Going SOLO - An English teacher's experience of using SOLO.

Going Solo…

Having been persuaded of the limitations of Bloom’s Taxonomy and introduced to the benefits of SOLO through an OTP course, I decided the only way to really find out was to experiment with it myself.  

My school is currently involved in a series of PLCs where, as teachers, we work in groups of three to focus on a particular area of improvement in our classrooms.  My group chose Progress and so this seemed like to perfect opportunity to bite the bullet and try out SOLO.

After a little research, I was particularly attracted to the SOLO hexagons and so I decided to base my lesson around these.  

I chose my top set Year 10s to `experiment on’ as they are always open to ideas and I knew I could be honest with them – I told them I was unsure if this lesson would work but I had decided to give it a go anyway!

Lesson one involved introducing the class to SOLO.  I relied upon YouTube and its explanation of SOLO through Lego as that is how I was first introduced to it.  It seemed to simplify, what appeared to me to be, a very complicated system.  They picked it up very quickly and remembered all the symbols and what they represented.  My first dip in the ocean of SOLO appeared to have gone well.

However, lesson two had the added pressure of two colleagues observing me.  I find this very unnerving at the best of times so with the added pressure of teaching the unfamiliar territory of SOLO I started to regret my decision to ‘Go SOLO’.  I needn’t have worried.   My pupils didn’t let me down and, even after several sleeps between lessons, they were STILL able to explain the SOLO symbols and their meanings as a starter.  

The next step involved pupils rating their knowledge of Curley’s Wife from Steinbeck’s `Of Mice and Men’, placing themselves in the corresponding SOLO stage: Prestructural, Unistructural, Multistuctural, Relational or Extended Abstract.  On the whole, most pupils placed themselves in Multistructural.  This was as I expected as we had already spent some time looking at the character of Curley’s Wife.  A particularly confident group, already thought they were Extended Abstract.  I made all this very visible for the pupils, me and my colleagues by having the pupils place their names on a post it sheet next to their chosen SOLO stage on the whiteboard at the front of the class.   

Pupils were then asked to work in groups to annotate the passages in which Curley’s Wife appeared - something they were already used to doing. They then had generate points about her character from the text and place them on the pre-prepared hexagons.  Was she a tart? Was she just an innocent girl? Was she misunderstood? These are all points which appeared on the cards.  Having spent a fair amount of time discussing her with the class I had never witnessed the quality of the level of thinking in which the pupils were now involved.  Even the quieter ones, who barely spoke let alone defended an idea, were arguing and debating points.  The hexagons really seemed to have given them a focus as they were discussing: which one was the best; were there better ones; did they need all of them?

Once this task was completed, they then had to construct an essay plan.  This involved linking and tessellating the hexagons in order to link their ideas about Curley’s Wife throughout the novel.  Having taught this essay several times previously, this concept was new to me as well.  I had always tackled her character chronologically rather than trying to focus on linking the presentation of the character.

At the end of the lesson, pupils then had to return to the post it sheets on the board and adjust their level of thinking.  All but one pupil moved up a level.  This was a particularly quiet boy, somewhat lacking in self-confidence.  The group who put themselves in the Extended Abstract also admitted they probably weren’t in that bracket initially but now felt they actually were.  On the surface, my first attempt at SOLO appeared to have been a success in both the pupils’ eyes and my colleagues’.  However, I had to reserve judgment until I actually read the final essays.  Having marked them, they were definitely different from any other essays I had read about Curley’s wife and perceptive and insightful links were evident throughout all the essays. Would they have produced the same level of work without the SOLO lesson?  I didn’t know and that was the flaw within my lesson.  I didn’t ACTUALLY know their level of knowledge - only what they thought they knew.  I had no real evidence to support this.

Undeterred, I decided to give SOLO another chance.  This time I used my Year 9 top set and I must be a glutton for punishment because I had my Head of Department and my Deputy Head observing me for my Performance Management.  Keeping to the basic structure from last lesson I knew I had to add another layer to the lesson.  I had to make sure that as well as the pupils’ own opinion I had to have evidence in the form of what we call a `Burger Paragraph’ which consisted of a Point, a Quote and an Explanation.  So, after the post it starter, I asked pupils to write their own paragraph about Curley this time.  They then levelled this using the NC ladders.  A controversial task I know but I wanted to really demonstrate progress.  Once they had done this they carried out all the same tasks as the previous class.  At the end of the lesson they then wrote another, paragraph which, once again, they levelled.  About 95% of the class received higher levels for their work.  

Finally, they were then asked to return to their post it sheets.  Once again all but one pupil felt they had increased at least one level of understanding.  Having read as many of the paragraphs as I could during the lesson, I felt I could legitimately judge that the SOLO aspect of the lesson had indeed been a success.  This was reinforced further when I marked their work after the lesson.  As an added bonus my Head of Department and Deputy Head also agreed.

So, although I still need to do some tweaking, I definitely see the value of SOLO and will be Going SOLO much more often in future.

An additional level in SOLO taxonomy

Solo has, via a great deal of research into students' thinking identified itself as having the following level.

Prestructural

Unistructural

Multistructural

Relational

Extended Abstract

I like solo for a number of reasons including its versatility in helping thinking for learning as well as a planning aid. But, always a but, I find the jump between relational to EA rather large and not as intuitive as the steps between the other stages. I have been thinking about what might be needed between those two stages. What does one do to move from relational, connecting knowledge items in a useful way, to then move to EA, applying that knew understanding to another context?

It seems to me that to do that one has to have some deep understanding of the underlying structure of the now related knowledge. What are the features that the related knowledge is connected by?

The common example of deep knowledge is given by the two sentences:

The cat sat on the mat

and

The dog sat in the box.

These two sentences are identifying different situations. Not least one is about a cat and one is about a dog.

But the underlying feature is of an item above another. The cat above the mat and the dog above the base of the box. When we recognise this underlying structure it is then possible to create 'new' scenarios. One could have:

The surfboard was on the water. This has the same deep structure, even though it is a very simple idea.

So I am proposing having an additional stage in solo so the model looks like:

Prestructural

Unistructural

Multistructural

Relational

Deep - meaning the identification of the underlying structure(s) of the knowledge being explored
(I think I have a symbol for this level. It will be a D with dots on the line that makes the D shape.)

Extended Abstract

I would welcome any views on this and especially anyone who tries this out in the classroom. Does it support children moving to EA. (I don't want to advocate a rush to EA. The earlier stages must be completed securely and thoughtfully. They have their own intrinsic value.)

Thanks

Observing the possibility of learning

I am somewhat troubled, by many things, but this particular trouble is to do with learning.

Can we see learning? Can we detect learning has happened? Can we identify any link with the teaching activities that happen in classrooms that lead to learning?

It is so obvious that, over time, say a term of school, learning must have happened. Children who attended my physics lessons did have more physics knowledge than they had at the start of the term. They could answer questions on test papers that they previously had no knowledge of. By any definition, learning had happened.


What has caused this learning to happen?

It must be due to something that the learner has done. They must have interacted with the physics I was trying to teach them in some way. It is an active process on their behalf. By active I mean they must have been thinking about the physics, I do not mean they will have been physically active. Only thinking type activity will cause learning. It is the thinking part that has allowed them to connect the physics to stuff already in their brain. That connecting is one part of the process called learning but only when that stuff is retrievable. It will be retrievable during the lesson but learning that is useful for school stuff becomes so when it is retrievable some time after the time when it was first encountered. When it is used to support further learning next term, or in the exam etc.

The next part is for those connections to be made more secure. That is done by practice, lots of questions and problems to be solved. Put the numbers in the equations. That could have been a mechanical task with minimal thinking but for true learning which would lead to understanding the 'just stuffing numbers into the equation' type practice would not lead to any significant depth in understanding. Can-do learning rather than the more valuable does-understand learning.

So, because learning which is evidenced by the degree of understanding the child shows takes time some folk say we cannot evidence learning in a short time period such as a typical lesson. I think I must agree with that. But that does not mean we cannot identify that the early parts of the processes have happened. That the teacher has done his/her job in providing the appropriate conditions for the learning process over time to then have a good chance of happening.

What system would we need to be able to observe that? Seems possible to me. We would be saying something like, 'On what I have observed secured learning is likely to be able to happen in the future.'

Diagrams are good, pictures work. So here is one to try to describe the learning process I have identified above:

Initial event (teacher explains some physics) --- Child can repeat or use in some simple way this physics content --- child practices and thinks more about the physics --- future lessons same material gets used to support additional learning --- child continues thinking and gains deeper understanding --- more secure knowledge results

Well, it is a sort of a diagram!

In the course of a lesson we can only hope to observe the first three parts of this process and then only of the teacher chooses to do any practising of the newly presented material.

A bit like trying to observe my journey from North Wales to watch Saracens play in the Heineken Cup Final in Cardiff but only watching me prepare and then leave. Not certain that I will get there in time but some factors would show I was possibly going to succeed.

Is that good enough?

Correcting Errors in Learning

But why would errors in learning matter *so* much? Surely we just tell them the correct answer and they learn that?

We all know it is important that children do not learn incorrect information. I think is is axiomatic that no teacher intends for this to happen but I would ask some teachers, perhaps you, to think about how we 'protect' children from learning the wrong thing.

Some teaching approaches seem to leave the possibility of inaccurate learning to be more rather than less likely. Graham Nuttall tells us that teachers do not know about 70% of what happens in their classroom. Does not make sense but it becomes very obviously true if you are an observer, quietly sitting, almost invisibly in a corner of the room you see children doing all sorts of things that the teach may well not approve of.

Also children learn a lot of stuff from their peers, but much of this, according to Nuttall, is simply wrong.

I wonder if it is really possible for a teacher to spot these errors? I know you do some assessment, some questioning, some checking but it might be better to adopt teaching techniques that are more likely to minimise the unwanted, incorrect learning.


What prompted me to write this was the Robert Bjork blog stuff from the learning lab.

This piece in particular:

Retrieval-induced forgetting
Memory cues, whether categories, positions in space, scents, or the name of a place, are often linked to many items in memory. For example, the category FRUIT is linked to dozens of exemplars, such as ORANGE, BANANA, MANGO, KIWI, and so on. 

When forced to select from memory a single item associated to a cue (e.g., FRUIT: OR____), what happens to other items associated to that general, organizing cue? 

Using the retrieval-practice paradigm, we and other researchers have demonstrated that access to those associates is reduced. Retrieval-induced forgetting, or the impaired access to non-retrieved items that share a cue with retrieved items, occurs only when those associates compete during the retrieval attempt (e.g., access to BANANA is reduced because it interferes with retrieval of ORANGE, but MANGO is unaffected because it is too weak of an exemplar to interfere; Anderson, R.A. Bjork, & E. L. Bjork, 1994, Experiment 3). 

We argue for retrieval-induced forgetting as an example of goal-directed forgetting because it is thought to be the result of inhibitory processes that help facilitate the retrieval of the target by reducing access to competitors. In this way, retrieval induced forgetting is an adaptive aspect of a functional memory system.


Now, it seems to me that this retrieval induced forgetting might be a rather lengthy process which we would rather avoid. But if you insist on allowing children to explore too much and learn wrong stuff you might need to think about adding lots of time in your future planning to try to encourage retrieval induced forgetting. That is plan how to tell them the right stuff enough times so that they get what they could have got in the first place!

Modelling learning

Left is the slightly more complex model of working memory I now want to consider. It does not include one important element of the process. That is the sensory data ALL goes into the brain and causes neuron changes. But it is good enough, I think.




Below, a simpler version of working memory, (although it has lots of arrows!)



Any model has limitation and will eventually fall down if pushed to explain some part of the system it is modelling. All models are attempts at simplifying reality. Think of a model train set that runs in my large loft. It models the timetable from Kings Cross to Hatfield almost perfectly. Great model for the timetable function of the real thing. But when a train, on my model, falls off the track I just lift it up and put it back. NO massive response from the emergency services as there would be for a derailed train in the real world. My model train layout does not even try to model this aspect of the railway.

The clever thing is to use the model with just the right amount of complexity/simplicity to be able to model the features then one needs to have to explore the system.

There are several models of working memory and the constraints and opportunities offered by these models critically affects the way we can think about learning. Cognitive load is a critical feature and one which some teachers who have certain beliefs about learning, I will not label them but if you are not using the ideas of working memory explicitly or implicitly to help you decide on how learning can happen efficiently and effectively then you are, I think, ignoring a critical feature of how we learn. I think you will get your own model of learning wrong.

I am indebted to Sue Gerrard for firstly putting up with me on twitter and then spending a little time with me, live, at ResearchEd in Birmingham to explain why the model that Willingham, and I, had been using was more limited and might then have some distortion in our understanding of learning. I now think I understand the model she prefers. A version of the more sophisticated appears above.

You might like to compare this with the simpler model that Willingham and other use. It is the role of attention, for me in my present very novice state of thinking, that is making me rethink working memory and it's role in learning.

The features that are different from the possibly too simplistic Willingham and others model are:

• Information from the environment into the brain is NOT limited by working memory. All the information that we collect, sense, through our senses enters our brain and changes the brain neuron structure. In one sense our brain 'learns' continuously.
  
• We also sense internal changes in our body continuously and these changes, feelings, reactions also change the brain structure. This all goes on the background.
  
• Although all our sensory inputs enters our brain is is not, by any means, accessible or retrievable. As teachers we are critically interested in learning that is retrievable.
  
• Attention is the device that can select particular items from the massive stream of input from our senses.
  
• It is NOT true that all the sensory input goes through working memory. This is, I think, a critical issue which is not shown by the Willingham model.
  
• There are different types of memory. I have not got to grips well enough to write about this, yet. But I will.
  
  It is the function of this attention that is making me rethink whether the Willingham model is complex enough to allow us to think about learning (tests type) as teachers. And the different types of memory will also have an impact, though that is just a gut feeling at the moment.

Willingham has a lovely phrase, 'Memory is the residue of thought' which is a great phrase and evidently obvious. But it might be that the phrase needs to have some reference to attention being the trigger that then allows us to think about the sensory input. The things that can trigger that attention can be emotional, other knowledge from long term memory, novelty, threat and probably many more. Willingham's statement is true but is, possibly, a little too reduced. We also need to be clear about how to get a learner's attention to attend to that which we need them to learn. 

• How to ensure we do not distract them? 

• How do we ensure that their attention does not focus on something which is not important for the learning we want to happen?

I get slightly uneasy at this as I don't want folk to think I am saying that we should design novel, attention grabbing activities for children as these will support their learning. My worry is that some might think I am asking for what Katie Ashford calls 'fireworks' lessons. Where the novelty and excitement is evident but the effect is to distract the learner.

My thoughts are that we need to think a little more about the role of attention in learning, my version of learning, than we have done. I think it has some differences to the thrust of the Willingham quote about thinking causing memories. I don't know what they are but I am minded to be more cautious about using a simpler model as it might hide some needed complexity. Might not, though!

As a note: The word 'learning' seems to be used differently from the way I and some teachers would use it. For me learning is the thing that gets tested when children do an exam, or use to solve problems etc. In the brain world learning seems to be any change to the brain that is as a result of sensory input. I'll try and be clear which version of the word I am using.

There is a choice. My attention is being pulled in two directions. Rugby or more blogging.

Rugby won! More later.

In terms of learning how different are children?

I read a blog on differentiation that listed, some, differences between children to justify the need for differentiation. I know we are all unique. After all, I would not want to be like you and I quite like being me.

But how different are children? I think the answer you give to this will probably strongly influence the style of teacher you are.

There are some clear differences. Big ones, small ones etc - That is the beginning to a rude song I partly know. But are these differences significant in terms of learning and hence do they dictate the learning environment(s) we should provide? How individualised, or not, should we try to be.

Are children as different as:

Or are they as different as:

These two?                               

Or are they different like these:

  

Are different children as different as a bicycle and a car?  

Obey - A Dalek Instruction?

While I agree with lots of what the folk who would identify themselves, on Twitter, as traditionalists I am less comfortable with the term obedience as applied to children in school. As always it will depend on what we mean by obedience. Do you, for example, see obedience as blind obedience? Do you react with some concern about the thought of a child obeying unquestioningly?

I wonder of there is a single word that could be used to express the idea that, I hope, the traditionalists mean by the idea expressed as obedience?

Are there two states? Obedience or disobedience? Is it a choice between one or the other? I can't imagine any other than some de-schoolers, perhaps, who want children to be in an education system that values disobedience.

Disobedience is not the same as questioning, thoughtful reactions to an authority. Some in authority would see any questioning as a challenge to their authority.

Perhaps it is the time of the questioning that might matter. I would support obedience in the classroom. I do not want to have a discussion, child initiated, about why we should be learning this, or whether the teacher should be able to instruct a child. I take this view as I believe the teacher does know best. It is not a power thing but is a professional view. I have an expertise in how children learn and I do want them to work in the way I have planned. This is not a stubborn, unbending process but it says that there is a time and a place for such discussions. The time is not while we are learning in my lesson. I am totally happy to discuss with children why I believe learning should happen in a particular way. I am not unbending and I would try a different way on supporting children's learning as a result of such discussions.

I wonder how those teachers who do not agree with obedience in the way I have tried to explain it would react if a child in their lesson asked to be taught in a traditional fashion rather than in a more progressive way.

'Sir, I learn best when you tell me the answer rather than allowing me to discover it!' Would you change the way you taught that child or would you spend the lesson time discussing the merits of your preferred method? Would you do that 30 times each hour and repeat the process 5 times per day? Would you, perhaps, fall back on the need for children to obey you and work as you had decided? I wonder.