The Gifted and Talented in Primary Education

5 What Expertise is Needed About Ability? Generic vs. Subject-specific Progression

This section should:

• Inform student teachers that opinions conflict on whether to be ‘generic’ or subject/domain-specific in describing progress and ability in English/literacy (plus other subjects/domains) in schools.
• Allow them to explore, and understand in more depth, progression in general and in English/literacy in particular.
• Enable them to gauge their expertise in these areas, and suggest some ways of developing it further.

There is an ongoing debate among educationalists: should they focus simply on generic traits, behaviours and understandings that seem indicative of ability and plan with these, no matter what the subject/domain; or should they work with ‘subject/domain-specific’ indicators of ability (in English/literacy, for example, a playfulness and adventurousness with language, and an ability to perceive and generate ‘layers of meaning’ in texts)? Alternatively should teachers – and can they – do both at once? This section aims to ensure that student teachers are aware of this debate. It also explores its implication that ideally, primary school teachers should feel confident in understanding how learners progress generically as learners, and/or specifically in different subjects/domains – an ideal that is hard, if not impossible, to achieve across the whole primary curriculum. It should help student teachers to know that there is also an ongoing debate about the extent to which a non-subject specialist can offer sufficient challenge, when required, to able learners in that subject, and if so, how. Therefore the final aim of this section is to leave student teachers with a clearer impression of their personal strengths and expertise, and how they could enhance them: whether in their appreciation of progression in general, and what ‘ability’, in any field, ‘looks like’; in an understanding of how English/literacy learners develop and show ability in particular; and/or in where to turn for further advice, support and information. 

5a The language-to-describe-ability conflict: document comparison task

This task should show student teachers:

• that opinions conflict on whether to be ‘generic’ or subject/domain-specific in describing progress and ability in English/literacy (plus other subjects/domains) in schools.

Here, any student teachers who are not English/literacy specialists can be invited to contribute ability checklists they may have found related to their own subjects/domains of expertise.
In threes (or pairs if necessary), student teachers can be issued with copies of the following:

• Policy v) from task 1d), above.
• The English level descriptors for one or all of Reading, Writing and Speaking and Listening in the NC English orders (DfEE/QCA, 1999)
• The list of G & T indicators for English and maths on p.3, Working with Gifted and Talented Children – Handbook (QCA, 2001)
• The list of characteristics of language users considered ‘more able’ on entering secondary school, from p.70, Key Stage 3 National Strategy Framework (2001)
• Checklist of able language users’ behaviours on pp.7-8 of either volume of Iley, 2005
• Bloom, 1956’s ‘Taxonomy of Educational Objectives’ (more accessible in diagram form on p.68 of Eyre, 1997 or p.2 of Iley, 2005, either volume).

The source of each must be clearly stated. Groups/pairs can read and compare these documents. While doing so, they should try to agree:

1. Which could be an aid to tracking and understanding progression? (They can code these accordingly, e.g. with a ‘P’). How compatible are they? Do they have any concepts, words or phrases in common?
2. Which describe ability in a way that transcends domains and subjects (i.e. are ‘generic’)? These should be grouped together.
3. Which relate ability to English/literacy only (i.e. are subject/domain-specific)? These too can be grouped.
4. Which, if any, do – or could potentially do – something of both? Any such may form a third ‘group’.

Student teachers should discover that the English level descriptors and Blooms’ taxonomy are both ‘maps’ of progression (1) – the latter in a generic sense, and obviously more skeletal in form. Student teachers should be clear that the level descriptors still stand (some teachers are unaware of this). For student teachers learning about progression these are preferable to QCA (2002 and thereafter)’s mark schemes for reading and writing: first, because the latter do not cover oracy; second, because they are task-specific, and QCA reserves the right to adjust them annually to reach an equation with Levels; and third, because they are extremely detailed and intricate, basing notions of progress on small numbers of marks and requiring in-depth teacher knowledge. (If useful for Writing, refer students to Iley, 2006a, which generalises the QCA mark schemes to allow examination of any writing task, continues progression to the top of Level 6 and subdivides each Level into cs, bs and as. It is also worth drawing their attention to QCA’s optional tasks, of which many teachers are unaware. These are available online to challenge and assess the more able at KS1 and 2 – 2003 onwards, see below.)

When discussing Bloom, it should be pointed out that he considered there was a hierarchy in the higher order thinking skills (evaluation at the top, with ‘metacognition’ at the pinnacle, and analysis the lowest), above middle order and lower order skills. Eyre, 1997 places synthesis at the top, indeed many educationalists now debate their sequence, if indeed there is one (Iley, 2005 places all three at the top as potentially equally challenging).

Perceptive student teachers should notice some points of compatibility between Bloom’s ‘map’ of progression and that outlined in the level descriptors, e.g.:

• In Speaking and Listening and Writing, at Level 3, there is a phrase about adaptation to different needs: arguably this corresponds to Bloom’s middle order thinking skill of ‘application’.
• In Reading, ‘locate’ and ‘find’ appear at Level 3, corresponding to Bloom’s lower order ‘knowledge, comprehension’, while ‘showing understanding’ at Level 4 could be said to correspond to his lower order ‘comprehension’, too.
• In Reading, Level 5 mentions ‘selection’, Speaking and Listening talks of ‘varying’ vocabulary and expression and Writing ‘variety’ and ‘precision’, arguably all questions of discriminating choice (Bloom’s higher order ‘evaluation’). These themes continue, with even further refinement, at higher Levels.
• By Level 4 in Writing, and Level 8 in Speaking and Listening, organisational skills are mentioned – compatible, arguably, with Bloom’s ideas about the higher order skill of ‘synthesis’; while in Reading, collation of information at Level 5 could also be said to be synthesis.
• At Level 6 in Reading, the distinction of ‘layers of meaning’ corresponds to Bloom’s higher order skill of ‘analysis’ (the lower order skill of comprehension is also refined through Levels 5 and 6 and beyond). And so on...

Next in this task, students should have grouped together as ‘generic’ policy v) and Bloom, and as English/literacy-specific any checklist appended to policy v) (see its text), the English level descriptors, the extract from the Key Stage 3 Framework and, probably, Iley’s checklists. The latter, however, plus the list of G & T indicators from the QCA Handbook, should now prompt discussion: arguably many of Iley’s ‘able behaviours’, with wording adapted, can be applied to some, if not most, other subjects/domains too; while the majority of QCA’s ‘indicators’ of ability are already generic, applying not only to English and mathematics, as stated, but equally to many other areas of the curriculum.

At this stage the student teacher group can split into two if possible: those whose specialism is English/literacy, and those who have another primary area of expertise or interest. The first can debate to what extent, and how, each item from Iley and QCA applies to English/literacy, thinking of examples; the second, how appropriate they are to other subjects/domains – music, history, P.E./games, etc. – , again, illustrating their ideas with instances from pupils’ learning, or any subject-specific ability checklists they may have been able to produce.

Their conclusions should then be shared in open forum. After this, all – in pairs – can attempt to eliminate from Iley and QCA any bullet-points that they feel are English-specific, thus rendering both lists ‘generic’. This may provoke debate not easy to resolve, e.g. should they omit some or all of QCA’s list of ‘communication skills’ as specifically English-related? Similarly, Iley’s statement that able language users may ‘Show emotional maturity in relation to...’? etc. (Note that the students’ generic versions of Iley’s lists can be saved and used if desired in activity 5b), below.)

Finally, students can be asked:

• What have they learnt about educationalists’ use of generic vs. subject-specific indicators in their descriptions of learners? Hopefully, they will perceive that the picture is confused and complicated. It would seem that some are bound to remain subject-specific, e.g. facility and adventurousness with language, while others can be applied across many, if not all, subjects or domains.
• Which have they found most illuminating: on the one hand, discussing generic progression (such as that implied by Bloom) vs. subject-specific progression (such as subject-based level descriptors); or on the other, debating generic vs. subject-specific checklists? They should observe that the ‘the best-language-to- describe-progression’ discussion in a sense encompasses the debate over checklists (which after all attempt to describe some potential ‘pinnacle’ of progression). The former is therefore arguably – at least for the classroom teacher – the more useful debate.

This realisation may lead students naturally into the next section.

5b How to understand progression? Mapping exercise

Undertaking this exercise with student teachers should:

• allow them to explore, and understand in more depth, progression in general and in English/literacy in particular.

Note that all student teachers’ notes from the following activities can be clearly labelled with their names and kept for work in section 5c).
To begin, pairs of student teachers can be allocated different aspects of English/literacy learning from the English level descriptors studied above, e.g.:

• From Speaking and Listening: either learning to talk with the listener in mind; or appreciating the level of detail required when talking; or choice and adaptation of vocabulary as speakers; or learning to respond appropriately when listening
• From Reading: either growth in understanding (comprehension); or learning to use approaches to non-fiction; or establishment as independent readers; or building detailed personal responses to, and views of, texts
• From Writing: either development of punctuation skills; or learning to organise and structure texts appropriately/effectively; or handwriting progression; or appreciating the needs of different readers.

Student teachers who are unconfident about progression in English, or any whose specialism is another subject/domain, can be paired with those more confident. They can jot down phrasing from each Level, starting with 1, related to their allocated focus. The result should be a ‘sketch’ of progression for that focus. (Elsewhere in their course, student teachers may have already compared pieces or accounts of pupils’ English work, e.g. writing, showing different levels of skill, and ‘mapped’ progression that way. If so, this activity can now be revisited alongside this exercise. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to distribute pieces of English work for the first time now, sequencing them and relating them to Level statements found.) The resultant ‘maps’ can then be fed back in open forum.

Next, student teachers can be presented with a tentative list of behaviours characteristic of ‘ultimate ability’ in the generic sense. (Of course these are not mutually exclusive but overlap.) They might study the list below or Iley, 2005’s checklist of abilities, rendered generic during task 5a).) In the same pairs, they can be asked to note down (on new paper) possible English/literacy contexts that might illustrate each item. For example, it would demonstrate independence of mind and/or action if a reader persisted with an interesting view of a text aware that it was unique amongst peers’ views; if a child adopted a novel but appropriate approach to a piece of writing; or if a speaker could talk effectively and confidently without notes or support in an unfamiliar and daunting context.

The student teachers’ ideas can then be shared.

After this, the same pairs can return to their ‘maps’ of progression with a particular focus, e.g. tracking punctuation skills in writing. They can first identify any behaviours from the generic list that might apply to that focus; for example, from the list above risk-taking, control and consistency, variety and range, orchestration of skills and application/transfer of knowledge, understanding and skills are all arguably relevant to the development of punctuation skills.

Once student teachers have done this, pairs should discuss how each generic behaviour might develop towards its ‘apogee’ in the context of that English/literacyfocus as they have mapped it – ideally, plotting some three or four ‘stages’ or ‘phases’ preceding that ‘pinnacle’. They should note down their ideas once more (on new paper), using positivephrasing (not negatives such as ‘inappropriate...’, ‘little sense of...’, ‘inability to...’). The following ‘phrase frames’ may help:

• ‘Occasional’
• ‘Some’
• ‘A degree of’
• ‘Early signs of’
• ‘Approximate’/’Approximation to’
• ‘Partial’
• ‘Partly successful/effective/appropriate’
• ‘Substantial’
• ‘General’
• ‘Largely successful/effective/appropriate’.

Thus if tracking punctuation skills in the context of risk-taking, one pair of student teachers might associate ‘occasional risk-taking’ with sentence punctuation at Level 2 (‘ideas... sometimes demarcated by capital letters and full stops’; ‘a degree of risk-taking’ with punctuation within sentences at Level 4 (‘pupils are beginning to use punctuation within the sentence’);’partly successful risk-taking’ with a range of punctuation at Level 5 (‘A range... is usually used accurately); etc. (They might also add ‘partly effective experimentation for effect’ – not just accuracy – as a more advanced form of risk-taking from Level 5 upwards.) Continuing by examining control and consistency, they can plot how these relate to the amount of punctuation, its scope and accuracy, through the Levels. And so on examining the other generic behaviours: variety and range, etc. If some student teachers have another subject/domain specialism, they might benefit from associating the development of skills in that field with the same ‘able behaviours’. Student teachers should then share in open forum at least some of what they have discovered.

To conclude, they can be asked:

• How did focusing on a single aspect of English/literacy help you to track and better understand progression in the subject?
• How did using the ‘phrase frames’ and a generic list of ‘able behaviours’ help you better to understand progression in general? And in English/literacy?
• How might close familiarity with such a generic list help you in everyday English/literacy teaching?

5c Our expertise in progression and challenge —
where to from here? Peer evaluation activity

This final section draws together what student teachers have learnt about progression in general, and in English/literacy in particular. It aims to:

• enable them to gauge their expertise in these areas, and suggest some ways of developing it further.

This session will need all student teachers’ notes generated during the previous section’s study. If student teachers made one set of notes per pair, they should join another pair; if they made notes singly, they should switch partners. These new combinations should now exchange their notes.

One pair (or student teacher ) per group can be denoted A, the other B. First, the As should examine only their partners’ ‘maps of progression with a particular focus’, e.g. punctuation skills. They can be asked to talk these through with the Bs; they should associate them as much as they can with the generic list of ‘able behaviours’ from 5b) without looking at it for guidance. As can use ‘phrase frames’ similar to those above to articulate the various phases of development. Student teachers will benefit from being given one or two examples, e.g.:

For a reading comprehension focus: ‘I see you’ve noted a phrase from Level 2, “understanding simple texts”; that could relate to the generic behaviour “management of complexity”, in that a child at that Level should probably have occasional exposure to understanding texts too “complex” for him/her by being read to, not by reading them; the phrase could also relate to the generic behaviour “orchestration of skills’, in that a Level 2 child can obviously orchestrate decoding skills and some comprehension skills, as long as the texts are “simple”.

Bs can question As, and if necessary remind them of some generic ‘able behaviours’, but should not otherwise assist them. Afterwards, Bs in each group should repeat the exercise by studying As’ focus. The aim is to allow student teachers thus to familiarise themselves even more with generic ‘able behaviours’ and how these can be related to progression in general, and English/literacy in particular.

To enable them to evaluate each other’s development in a supportive way, student teachers can now be asked to reflect on their own progress to their partner peers, and to enumerate those areas in which they feel they need further study, practice or help. They should consider:

• Their familiarity with the list of generic ‘able behaviours’ used, and their understanding that it can also help with providing challenge in classroom situations
• Their confidence in describing, and recognising, progression in general
• Their confidence in describing, and recognising, progression in English/literacy.

Partner peers should comment constructively on their self-evaluations. Personal conclusions should be noted down by the student teachers concerned.

It will be important to stress at this stage that all teachers, however experienced, are on a ‘learning journey’, and that the job of the primary school teacher in particular may seem to demand a vast and varied range of expertise across many subjects and specialisms. Student teachers will need reassurance that they cannot expect to be equally expert and confident in all areas. At this point, they can be asked to imagine themselves in their first teaching post and invited to brainstorm sources of help, information and advice, both within and outside a school, in the fields of English/literacy and/or ability. It may be useful to provide a grid:

	In school	Outside school
English/literacy
G&T/ability, progression, challenge, assessment

As and Bs can be asked to fill in their ideas separately, then to exchange completed grids. Having done so, they can be briefed to comment – constructively –   on each other's degrees of awareness about information and help available. Hopefully, they should include on their grids:

• English/literacy coordinator
• G&T/able children coordinator or responsible teacher (and some schools have ASTs for G & T pupils)
• Assessment coordinator
• Any colleagues with particular expertise or experience in working with the more able (e.g. TAs, SENCO)
• Mentor teacher
• All QCA and DfES publications listed as reading for this module (which should be in school, unless a private school)
• Other publications listed here
• The websites previously given, i.e. Excellence in Cities for schools in Excellence areas at www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/excellence/gift or http://fcis.brookes.ac.uk if students have access to an EiC username and password,  and its nationally accessible website, www.brookes.ac.uk/go/cpdgifted
• LA advisers and advisory teachers (in some areas there will be a G & T strand coordinator for a group of schools – see www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/giftedandtalented/strategyandstrands/regionalstructures/, or a Leading Teacher of the G & T for a local network of schools, or an LA G & T adviser, as well as English/literacy advisory staff and SEN advisory staff)
• Training opportunities, either locally or advertised nationally

If not mentioned, the following should be added to their lists, with explanation:

• Advanced Learning Centres, run by the National Primary Trust at www.npt.org.uk to give very able Year 6 children access to a challenging programme in maths, English, science, ICT, Modern Foreign Languages, drama and art
• The English Association at www.le.ac.uk which publishes English 4-11, English and The Use of English magazines
• G&TWise, at www.teachernet.gov.uk/gtwise, a database of resources for teachers of able children, web-based, with a generic and subject-specific components, plus case studies
• London Challenge, run by the London Gifted and Talented programme at www.londongt.org, providing a range of opportunities for G & T pupils across London (but there is open access to the website beyond London)
• National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE), at www.nace.co.uk, which offers information, advice and conferences; it provides publications for teachers and pupils at discount, plus newsletters, along with membership, and also has a resources centre and nationwide consultancy
• National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY), at www.warwick.ac.uk/gifted, which organises central and regional summer schools and enrichment opportunities, and nationwide consultancy
• National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), at www.nagcbritain.org.uk, which is the main organisation to support parents
• National Association for the Teaching of English at www.nate.org.uk, which runs national conferences and publishes NATE Classroom, the research journal English in Education and, with some discounts to members, publications and resources for teachers and pupils.
• The Primary English Magazine, published by Garth Publishing Services and online at www.garthpublishing.co.uk

Finally, student teachers can be encouraged, on any subsequent visits, to establish the degree of expertise within their schools: who has it? How much training or work has the school undertaken to improve it? What such plans do they have for the future?
They should also hand in their evaluation notes, to enable tutors to support them even more effectively.

References and Further Reading

• Bloom, B. S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
• DfEE (2001) Key Stage 3 National Strategy – Framework for Teaching English: Years 7, 8 and 9, London: DfEE, ref: DfEE 0019/2001
• DfEE/QCA (1999) The National Curriculum for England: English Key Stages 1-4, London: The Stationery Office; also available at www.nc.uk.net
• Eyre, D. (1997) Able Children in Ordinary Schools, London: David Fulton
• 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
• Iley, P. (2006a) Using the QCA Mark Schemes Key Stages 1–3 for any Formal Assessment of Long or Short Writing Tasks, Stroud: beyond the lines (tel: 01453 756311; blines@fish.co.uk)
• Iley, P. (2006b) How to Mark and Support Children’s Writing KS1→KS2→KS3, Stroud: beyond the lines (tel: 01453 756311; blines@fish.co.uk)
• NAA (2004) Building a Picture of What Children Can Do, London: NAA
• QCA (1998) Building Bridges: Guidance and training materials for teachers of Year 6 and Year 7 pupils, QCA: London, ref: QCA/98/144
• QCA (2001) Working with Gifted and Talented Children – Handbook: Key stages 1 and 2 English and mathematics, Sudbury: QCA, ref: QCA/01/801
• QCA (2002) Changes to Assessment 2003, Sudbury: QCA, ref: QCA/02/937
• QCA (2003) English Tasks: Teacher’s Handbook, KS1 Levels 1-3, 2004, Sudbury: QCA, ref: QCA/03/1215
• QCA (2003) KS2 English Tests Mark Schemes 2003: Reading test, writing test and spelling test, Sudbury: QCA, ref: QCA/03/1008
• QCA (2003) English Tasks: Teacher’s Handbook Key Stage 3, 2004, Sudbury: QCA, ref: QCA/03/988
• QCA (2003) Key Stage 1 English Tasks for the More Able: English 2003 task, downloadable from Ages 3–14→Tests and tasks→Key stage 1, at www.qca.org.uk
• QCA (2003) KS2: Optional Tasks for More Able Pupils: English 2003, downloadable from Ages 3–14→Tests and tasks→Key stage 2, at www.qca.org.uk
• QCA (2004) English Tasks: Teacher’s Handbook, KS1 Levels 1-3, 2005, Norwich: QCA, ref: QCA/04/1387
• QCA (2004) KS2 English Tests Mark Schemes 2004: Reading test, writing test and spelling test, Sudbury: ref: QCA/04/1252
• QCA (2004) English Tasks: Teacher’s Handbook Key Stage 3, 2004, Norwich: QCA, ref: QCA/04/1236
• QCA (2004) KS1: Optional Tasks for More Able Pupils: English 2004 task, downloadable from Ages 3–14→Tests and tasks→Key stage 1, at www.qca.org.uk
• QCA (2004) KS2: Optional Tasks for More Able Pupils: English 2004, downloadable from Ages 3–14→Tests and tasks→Key stage 2, at www.qca.org.uk
• QCA (2005) KS2 English Tests Mark Schemes 2005: Reading test, writing test and spelling test, Norwich: QCA, ref: QCA/05/1360
• QCA (2005) English Tasks: Teacher’s Handbook Key Stage 3, 2005, Norwich: QCA, ref: QCA/05/1394
• QCA (2005) KS1: Optional Tasks for More Able Pupils: English 2005 task, downloadable from Ages 3–14→Tests and tasks→Key stage 1, at www.qca.org.uk
• QCA (2005) KS2: Optional Tasks for More Able Pupils: English 2005, downloadable from Ages 3–14→Tests and tasks→Key stage 2, at www.qca.org.uk
• QCA (2006) KS2 English Tests Mark Schemes 2006: Reading test, writing test and spelling test, Norwich: QCA, ref: QCA/06/1900
• QCA (2006) English Tasks: Teacher’s Handbook Key Stage 3, 2006, Norwich: QCA, ref: QCA/06/1917
• QCA (2006) KS1: Optional Tasks for More Able Pupils: English 2006 task, downloadable from Ages 3–14→Tests and tasks→Key stage 1, at www.qca.org.uk
• QCA (2006) KS2: Optional Tasks for More Able Pupils: English 2006, downloadable from Ages 3–14→Tests and tasks→Key stage 2, at www.qca.org.uk