer school, homework, a buddying system, internet or inter-school/phase intranet communication (a broadened context).

There is a link between ‘breadth’ in the G & T sense and the phrase ‘broad and balanced’ – arguably more in the usage of the DfES’ Excellence and Enjoyment than in QCA’s, 1998: able pupils, many believe, can be more ‘enriched’ the wider the variety of their learning experiences and environments; thus, for example, lessons for them should probably be designed in a range of formats, perhaps incorporating elements of change, the unusual and the unexpected.
The phrase chimes with another DfES aim, ‘personalised learning’ (Hopkins, 2005 and Primary National Strategy/DfES, 2004b). Through this drive schools are encouraged, among other developments, to exploit children’s dominant intelligences/learning styles (as covered in task 4a)) – consequently, where appropriate, widening their range of learning and teaching strategies (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic...), and targeting them at pupils appropriately. Perhaps especially with G & T pupils, teachers should explore whether they are exposed to a sufficiently ‘broad’ variety of learning and teaching strategies. A further notion behind ‘personalised learning’ is that of choice for pupils. It is worth considering the extent to which some, if not all, able pupils might be more ‘challenged’ if given more choices in areas of English/literacy learning (e.g. more choice of authors to read, audiences to write or perform for, layouts and structures to use when writing).

‘Depth’ (occasionally termed ‘height’): usually within the classroom (additionally, for some, in such ‘classroom-driven’ contexts as homework and withdrawal). The challenge of developing knowledge, skills or understanding to a deeper/higher degree than other pupils in the same class or cohort. ‘Depth’ is equated with the term ‘extension’ by many; however, ideas differ on ‘where’ the planning for this might ‘come from’ – what resources can be used to inspire or inform it.

Some teachers draw on future ‘learning steps’ in a published framework based on carefully researched progression in learning, such as the literacy based progression continua published as fold-out pages at the beginning of First Steps (1999), or onlearning and teachingobjectives set for future terms or years in a planning document such as the NLS Framework for Teaching; if so, ‘extension’ could be said to blur with the notion of ‘acceleration’ (in that it entails the ‘telescoping’ of learning to eliminate unnecessary stages).
Other practitioners attempt to differentiate between the learning and teaching objectives set for them in planning documents (such as the NLS Framework) covering the same block or period of work. They tease these out according to their perceived level of difficulty, setting those considered more challenging for the able.
Yet others use different methods, such as giving the able more of a text/author to read and consider (using homework if required for this), or asking pupils to take their writing ‘to a different level’, e.g. going on to revise, proofread and ‘publish’ it in some form; however, there are often time implications that are hard to manage, and such approaches may be perceived as ‘penalising’ the able by giving them longer tasks (somewhat of a disincentive to being identified as G & T). There is a potential blurring here once more: such tasks could probably be considered either extensions (deepening) or enrichments (broadening).
Finally, teachers often choose from the many forms of differentiation available to them to ‘pitch’ learning and teaching for the able at a suitably ‘high’ level in comparison with others (see the separate list of differentiation methods). Obviously the various types of differentiation may be used separately or in combination; they may also overlap pedagogically with other approaches described in section 4a).

The various methods of differentiation
These may be used separately or in combination. Some, in the implementation, might ‘broaden’/’enrich’, others ‘deepen’/’extend’ (i.e. they can embrace these concepts). More than do the notions of ‘breadth’ and ‘depth’, a knowledge of the options for differentiation can guide teachers towards means of task design for ‘other’ abilities of pupil too.
Lists of the methods available differ, but some of the most useful are:

By task. Pupils are given different activities, although they tend to have a common learning theme such as identifying rhyming patterns in reading, employing figurative language when writing, using different voices during drama. More able children are given more challenging tasks (extension), e.g.:

rhyming patterns: able pupils locate the same rhyme with different spellings in a text and investigate other words containing the same rhyme but a variety of letter strings, (Others might locate the same rhyme spelt regularly and generate more words with this pattern, while some might locate common letter strings and work out how to read them.) (KS1);
figurative language: able children write a brief poem that develops an extended metaphor. (Others might use similes in the course of their poetry writing, some with the help of a choice of writing frames.) (KS2);(continued over)
different voices: able learners invent their own, e.g. using accents or dialect, during improvised drama. (Others might be allocated voices by the teacher.) (KS2).

One difficulty with differentiation by task is the time it takes to brief and set up different ability groups. One solution is to plan a task with a whole cohort/class then split it amongst different groupings, where possible differentiating the amount of challenge in each ‘sub-task’, e.g.:

a choral reading might be divided among a whole class/cohort, with the most able creating vocal sound effects while other groups practise separate passages, the least able tackling a chorus or repeated phrase (KS2);
story writing might be shared out after whole class/cohort planning on a storyboard, with the most able tackling separate ‘action’ sections (using a range of connectives, ‘strong’ verbs and adverbs) while others directly describe characters or settings (KS1).

By pace. Pupils are enabled to work at different speeds, or given different timings for a task (NB: both less and more time can create challenges, depending on the task and pupil).

Teachers often find it hard to use this method in a timetabled, segmented day, unless some learners have more ‘finishing-off time’ or continue with a task as homework; conversely, it can be problematic to set able children tight time limits when others alongside them are working for longer periods. Solutions are:

pupils who might benefit from the challenge of more time can use homework to prepare for, or start, a task, e.g. reading one book by John Burningham at home before whole class study of another (KS1);
learners’ English/literacy activity in a lesson can be ‘chunked’ into short stages, with deadlines for each followed by mini-plenaries (this way, slower children – able or otherwise – can produce at least something towards each part of a whole task and still to an extent ‘complete’ the task), e.g. writing a non-fiction text from beginning to end, even though some sentences in the ‘middle’ may be unfinished (KS1);
during group activity, workload or timings can be distributed unevenly to challenge able children with either more time, or less, e.g. during group discussion, explaining their views to a time limit (or conversely, giving ‘at least three reasons for’, while others are required to state one) (KS2).

By resource. Pupils can be given different numbers, ‘levels of difficulty’ or types of resource in order to challenge them; this might mean either restricting or expanding their number or usefulness.

In writing or speaking activities, for instance, giving able children ‘harder’ models to follow may be appropriate; however, it can be difficult to manage in settings with a mix of abilities – unless children study such models before the teaching context, e.g. via homework. More practicable examples are:
- when they are researching a topic, giving able children reference texts with a higher readability level than those available to others (KS1 or 2);
- while they are writing a play scene, requiring the most able to write collaboratively but without the ‘resource’ of prior rehearsal, in order to focus them on the quality and sound of their language (others might improvise first) (KS2);
- when issuing instructions for a task, constraining the most able from using the ‘resource’ of props/objects, gestures or demonstrations, in order to increase the precision of their wording (KS1 or 2).

By support. Some able pupils will benefit from support, others from the challenge of less, or its withdrawal; such decisions are likely to be influenced partly by the learning context. ‘Support’ may come from adults, learning partners or pupil mentors/buddies of a different age; these may challenge the G & T through their dialogue, interventions, questioning or full scale collaboration. However, arguably the term can also embrace ‘supportive’ resources such as ICT and other equipment, pictures, reference materials, writing frames, previously written notes, etc.

By self-design. The DfES’ ‘personalised learning’ agenda (Hopkins, 2005 and Primary National Strategy/DfES 2004b) urges pupil choice wherever possible during learning and teaching. To the surprise of some, teachers have found that even KS1 able pupils can respond effectively to the challenge of designing their own tasks, or at least of being given some elements of choice in what they do and how they would like to learn – if tasks are set up, and learners briefed and supported, appropriately. Examples from English/literacy contexts might be:

while the rest of the cohort/class are writing about characterisation in a particular text studied, the most able might be asked to design a project to study characterisation in more than one author’s work, also using homework or independent reading time in advance of the general activity (KS2);
while others in their cohort/class are writing instructions for a particular procedure, able pupils might be briefed to choose their subject matter from a personal hobby or interest (KS1 or 2);
during a listening task, e.g. to a recording, more able listeners might be expected to observe the audience’s listening behaviours; this with the understanding that afterwards, they will suggest their own ways of translating what they have learnt into listening advice or guidelines (KS2).

By dialogue/questioning. It is often useful to script key questions or potentially useful intervention statements in readiness for teaching contexts, although obviously the most effective wording cannot always be anticipated. Many publications explore the difference between ‘closed’ and ‘open’ questions, and the more challenging nature of the latter: writers on Socratic/philosophical questioning techniques can be useful, too. Less discussed in educational texts are the advantages of thought-provoking statements from adults. ‘Oral frames’ can be useful to support teacher wording, e.g.:

Why do you think...?
How do we know that...?
Why have you...?
What would happen if...?
What do you notice about....?
What reasons can you give for...?
What do you like/dislike about...?
I wonder why...
It’s surprising that...
There seems to be something else you could...
Your idea/work is rather like/very unlike...
Perhaps you could tell me more about...

By desired outcome, stated in advance. The most familiar instance of this is the ‘must-should-could’ model, where pupils are made aware of the success criteria for their learning, and/or of the teacher’s intended learning outcomes. Those who may be thus motivated are challenged to achieve the ‘highest level’ for the activity (‘could’) as well as the ‘other’ outcomes expected of the wider class/cohort. For example:

when writing, the most able might be challenged to link their paragraphs in several different ways (could), while all are expected to paragraph (must), some of whom should also use clear, logical paragraph links (should) (KS2);
when writing a recount, the most able might be asked to do so using precise, descriptive vocabulary (could), while all are required to include some details about ‘when, where and what’ events occurred (must) and some in addition should consider the best order for these facts, linking their sentences with time words (should) (KS1);
when reading, the most able might be asked to find criticism/praise for the text, even if they like/dislike it (must), while all are required to express a personal view of it (must), and some – including the able – to justify those views (should) (KS1 or 2).

Student teachers need to have read and discussed the three texts thoroughly. Their attention may also be drawn now to the invaluable advice of Eyre, (1997): ‘The most effective way to handle [challenging work] is to plan the activity or task first, and then decide who in the class could tackle it.’ (Her italics, our bold.)

With this in mind, student teachers can next either be provided with copies of one single English/literacy lesson plan that disregards the issue of challenge for the more able, or can supply their own varied examples (from school experiences or visits, or a school’s documentation). (The former method can be more illuminating.) Individually they can attempt to revise these copies using one of the approaches described above in order to incorporate challenge for the most able group, i.e. one of the methods of enrichment (e.g. an alternative learning format, or an experience involving V, A and K), extension (e.g. setting ‘future learning steps’ from planning documentation) or differentiation (e.g. by dialogue/questioning, so they will need to script actual questions and intervention statements). Ideally each student teacher should attempt a different approach, allocated by the tutor, to avoid duplication.

The resultant ‘new improved’ plans from student teachers can be copied, circulated and critiqued. The latter can be done either in open forum or by student teacher partners acting as ‘critical friends’. Have student teachers understood accurately the approaches described? Have they planned appropriately, giving enough concrete detail, e.g. texts or grouping methods, for a real lesson? Which of the above approaches were particularly helpful? Which proved less inspiring, if any? Which enabled student teachers to think most clearly and precisely about levels of challenge for all in a class or cohort?

To complete this section, student teachers need to be reminded of one final, vital aspect of the ‘personalised learning’ agenda: that pupils need to be fully involved in understanding the processes of their own learning, and – in tandem with teacher-adults – in evaluating their progress. This dimension is present in some form in most of the frameworks categorised in activity 4a), for example all thinking skills frameworks include terms such as ‘evaluation’ or ‘critical thinking’, which apply here. (It could be argued that it is critical to all pupils’ success – a reality that is potentially somewhat contradicted by the QCA’s ‘fifth dimension’, as discussed above.)

Student teachers can finish by debating how to make able pupils’ involvement in this reflective process more challenging than that of ‘others’. They could perhaps refer again to the texts above for ideas on how to refine the ‘traffic lights’ procedure now used by pupils in some schools (crayoning red to mean they can’t do/understand, orange to indicate they are ‘on their way’ to doing/understanding, and green representing full confidence). How could this self-evaluation system be adapted to take able pupils even further in their understanding of themselves as learners?

4c Enough challenge for the able beside challenge for all? Lesson design and evaluation task

Through this section, student teachers are able to explore:

the extent to which the various pedagogies i) can be usefully applied to all pupils and ii) might suggest ‘levels’ of challenge to accommodate the learning needs of all able pupils.

To recap, from the experience of schools who have addressed provision for able pupils it seems that ensuring effective challenge can benefit all learners, as Mike Tomlinson states (OFSTED, 2001). The activity in section 4b) should have illuminated how such approaches as enrichment, extension and the application of various differentiation methods can realise this ‘inclusive effect’. However, it is perhaps less clear how some of the other ‘challenging’ approaches studied during task 4a) might do so. Also, if the ‘inclusive effect’ can be facilitated in school settings by understanding and applying ‘challenge’, the question then is, what remains, or should remain, ‘special’, or ‘most challenging’, about provision for the ‘most able’ – if anything? Can we articulate, even quantify, degrees of challenge for them, and if so, how? With the trialling and implementation of a wide range of pedagogies in schools, and their frequent advertisement during professional development training, such questions can go unanswered, even unnoticed. This section enables student teachers to explore these issues further, perhaps in the context of a research-based assignment.

On issue i) included in the aims of this section, above, first student teachers need to be clear that, among the approaches enumerated under 4a) but not considered under 4b), some provide an hierarchical framework, e.g. Bloom’s taxonomy (1956), whereas others, e.g. the philosophy-based approaches of Lipman (1987, 1991) and Fisher (1990 and 2003), do not; furthermore, arguably, Gardner (1993 and 2000) and Smith et al (1998 and 2005) are useful primarily in ensuring access for all to learning, i.e. the ‘inclusive effect’. (However, requiring children to use intelligences or learning styles other than their ‘dominant’ ones will increase? the degree of challenge: thus if desired, a personalised ‘hierarchy of difficulty’ of sorts for each pupil can be established in a school, classroom or cohort.)

Divided into three groups, those student teachers who need most support can study Bloom, 1956 (also covered in Iley, 2005 and Eyre, 1997); the second group can tackle Fisher, 1990 and/or 2003 on philosophy frameworks; while the third should examine Gardner, 1993 and/or 2000 and Smith et al, 1998 and/or 2005, on dominant intelligences/learning styles. After time for reading (or re-reading), discussion and clarification of the texts, groups, subdivided if required, can be asked to devise an English/literacy lesson or activity for a range of ability groups of KS1 or 2 pupils in one cohort. Each group should:

base this on Bloom’s framework. (Able pupils should be set a task, or the challenge in their task increased, by drawing on one of Bloom’s ‘highest-order’ thinking skills, i.e. synthesis, evaluation or analysis, while others’ tasks revolve around his ‘mid-level’, or even ‘lower-order’, thinking skills.); or
ensure a philosophical approach plays a central part (referring to Fisher, Lipman etc.). For ideas on how to ‘challenge’ able pupils more than others, they should draw on what they discovered during activity 4b) about enrichment, extension and/or differentiation methods; or
address pupils’ differing dominant intelligences/learning styles (using Smith, Gardner, etc.). For able pupils, they should not adopt the strategy already suggested, i.e. stipulating that they use an intelligence or learning style other than their dominant one: instead, they should draw on what they discovered during activity 4b) about enrichment, extension and/or differentiation methods (as they should for others).

Afterwards, student teachers’ ideas should be shared, distributed, critiqued and, where necessary, worked on further. Ideally, they should trial their planned lessons during an actual school experience. Afterwards, they should evaluate the lessons’ effectiveness in enhancing the learning and progress of all ability groups. These plans, annotated with evaluations, should be kept for the next part of this task.

Moving to issue ii) included in the aims of this section, above, student teachers should by now be aware that the ‘more able’ are a disparate group, with as many strengths, weaknesses and learning needs as other groups, varying widely from ‘exceptional’ to ‘above average’ in terms of their abilities, and their abilities in different contexts. Since this is the case, student teachers will need reassurance that ‘gradations of difficulty’ or complexity in planning and provision can be accommodated not just for a broader cohort but also for its disparate ‘most able’. Ideas for these ‘gradations’ can be found by exploring further the palette of general teaching approaches considered under 4b). By concentrating these purely now on the ‘most able’ in lessons/activities such as those devised and evaluated under issue ii), they should perceive the possibilities for distinguishing between different ‘types’ or abilities of more able learners.

The pointers below should confirm this. They use the general teaching approaches the student teachers will have already studied above, i.e. breadth/enrichment, depth/extension, and the range of methods of differentiation. Displayed in list form, they can prompt student teachers’ further ideas (they will probably need to refer back to the three texts under activity 4b)):

The more, or the more complex, the resources able pupils must manage during a learning activity, often the more broadening/challenging (enrichment/extension). Some might use one ‘level’ of thesaurus, some another; or some might consult two websites, some three, some four.
The more complex the format/s for learning, or the more the format/s vary, the more challenging/broadening (extension or enrichment). Some might cascade an aspect of English/literacy learning in pairs, some in threes, some in fours; some might combine preparatory homework with school work in order to complete a task in more depth or breadth, while others work only in school; or some might make entries in a writing journal during cross-curricular writing and English, while others do so only during English/literacy.
The more aspects of choice assigned to pupils in their learning, often the more challenging/broadening (differentiation/enrichment). Some might be asked to choose the layout, audience and subject matter for instruction writing while others can select only two/one of these aspects.
The ‘higher’ or ‘harder’ the learning steps set for able pupils from a progression or planning document, the more challenging (extension). Some might learn to recite a rhyme, extemporising on patterns orally by substituting words and phrases; some a favourite poem without predictable and repeating patterns in wording, showing awareness of subtler patterns, e.g. rhythm, alliteration; and others a non-rhyming poem, showing awareness of powerful adjectives, verbs etc.
Changing the pace, timing, level of support and/or amount and type of dialogue/questioning etc. previously used will increase challenge (differentiation). Some might find it challenging to plan an oral presentation in five minutes, some in ten, some in fifteen; some might be asked to read a text and learn to give or record detailed views of it while others, asked to do the same, must then re-read it and record new or revised impressions; some might be challenged by the intervention/questioning of an adult at five-minute intervals, others by the requirement, after initial adult briefing, to work unaided and some by working to a checklist of questions and a time frame.
When articulating desired outcomes or ‘success criteria’, the more of these a teacher requires, the more challenging the task (differentiation).

Student teachers can first be invited to illustrate these six pointers by suggesting more instances from real or hypothetical English/literacy lessons. It is important to canvass ideas about what ‘less able’ pupils might be learning, and how, at the same time. Next, they may suggest other pointers: what other aspects of teaching can be changed, varied, augmented, reduced or made more complex in order to set different ‘degrees of challenge/breadth’ for the able? (They will still need the texts from activity 4b) to refer to here.) If so these can be added to the list, with examples in practice, as above.

After these explorations, they can revert to the three groupings adopted when considering issue i). Each group, subdivided as before if necessary, can study anew the lesson/activity plans devised, evaluated (hopefully, trialled) and explored during that section. Working in pairs or small groups, they should now attempt to expand and refine the planning on these sheets for able learners alone. They should draw on the pointers displayed and just brainstormed to distinguish in more detail between gradations of challenge/breadth for two or three different types, ‘levels’ or categories of able pupil. Student teachers should note in writing what these ‘categories’ might be, e.g. ‘able pupils who often take longer than most, yet tend to benefit from longer, to finish work’, or ‘exceptionally able pupils, at least two years ahead of their peers in terms of their oracy’, or ‘very thoughtful readers, who find it hard to talk to an audience about their reading’.

Once more, ideally such ‘sub-plans’ should be trialled during a school experience. Whether or not this is done it is essential that, again, they are at least copied, distributed to all and then critiqued, either in open forum or in ‘critical partnerships’.

After evaluation, the critical question should be asked of each lesson plan: ‘Which ability groups/learner groups do you think had [or would have had, if lessons were not trialled] the most stimulating and absorbing learning experience/s?’ (If lessons/activities were undertaken, student teachers should have observed which learner groups seemed most on task, and/or questioned them about their responses to the lessons/activities, to help with such judgements.) It is probable that student teachers will perceive the highest ability groups as having, or likely to have, benefited most. It is vital to highlight this impression: it has significant implications, if accurate, for learning and teaching. Tutors can do so by asking student teachers to reflect on two further questions: ‘If this impression is accurate, should teachers open yet more opportunities for “challenge/breadth” to all, or at least to some purportedly “less able” pupils, in school classrooms/learning contexts, then observe what happens (Freeman, 1998‘s “sports model”, section 2c)? If so, where might this leave the “least able” – as the only ones with ‘safe’, ‘closed’ tasks?’

The diagram below may help inform a new mindset in some schools, so student teachers could find it helpful. As it attempts to show, probably all learners will benefit from some ‘challenge’/breadth; some may at the same time need support – of course in any cohort, to varying degrees.

4d Approaches to challenge – spoilt for choice or spoilt by choice? Scenario discussion exercise

This section allows student teachers to review the wide range of pedagogies of challenge by exploring:

some of the issues surrounding choice between these pedagogies, and whether it is possible, or desirable, to reconcile them.

A school’s choice of one or more particular ‘approaches to challenge’ is of course likely to depend on many factors, from outside influences (‘official’ pressure and initiatives, advisers, trainers, neighbouring and partner schools etc.) to internal expertise and enthusiasms, and school need. Student teachers should be aware of these, perhaps investigating the latter factor in a little detail. This will prepare them to question, understand and evaluate the varying choices that schools may – or may not – have made. Ideally they need also to be able to recognise particular approaches (or hybrids of them); to determine whether they are being used systematically, appropriately and effectively; and – if several approaches are employed – how successfully (yet flexibly) they are integrated, and ideas drawn from them for learning and teaching.

Student teachers will need access to the grid or grids completed in activity 4a), earlier.

First, however, they can be invited to brainstorm the factors that may influence school choices of approach to challenge (some listed above). If available, examples of the many fliers or advertisements for courses (on learning styles, multiple intelligences, right-left brain learning, thinking styles etc.) can be circulated to flesh out the reality of one factor, the proliferation of training in the area of provision for the G & T.

Student teachers can then be invited to brainstorm in greater depth what might prompt the last item, ‘school need’. Hopefully they will suggest such spurs as:

a school’s self-evaluation, a G & T coordinator’s findings or staff self-evaluations that highlight areas of strength, e.g. internal expertise in a relevant field, such as philosophy
similar activities to those above that highlight areas of weakness, e.g. too much closed, not enough open, questioning in classrooms
a partial or total re-examination of the school curriculum during which it is agreed, e.g., that it has been too ‘content-led’
school results, formal or informal pupil assessments that expose common areas of learner weakness, e.g. verbal reasoning, creative thinking
specific complaints/suggestions from pupils (or parents/carers), e.g. that ‘there’s too much writing and not enough talking’
governor feedback, e.g. that ‘there could be less of teachers informing pupils and pupils relying on them, and more of pupils finding out for themselves’
a school’s wish to apply for a particular status or award that demands certain issues of challenge are addressed... etc.

Following this, student teachers can be asked to cite visits to schools where they believe such needs exist, even if unrecognised as yet.

For the next part of this exercise, it is useful to display these quotations:

‘Every child matters’ (HM Government/DfES, 2004)
‘If you are willing to deal effectively with the needs of able pupils you will raise the achievement of all pupils’ (Tomlinson, in OFSTED, 2001)
‘”The G & T” are no more a homogeneous group in terms of their emotional, social and learning needs than any other learner group; they should not be treated as such.’ (the authors, section 1c) of this website)
‘The most effective way to handle [challenging work] is to plan the task or activity first, and then decide who in the class [,cohort or school] could tackle it’ (Eyre, 1997) (website authors’ insertions)

The question should now be raised, ‘Driven by these quotations, and referring to the displayed grid/s from activity 4a), might it be most effective for a school:

to select one “approach to challenge” – i.e. a framework/s or type of approach/es from one of the completed columns of the grid – and to apply these to the learning needs of pupils; or
to select, integrate and apply several; or
to “phase in” more than one over time?’

Of course, in order to achieve the ‘inclusive effect’, student teachers should probably opt for either ii) or iii) – perceiving however that which of these may depend on the stage of G & T development, the confidence and the resources of a school. This question can be left with student teachers for further discussion later while the rest of the exercise is undertaken.
Small groups of student teachers should now each be issued with two of the scenarios below, receiving the total number overall.

i) You are participating in a reading task: the children, in single ability pairs, are discussing a story. The teacher is employing deBono’s thinking hats®: asking pupils needing most support to express how its events make them feel (red hat), more able pupils to summarise what happens (white hat) and the most able to suggest alternative character choices and their consequences at various points in the plot – what if? (green hat) . You notice that several able learners seem rather bored, and are talking together about other aspects of the text.

ii) On your visit to a school, you notice a display about ‘the philosophical classroom’ in one class, a display about de Bono in another and a third celebrating ‘asking challenging questions and taking risks’ in the hall. None of these approaches seems evident from children’s recorded English/literacy work.

iii) Your mentor teacher on school experience tells you that the school has just had a ‘brilliant’ training day about emotional literacy and affective thinking, and is now torn between adopting this approach or a problem-solving framework in order to challenge all, including the most able.

iv) You visit a school in an LA where there is a concerted drive towards ‘creative learning and thinking’. The school has sent representatives to a couple of taster sessions at creativity conferences. The Headteacher confirms that ‘Yes, we want teachers to become more creative, and to take more risks with the curriculum’; the G & T coordinator says that ‘We hope to try to make our pupils creative learners.’ You have seen a wide range of differentiation methods used in classrooms, usually effectively. In addition, staff describe two recent ‘creative projects’, such as an imaginative art week off-timetable for the whole school, and a cross-curricular initiative with the school cluster to research and celebrate the community in which they are all based. Able children were selected, across the age range, to help plan and organise aspects of this by withdrawal from lessons: this school terms this ‘enrichment’. You have not as yet seen what you understand to be explicit ‘creativity’, ‘creative thinking’ or ‘creative learning’ in any English/literacy classroom tasks or lessons.

v) On one of your school experiences, you have been shown Belle Wallace’s problem-solving ‘TASC’ wheel (Wallace, 2001 p.22) displayed as an interactive, revolving teaching aid (in simple four-part form at KS1, slightly more elaborate by Years 3 and 4, and in its full form at upper KS2); the English and G & T coordinators tell you that ‘TASC’ is the favoured approach to ensuring challenge in the school. You are visiting a class where a ‘chapter book’ on a history topic is being researched, drafted, revised and proofread by children working in single ability groups, but there is no sign of the TASC wheel’s use, now or in the lead-up to this activity.

vi) All staff in a school inform you that they apply Bloom’s hierarchy of thinking skills to many tasks/lessons as their method of ensuring sufficient challenge; and that pupils are becoming very familiar with this, many being able to name the skills they are using by KS2. This seems borne out in an English lesson you attend, where all children identified as ‘less able’ speakers are asked to select from a displayed list the ‘speaking frames’ that might help them to structure their own planned talks (lower-order thinking: ‘find/locate’); so-called ‘average ability’ speakers to mentally ‘edit’ a different list so that the speaking frames fit the kind of talks they are to give (middle-order thinking: ‘apply/adapt’); the ‘more able’ to design their own speaking frames while planning their talks, for future use in class (higher-order thinking: ‘synthesise/create’); and one or two to evaluate their success (according to Bloom, ‘highest-order’ thinking). One pupil deviates from the task by planning a talk on how to design speaking frames, accompanied by a poster as teaching aid; the teacher is uncomfortable with this outcome.

vii) You visit a school with a G & T coordinator who is an NQT, appointed nearly a year ago. Your mentor teacher says, ‘We know we should be providing for the more able, but we’re still trying to decide who they are. I know I’ve got an incredibly able reader and writer, though, way ahead of his year group.’

viii) The teacher in the class where you are undertaking your school placement asks you to adopt an approach to challenge and differentiation based on the pupils’ learning styles, as she does. Watching and questioning her, you discover that this means identifying the learners who are primarily visual, auditory or kinaesthetic and using teachers’ resources organised that way to teach them English/literacy in their favoured styles. Her colleagues say they also differentiate by using ‘VAK’, and by other methods too, such as by dialogue/questioning, resources, levels of support, task, etc.

To illuminate the issues, student teacher groups can be asked to debate and note down the following in relation to their allocated scenarios:

What questions might you begin by asking about the reasons for the school’s approach/es before forming hasty judgements (remember the earlier factor-brainstorming activity)?
After asking these, if you are still not satisfied, what reservations might you have about this school’s provision of challenge/breadth, a) for all pupils and b) for the more able in particular?
If you were a newly appointed teacher at such a school, what steps could you take to investigate these reservations further? What questions might you ask, of whom; and what evidence might you seek for a clearer picture?
As a visiting student teacher, what questions could you ask, of whom and how: a) about general ‘challenge for all’ b) about ‘challenge for all’ in English/literacy tasks and lessons and c) about challenge/breadth, and their extent, for the more able in particular, especially in English/literacy (without causing offence)?
Also, how could you hint that there might be ill-considered or unconsidered ideas in school about these issues, and prompt reflection in one or more members of staff (again, without causing offence)?

Student teachers should fully share their scenarios and their ideas about them, so that others can critique their suggestions. It should be evident that all these schools may have some way to go or problems to solve in providing effective challenge and breadth for all, as do all or some staff within at least some of them. By discussion, it should also emerge that ideally, to achieve a truly ‘inclusive effect’, schools should adopt and adapt as wide and flexible a range of approaches to challenge/breadth as they feel able while being systematic about it, supporting and training their staff in this process as necessary. In some cases too, schools may need to be more precise in their definitions and descriptions, e.g. in the case of iv), what is meant by ‘creativity’ and ‘creative thinking/learning’? Is there some confusion in the school with the notion of ‘creative’, in the sense of imaginative, teaching – which may be something quite different?

Finally, student teachers can return to the two options suggested here as preferable for a school, discussed earlier: whether to select, integrate and apply several approaches to address challenge/breadth, or whether to ‘phase in’ more than one over time. The last question in this section might be, ‘Which option might be more appropriate for each scenario, and why?’

References and Further Reading

Bloom, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Dean, G. (1999) The National Literacy Strategy: Supporting and challenging more able pupils in the literacy hour, Cambridge: Cambridgeshire Advisory Service
Dean, G. (2001) Challenging the Able Language User, 2nd edition, London: NACE/David Fulton
deBono, E. (1976) Teaching Thinking, London: Penguin Books
deBono, E. (2000) Six Thinking Hats®, London: Penguin Books
DfEE (1998) Extending Opportunity: A national framework for study support, Sudbury: DfEE
DfEE (November 1998) Homework: Guidelines for primary and secondary schools, Sudbury: DfEE, ref: PP47D2/599/53
Brown, G. and Wragg, E.C. (1993) Questioning, London: Routledge
Dewsbury, A., Education Department of Western Australia (1999) First Steps NLS Edition: A Practical Introduction to First Steps: Assessment, teaching and learning, Oxford: Ginn Heinemann Professional Development
DfEE (1998) The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for teaching, Sudbury: DfEE, ref: NLFT
DfEE (2000) National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies: Guidance on teaching able children, London: National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, ref: LNGT, www.dfes.standards.gov.uk/primary/publications/inclusion/63377_nlns_ableguidancenlgt/pdf
DfES (2003) Excellence and Enjoyment: A strategy for primary schools, Nottingham: DfES, ref: DfES/0377/2003
Dillon, J.T. (1988) Questioning and Teaching: A manual of practice, London: Croom Helm
Dillon, J.T. (1994) Using Discussion in Classrooms, Buckingham: Open University Press
Education Extra (1998) Succeeding at Study Support: An evaluation of 12 model projects in primary and secondary schools, London: Education Extra
Eyre, D. (1997) Able Children in Ordinary Schools, London: David Fulton
Eyre, D. and McClure, L., eds. (2001) Curriculum Provision for the Gifted and Talented in the Primary School: English, maths, science and ICT, London: NACE/David Fulton
Feuerstein, R. (1980) Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability, Baltimore, MD: University Park Press
Fisher, R. (1990) Teaching Children to Think, Oxford: Blackwell
Fisher, R. (2003) Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom, 2nd edition, London: Continuum
Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice, Oxford: Basic Books
Gardner, H. (2000) Intelligence Reframed, Oxford: Basic Books
Garnett, S. (2002) Accelerated Learning in the Literacy Hour (books for Years 3-6), Corsham: Hopscotch Educational Publishing
HM Government/DfES (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children, Nottingham: DfES, ref: DfES/1081, 1088, 1109, 1110/2004; also at www.dfes.gov.uk
Hopkins, D. (Spring 2005) ‘Personalised Learning: Supporting Excellence in Schools: Towards a New Pedagogy’, in NACE (National Association for Able Children in Education) Newsletter Issue no. 65 pp.6-7, Oxford: NACE
House of Commons Education and Employment Committee (1999) Third Report: Highly Able Children vol. 1, London: HMSO
Hughes, M. (1999) Closing the Learning Gap, Stafford: Network Educational Press
Iley, P. (2005) Using Literacy to Develop Thinking Skills with Children Aged 5–7, London: NACE/David Fulton
Iley, P. (2005) Using Literacy to Develop Thinking Skills with Children Aged 7–11, London: NACE/David Fulton
Jeffers, M. and Hancock, T. (2004) Thinking Skills: A teacher’s guide, Corsham: Hopscotch Educational Publishing
Jones, R. and Wyse, D. (2004) Creativity in the Primary Curriculum, London: David Fulton
Krathwohl, D., Masia, B. B. and Bloom, B. S. (1965) Affective Domain: The classification of educational goals (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives), Harlow: Longman Schools Division
Lipman, M. (1987) Philosophy for Children, Philadelphia: Temple University Press
Lipman, M. (1991) Thinking in Education, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
McGuinness, C. (1999) From Thinking Skills to Thinking Classrooms, Research Report no. 115, London: DfEE; also at www.dfes.gov.uk
McNamara, S. and Moreton, G. (1997) Understanding Differentiation: A teacher’s guide, London: David Fulton
Morgan, N. and Saxton, J. (1991) Teaching, Questioning and Learning, London: Routledge
National Curriculum in Action (2004) Creativity, at www.ncaction.org.uk/creativity
OFSTED (December 2001) Providing for Gifted and Talented Pupils: an evaluation of Excellence in Cities and other grant-funded programmes, London: HMI, ref: HMI 334
Pemberton, L. and Davidson, N. with guidance from Dewsbury, A., Education Department of Western Australia (1999) First Steps NLS Edition: How to Assess Children’s Literacy: Literacy developmental continuum, Oxford: Ginn Heinemann Professional Development
Sutherland, M. (2006) Gifted and Talented in the Early Years: Practical activities for children aged 3 to 5, London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Primary National Strategy/DfES (2004a) ‘Enquiry’, ‘Problem solving’, ‘Creative thinking’, ’Information processing’, ‘Reasoning’, ‘Evaluation’, ‘Self-awareness’, ‘Managing feelings’, ‘Empathy’ and ‘Social skills’, in Excellence and Enjoyment: learning and teaching in the primary years: Learning to learn: progression in key aspects of learning, Norwich: HMSO, ref: DfES 0524-2004 G
Primary National Strategy/DfES (2004b) Excellence and Enjoyment: learning and teaching in the primary years: Classroom community, collaborative and personalised learning, Norwich: HMSO, ref: DfES 0522-2004
Primary National Strategy/DfES (2006) Primary Framework for Literacy and Mathematics, Norwich: OPSI, ref: 02011-2206BOK-EN; also downloadable from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primaryframeworks, and www.teachernet.gov.uk/publications
QCA (1998) Maintaining Breadth and Balance at Key Stages 1 and 2, Hayes: QCA, ref: QCA/98/190
QCA (2001) Working with Gifted and Talented Children: Key stages 1 and 2, English and mathematics, Handbook p.6, Sudbury: QCA, ref: QCA/01/801
QCA (2004) Creativity: Find it, promote it – promoting pupils’ creative thinking and behaviour across the curriculum at key stages 1, 2 and 3, Sudbury: QCA, ref: QCA/04/1292
Renzulli, J.S. (1977) The Triad Enrichment Model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented, Mansfield Center, CN: Creative Learning Press
Smith, A. (1998) Accelerated Learning in Practice: Brain-based methods for accelerating motivation and achievement, in Accelerated Learning Series, Stafford: Network Educational Press
Smith, A., Lovatt, M. and Wise, D. (2005) Accelerated Learning: A user’s guide, London: Crown House Publishing
Smith, C. (2006) Teaching Gifted and Talented Pupils in the Primary School: A practical guide, London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Sternberg, R. J. (1985) Beyond IQ. A triarchic theory of human intelligence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sternberg, R. J. (1997) Thinking Styles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Teare, J.B. (1997) Effective Provision for Able and Talented Children, Stafford: Network Educational Press
Wallace, B. (2001) Teaching Thinking Skills Across the Primary Curriculum, London: NACE/David Fulton
Wallace, B., ed. (2002) Teaching Thinking Skills Across the Early Years, London: NACE/David Fulton
Wallace, B. and Bentley, R., eds. (2002) Teaching Thinking Skills Across the Middle Years, London: NACE/David Fulton
Wallace, B., Maker, J., Cave, D. and Chandler, S. (2004) Thinking Skills and Problem-Solving: An inclusive approach, London: NACE/David Fulton
Weston, P., Taylor, M., Lewis, G. and MacDonald, A. (1998) Learning from Differentiation: A review of practice in primary and secondary schools, Slough: NFER
www.teachthinking.com and accompanying magazine, Teaching Thinking & Creativity, Birmingham: Imaginative Minds Ltd

Contents

Introduction

Reading List