Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper

An investigation into how to structure learning strategies so that pupils in an average attaining year 7

group make maximum academic progress in inference and deduction of reading texts

Conducting the Enquiry

The enquiry investigates how learning strategies might be structured to improve academic progress for year seven pupils in the reading discipline of inference. Inference is where the reader activates their own world-knowledge when analysing the implications of language, as well as evaluating the emotional outcomes, or consequences of a text (Bowyer-Crane and Snowling 2005). A reader’s capacity to make inferences relies on general literacy (Gathercole 2004), prior-knowledge (Cain et al 2001), vocabulary (Cromely and Azavado 2007), and the capacity of their working memory (Calvo 2004).

To create a control group for the enquiry, I selected pupils to reflect an average range for the year 7 cohort, and co-ordinated learning strategies with other subject teachers that would contribute to the control group’s understanding of a text (Frankenstein – Shelly 1990 appendix 1). The control group’s responses were assessed by other members of the English department to avoid any bias in my marking. I then took the assessment data along with qualitative interview and questionnaire data and used it to analyse the outcomes of the enquiry.

I selected the pupils for the control group to reflect the range of learning needs in the year 7 cohort. The range of the academic ability and educational needs in the control group reflects the ability and needs of any mixed ability class in year 7 at my school (Figure 1, column 2). I did this as so that the results and implications of the enquiry would be reflective of whole school issues; consequently, conclusions about learning strategies drawn from the enquiry would be as accurate and relevant to pupil and schools needs as possible.

After this, I identified the class teachers for relevant subject areas (art, science, religious education and drama) for each pupil within the control group. I explained the process of the enquiry, and together we read through the Frankenstein text and discussed how it could be interpreted from the perspective of their subject. During these discussions, teachers offered a range of different subject specific ideas highlighted within the Frankenstein text. Teachers then amended their planning for their Year 7 lessons; their lesson strategies would target issues relevant to the themes found in the Frankenstein text: science covered the topic of adaption and evolution, religious education (RE) covered the topic of creation, art covered the topic of facial expression and connotation of colour, and drama re-enacted the scene in the text with alternative interpretations of it. This part of the enquiry brought up several logistical issues: groups are set by each subject in year 7, so I had to brief more than one teacher for each subject specialism. The actual outcomes of the assessment will be discussed in the following chapter, but what is clear is that given the opportunity to conduct the enquiry again, more time could be spent on the cross-curricular planning process; perhaps taking teachers off time-table so that they could plan in more depth and actively participate in the process of helping pupil attainment in another subject area.

Subject teachers were supportive of the enquiry’s aims and methodology. As a consequence of time demands on their classes approaching the end of the academic year, each subject teacher contributed differing amounts of time and resources for the topic of the enquiry within their lesson time. For example science and RE dedicated ten to fifteen minutes of the lesson revisiting adaption and creation respectively, whereas drama and art teachers taught an entire lesson out of their own time. Consequently, this provided an imbalance of input from other subjects for the pupils in the control group. In order to redress this imbalance, at the start of the assessment lesson I made sure I spent more time revisiting the contributions of the RE and science teachers.

I allocated a lesson after each subject had contributed their input to the enquiry to carry about the assessment for the enquiry. The class read the Frankenstein extract. Following this, I reminded the class of learning done in other subject areas which might contribute to their understanding of some of the themes within the extract by giving them appropriate terminology and keywords on the board. I did this to enable pupils to make the link

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooperbetween concepts learnt in other lessons and the language of the Frankenstein text - these links are what would allow pupils to make more accurate inferences in their responses. Initially, it became clear that pupils could apply the ideas and terminology from art and drama to the Frankenstein text, and less so the concepts and terminology from science and RE. It was important to not lead the pupils too much in their thinking here – too much teaching of cross-curricular themes in the text would have led to inflated attainment on the part of the pupils and given attainment data which would not be accurate. During this time, while helping pupils make the links between the text and cross-curricular material, I avoided leading them into answering the question set for assessment (How is the language of the text scary?), by not mentioning the keyword from the question (‘scary’). This would have led to a completed syllogism, or inference; by not completing the response to the question in my model, I could not have helped them answer the question. After I employed teaching techniques to help them understand the language of the Frankenstein text with regards to concepts learnt in RE and Science (group discussion, targeted and differentiated questioning), pupils were able to discover new layers of meaning to the Frankenstein text relevant to science and RE.

After re-activating prior knowledge, the next phase of the enquiry was to complete the assessment of the pupils’ inference skills. The task was to annotate the Frankenstein text with the question ‘How is the language of the text scary?’. The group had some previous experience of annotating text, however it became clear that I had to show the pupils how to present their responses. ‘Modelling’ in this way, is generally considered to be good practice in teaching(OFSTED 2012), and helping pupils articulate their link between language and religious ideas (for example) in writing is a fundamental process in successful inferential completions. Pupils understood how to demonstrate their understanding in this way after I completed the modelling. Pupils were focussed on the task, asking questions to clarify if their inferences made sense and if their use of the new terminology was being applied correctly in their responses.

After collecting the completed assessments, I needed to conduct pupil interviews and questionnaires. I drafted the questions for the interviews as the enquiry progressed – the content of the questions was shaped by how I saw the enquiry developing, and which areas of it would need to be investigated further. I worded these prompts and questions in accordance with the best practices suggested by Bell (2010), trialing pupil questions with a low ability Year 9 group before settling on the final wording which simplified some terminology (changing ‘inference’ to ‘links’, for example), and giving examples of topics to answer the question with. The interview was semi-structured - I wrote the questions on cards and asked each member of the control group to read out the questions before they would then discuss them. Recommendations for interviews - particularly those with young people – were used from Blaxter, Hughes and Tight (2010) meant I would be absent to avoid my influence on responses, and the interviews were recorded digitally on a school-owned device. Pupils responded to this task in a mature fashion, using the question prompts appropriately and taking it in turns to give responses which gave good insights into the enquiry from their perspective. I believe my absence was felt in some situations where pupil responses were generalized, and perhaps skimmed important words within the prompts. However, I feel that if I had had been present during the interview, pupil responses would have been more restricted by the teacher-pupil relationship and this would have compromised my role as researcher too much.

Finally, I provided each member of staff in the department with a copy of the mark scheme for inference (Reading Assessment Focus 3 on the Key Stage 3 Assessment of Pupil Progress grid – National Strategies 2010). I then asked each member of staff to analyse two responses each from the control group, and provide summative justification for a mark from the mark scheme. I got other staff to assess the work of the control group to avoid any bias on my part. Staff marked diligently, understanding they were marking the quality of inferences from criteria I gave them in order to ensure I could gauge the effectiveness of the enquiry on the pupil’s ability to make accurate inferences (Reading Assessment Focus 3 on the Key Stage 3 Assessment of Pupil Progress grid – National Strategies 2010). I did not moderate the marks as I felt this could introduce bias in my research due to my role as teacher – staff justified their marking with summative comments as I requested, and gave a final assessment grade which is listed in the next chapter.

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-CooperMy practices during the enquiry were ethical, consistent with the guidance of the British Educational Research Association’s Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (BERA 2011) and the university’s ethical guidelines (MMU 2011). My head teacher signed the ethical approval form (MMU 2007). Participants in the control group understood where and why their data was being stored and to whom it was available. The methodology did not put any pupils at any detriment – the enquiry lesson was delivered to the whole class as part of a scheme of lessons designed by me for that half term - only the attainment data and qualitative responses to the pupil questionnaires and interviews from the control group were analysed as part of the enquiry. To avoid influencing the attainment outcomes of the control group I had work assessed by other members of the English department so my dual roles as teacher and researcher would not compromise the integrity of the enquiry’s results. Data and findings were anonymatised. Further to this end, quantitative data from the assessment was compared and contrasted with qualitative data from questionnaires and interviews, allowing me to triangulate my response to the data and find ‘the exact location of a point’ (Denscombe 2007), freeing my analysis and further research from loaded interpretations on my part.

If I were to improve or enhance research practice in a repeat of the enquiry, a greater time span between beginning the enquiry and finishing it would have been beneficial. I would have liked more time for teachers of other class subject to integrate preparation for the English assessment within their lessons. Within this time, there would have been more opportunity for dialogue between teachers of different subject areas, better subject knowledge and perhaps better, more informed cross-curricular teaching. This might have had a more profound impact on the pupils’ ability to make cross-curricular inferences; learning relevant to the Frankenstien text from areas in other subjects may become more embedded over time, and consequently more easily accessed –making the inferences from the Frankenstein text using more easily accessed prior knowledge from other subject areas may have made the enquiry less taxing for the control group.

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-CooperSection 7

In order to present the findings from the enquiry, I will be breaking this section down into three parts – attainment data, pupil interviews and pupil questionnaires.

I will first present the attainment data of the control group following the assessment:

I will give a brief explanation of the component data in Figure 1. The second column (PP stands for pupil premium – these are pupils who qualify for extra funding from the government due to factors effecting their family’s financial status. The ‘SEN’ (Special Educational Needs) column clarifies the level of need for a child and if they are on the SEN register. The ‘reading age’ is taken from a test done at the beginning of year 7 to ascertain a baseline level of comprehension skills. The ‘KS2 level’ column is the level the pupil achieved at the end of KS2 in their Year 6 SAT exams, which is an average of their reading and writing scores - this figure is then used by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) for end of KS4 target setting. The ‘end of term reading test’ is a KS3 SAT style exam which records a pupil’s reading level across a range of disciplines within reading (for example commenting on a writers use of language, commenting on the structure of texts as well as inference and others) – this score is used to measure pupil progress against their targets. The ‘year 7 target grade’ is generated based on the pupil’s KS2 score – national expectations are that pupils are expected to make at least two sub-levels of progress per year, for example if a pupil finishes KS2 with a level 4b, they should be at level 5c by the end of year 7. The end of year total is my teacher’s judgement of the academic level of that particular pupil based on a range of assessment data from across the year; this data predicts whether or not a pupil has met or exceeded their target for the year (this is coded on the chart; red means target not met, green means target met or exceeded). The final column is the level the pupil achieved for their response to the enquiry assessment.

What is clear from this set of attainment data is that all pupils in the control group had made improvements between their end of year assessment and their post-enquiry score. One pupil (3) made one unit of progress, two pupils (7 and 8) made two sublevels of progress and two(4 and 2) made three units of progress while pupil 6 made 4 units of progress and pupil 5 made 9 levels of progress. While this is a promising indicator of the influences of the enquiry, to compare these two attainment levels does not give an entirely accurate barometer of success. Comparisons with the end of year reading score indicate that within the reading discipline pupils were making either making expected progress or better at the time of their final assessment point - approximately two months before the beginning of this enquiry. This gives the enquiry data the context of a control group that were already on a trend of improvement, but still had made further improvements during the enquiry. The next thing to identify is which pupils benefited most from the enquiry:

Figure 1 - Assessment records of enquiry control group

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper

0123456789

10Pupil Progress - Inference Enquiry

School ActionSchool Action PlusEnglish as Another LanguageStatementUnderachieving PupilOverachieveing PupilWhite British BoyU

nit

s of

Pro

gres

s

Figure 2 - Pupil progress results from enquiry

Here, the units on the ‘Y’ axis represent the number of sublevels each pupil improved since their last formal reading assessment, and the result of the enquiry’s inference assessment. For example, the school action plus pupil achieved a level 4c in the final reading assessment of the year, and a 4b in this assessment, meaning they have achieved one unit of progress as a result of the enquiry. Conversely, there is one pupil who appears to have made unprecedented amounts of progress between the two assessment points. As noted on Figure 1, this pupil’s work was scribed by a Teaching Assistant who was briefed about the enquiry. I asked her to be wary of her own responses to the text and not to infer on behalf of the pupil when guiding them to their own syllogistic completions. The work itself (Appendix 2.1) shows one annotation – noted by the assessor – as being significantly more sophisticated than the others. It is difficult to decode this as either the pupil or the Teaching Assistant’s inference; therefore I think it is best to treat this particular piece of data with caution when considering its implications to the enquiry. With this in mind, we can still see a picture of consistent improvement across the control group – the mean average of improvement being 2.5 sublevels of improvement, not including the pupil whose work was scribed (3.4 sublevels of improvement with it). In the context of an ‘already improving’ control group noted in the previous paragraph, these levels of improvement appear to be show exceptional success; the national expectations are that pupils should make two sublevels of progress over the course of one academic year, to factor in the progress made as part of the enquiry would significantly improve my teacher’s assessment for the end of year 7 total (column 9, fig 1). This could have significant implications for a pupil within school – rapid progress, if sustained, could mean pupils moving up in sets, sitting more exams (gaining more qualifications) and having their end of KS4 targets raised significantly. The next step is to see if the cross-curricular planning of the enquiry contributed to the improved attainment of the control group.

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-CooperIn the chart below, we can see the amount of inferences on pupils responses that were made that explicitly generated from learning in other subject areas. For example, pupils made inferences about why a text could be ‘scary’, yet these were not always based on cross-curricular learning, for example, ‘it’s scary because twitching is not normal’. Other references might be to the connotations of colour used in the text (generated from Art), other scientific terms such as ‘adaption’ and cross over terms between RE and science referencing the concept of nature, artificial intelligence and cloning.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Successful Cross-Curricular Inferences

Series1

Nu

mb

er o

f In

fere

nce

s

Figure 3

When we consider that a ‘successful cross-curricular inference’ is an accurate observation of the language of the Frankenstein text, made with prior-knowledge obtained in other subject areas, this chart gives us an interesting insight into the effectiveness of the enquiry on pupils ability to make inferences. Clearly, the two pupils who have the most significant learning needs (Statement and School Action Plus) did not make as many cross-curricular inferences as the others in the control group – this appears to contradict the finding of a cross-curricular approach facilitating rapid progress, especially for pupils with SEN, found in the previous paragraph (Figure 2). Accordingly, we might perceive the input of the enquiry to be limited; while cross-curricular planning may have enabled pupils to infer ideas from the text they might not have done, it was not that which helped them achieve ‘maximum attainment’ as considered necessary by the title of the enquiry – it could have been the focussed nature of the lesson, for example. To investigate this theory further, I measured the quantity of cross-curricular inferences as a percentage of the total score in the chart below:

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Cross-curricular inferences as a percentage of total

Percentage

Per

cen

tage

of m

ark

s ga

ined

th

rou

gh

cros

s-cu

rric

ula

r in

pu

t

Figure 4

Here we can see how many of the pupils’ inferences were generated from cross-curricular prior-knowledge as a percentage. For example, pupil 1 (School Action) made 10 inferences, and 5 were generated from cross-curricular input, so 50% of their total marks came from cross-curricular input. Here we can see that all pupils (and particularly in the case of the pupil with the educational statement) the inferences they did make secured excellent progress overall – this is because where only a few points could be made in the time restrictions of the assessment, they were accurate and were mostly generated from prior knowledge obtained in other subject areas. This could suggest that cross-curricular planning allows pupils to make better quality inferences, not more inferences during a reading assessment. We can see from the progress data (Figure 2) that it is the quality, and not the quantity of inferential completions that is rewarded by the assessor – three excellent points are as good as seven average ones in a KS3 English assessment of this kind. The ideas pupils have garnered from the cross-curricular approach have allowed them to make more intelligent, more rewarding points, and this has been rewarded in turn by the English assessor. With all candidates responses including at least half of their response generated from the cross-curricular output, the data suggests that the enquiry had a significant impact on the attainment levels of the control group. We are left to ask what could be done to enhance the progress made as a result of this enquiry in the following chapters.

Next, we can analyse the feedback from the questionnaires. I have collated the results in trend tables showing the amount of positive and negative responses to each question, followed by a summary of pupil’s comments in response to each question:

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper

Yes No0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Did you find the Frankenstein text easier to understand after the work you have

done in other subjects?

Number of Pupils

Figure 5

Responding to the first question ‘Did you find the Frankenstein text easier to understand after the work you have done in other subjects?’ of the five responses, all were positive. Responses were recorded as written comments – one student referred explicitly to the cross-curricular process ‘...they use facial expression words in their (sic) which is art I can picture the face’, while others only expressed affirmation that indeed the language of the text was easier to understand in a cross-curricular framework ; ‘yes, I found it easier’, ‘it was much better to understand’, ‘Yes (it was) a lot more easier’, and ‘yes it was quite easy’.

Yes No0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Did you find it easy to make links between Art, RE, Science, Drama and

the Frankenstein text

Series1

Figure 6

In response to the second question ‘Did you find it easy to make links between Art, RE, Science, Drama and the Frankenstein text?’, again, all answers affirmed that linking language and other subjects was indeed easier, with one pupil adding the clause ‘(it was easier) because we went over it’, suggesting that re-activating prior knowledge as part of the English lesson was an important part of the process.

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper

Yes No0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Is it helpful to have things learned in other subjects linked to English?

Series1

Figure 7

Finally, when asked the question ‘Is it helpful to have things learned in other subjects linked to English?’ pupils were more explanatory, suggesting ‘yes because it builds our understanding’, ‘yes...it makes it easier to write’, ‘(yes) it makes it more easy and we can see the links’, ‘yes...you understand more’, and ‘it is helpful because we learn new things’.

I also conducted an interview with the pupils, using the same questions on the questionnaire. To the first question, ‘Did you find the Frankenstein text easier to understand after the work you have done in other subjects?’ responses suggested that the cross-curricular approach ‘makes us go into depth (about body proportions, for example)’, ‘you understand more because after the art lesson (we looked at Frankenstein’s features) because Frankenstein’s monster is out of proportion’, ‘we see the links between English and art – it goes more in depth ‘and ‘it’s good...occasionally’. To the second question, the main responses included ‘it is fun and lets us be creative with our answers to the text’, and ‘if you have done it in Drama, if you know how to act out, and you show emotions on your face, then when you are writing it, it will help you describe more’. This comment might imply that the cross-curricular approach give pupils different perspectives and different ideas to show their understanding of a text with, in the form of new vocabulary. There is further evidence for this in Figures 2 and 4 – there a suggestion from that cross-curricular planning allows pupils with a smaller vocabulary or literacy issues (such as the pupils with SAP and academic statements) better provision for comprehending the significance of a text and responding with academically sound inferences and observations.

There are four main points we can draw from the data collected from the assessment and from the control group interview and questionnaire. Firstly, in the discipline of inference the attainment and progress of the pupils in the control group was good and exceptional in some cases (Figure 2). Secondly, there is some evidence (Figure 4) that the cross-curricular pedagogical approach of the enquiry is an effective learning strategy for the teaching of inferences – the findings from the pupils response to the Frankenstein text suggest pupils are piecing two or more cross-disciplinary pieces from a syllogistic puzzle (Figure 3), and as a consequence they are inferring accurate conclusions and articulating them validly. The findings from the assessment data, the interviews and questionnaires link to suggest that the enquiry may have found a proficient approach for the teaching of inference. This is perhaps best read in the sense of fulfilment that is conveyed by the pupils in their responses – they did not know their attainment outcomes when they conducted the interview and completed the questionnaire. Finally, we can see through the comments on the pupil questionnaire (‘it’s good...occasionally’) that while there are many positive outcomes from the analysis of data, the process of amalgamating prior knowledge learned in other subject areas and applying it to the reading of a text is highly taxing on pupils. The fact that the high-levels of achievement were afforded by a demanding process is not

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Coopersurprising considering the average reading age of the group (8.6 years old); the average mark from the enquiry was 5b, when the average mark from the end of year reading test was 4b, meaning that pupils have (on average) apparently made more than one year’s worth of expected progress during the enquiry.

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper Section 8

I will now attempt to assess what the academic literature suggests about issues identified with the findings of the enquiry.

It seems that cross –curricular pedagogy may help to aid a pupil’s ability to make inferences from a text. In answer to the first prompt ‘Did you find the Frankenstein text easier to understand after the work you have done in other subjects?’ Two comments that stood out were that the cross-curricular aspect of the reading ‘makes us go into depth (about body proportions, for example)’, which helps a pupil ‘embellish and amplify’ (Kipsal 2008) their understanding of a text, and consequently show ‘perception’ and ‘appreciation’ of a text in their response - requisite to what KS4 GCSE mark schemes and mark weighting require students to deliver (OCR 2012 i) as discussed in my research of this issue(Ashley-Cooper 2013). Another pupil elaborates on this by saying ‘you understand more because after the art lesson (you learn that) Frankenstein’s monster is out of proportion’ – this clearly helps to avert what Pressley (2000) identified as incorrect inferences common in pupil response, that pupils make inferences using back-ground knowledge which is irrelevant. By using terms like ‘proportion’ in the context of anthropology and, pupils are linking scientific and artistic concepts to our understanding of fear. These are accurate and well informed and relevant inferences, appropriately rewarded and rewarding for the pupils, with one suggesting, ‘it’s good…occasionally’. Clearly, consolidating cross-curricular learning for the purposes of an English assessment is a challenging process for the pupils.

Although we may be humored by this casual recalcitrance towards new, or more intensive learning methods, the ‘occasionally’ within this comment is revealing in that it relates to an important aspect of inferential pedagogy discovered in the literature – ‘on-line’ inferences actively accessing (fresh) prior knowledge have significantly high levels of cognitive demand on pupils (Graesser et al 1994) and their working memories (Calvo 2004). From this questionnaire, it seems that pupils in my school setting are more used to (and comfortable with) non cross-curricular approaches in English. Whether current methods used in my school are the best approach for developing their reading abilities is debatable, especially when we get towards the end of KS4 and KS5 and beyond. My school’s current levels of progress between KS2 and KS4 are in the lowest when compared to similar schools (OFSTED 2014), whereas Cowles (2011) has found evidence that a cross-curricular approach facilitates independence and higher levels of attainment in reading comprehension at 11th grade in schools in the USA. I have already mentioned the links between the pupil responses within the enquiry and the higher echelons of the KS4 mark scheme, the links between text, ‘imagery’ and ‘social and cultural’ setting are crucial here as they are at Key Stage 5 (OCR 2013). Attaining in English at higher levels requires implicit cross-curricular understanding and pupils need to be able to apply a range of prior-knowledge independently; achieving aspirational targets is difficult, it requires resilience and adaptability on the part of the pupils, but the results of the enquiry and literature suggest that both may be achieved with a cross-curricular approach.

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-CooperThe relevance of the high levels of progress seen here is better viewed in the context of the Department for Education’s expected progress measures for pupils between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4 (DfE 2011):

Given that the highest KS2 level from the control group was 4b, and the average for the group was around 3a, by the time they took their GCSE’s they would not be expected to achieve a grade C, or even D in some cases. These findings are revealing in terms of improving academic performance which would of course benefit pupils but also the learning community of the school which requires improvement. As mentioned previously, on-line inference (or during a controlled assessment) is demanding on working memory (Graesser et al 1994). Gathercole et al (2004) found that there was a close correlation between pupils working memory measures and their attainment levels between in a study between the ages of 7 and 14; the more efficient the working memory, the higher the attainment. In the context of these findings, the implication is that a cross-curricular approach to teaching inferences would help improve pupils’ familiarity with pedagogy which is demanding on their working memory. This idea is supported by Ericsson et al (1995) who suggested that pupils working memories could be developed by taught acquired memory skills; long term memory (prior knowledge) can be made accessible to short term memory which in turn can develop text comprehension to high levels of performance. This becomes more important when we see further findings from, Gathercole’s study (pg 12):

“Little evidence of working memory contributing to the development of the higher-level conceptual and analytic abilities that are tapped by the English assessments at 14 years. By this age, it can reasonably assumed that as the majority of children have achieved a basic functional level of literacy, differences in the quality of their written language work reflect variation in intellectual skills affecting analysis and interpretation rather than literacy per se.”

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-CooperThe idea that working memory’s capacity for comprehending texts can be developed through constructivist processes is made by van den Broek (2005), who argues that memory based and constructivist pedagogy (such as a cross-curricular framework for comprehension – Cowles 2011) are equally important to a pupil’s ability to create meaningful connections between texts and ideas. To access the ‘higher level analytic abilities’ in language study that Gathercole referred to, to make the ‘perceptive’ inference demanded by the top of a GCSE mark scheme (OCR 2012), a demanding cross-curricular approach is necessary. Moreover, Cowles (2011) also found that after employing cross-curricular approaches to comprehension activities in the classroom, students were more likely to use and describe specific strategies such as conceptual planning that impacted positively on their learning and attainment. If a cross-curricular approach was done at an early stage in the pupils academic career (the stage Kipsal (2008) says it is most effective), it is feasible that by the time pupils reached KS4, less time would have to be spent improving working memory, basic literacy and concentrating the ‘intellectual skills effecting analysis and interpretation’, consequently allowing pupils to be operating around the higher levels attainment in classes, making perceptive inferences throughout the reading of a text. Though such an amendment would take time to implement, the compound impact on final KS4 attainment levels could theoretically improve substantially.

Up to this point, the data from the enquiry seems to suggest three things – cross-curricular planning seems to improve pupil attainment in reading assessment and can help to exceed national expectations, especially if as an embedded pedagogy across the curriculum. Cross-curricular planning and learning for English is a demanding cognitive process on pupils, but ultimately one which could improve not only their academic prospects. The final finding from the enquiry was that while demanding and comprehensive, a cross-curricular approach to teaching inference may also aid a young person’s ability to understand, negotiate and even enjoy the inconsistencies of their burgeoning lives (Hanson 2004).

One of the responses to the prompt ‘Did you find it easy to make links between Art, RE, Science, Drama and the Frankenstein text?’ was ‘if you have done it in Drama, if you know how to act out, and you show emotions on your face, then when you are writing it, it will help you describe more’. Though ‘describe it more’ is a vague term, it seems there is a correlation between it and what was discovered in the literature review. Improved academic outcomes for pupils as part of the enquiry (Figure 4) can be linked with having a wider range of ideas and vocabulary with which to understand and show comprehension of a challenging text. In the literature review we find weaker readers would not – unlike stronger readers – spend time decoding (or evaluating) the ‘inconsistencies’ (oxymorons, juxtapositions, conflicts ect) in more challenging texts which provide inferential opportunities (Oakhill, Hartt and Samols (1996). When we consider the reading ages of the control group (average 8.6 years, Figure 1), we can see we are working with exactly these kind of weaker readers – certainly not the kind of readers who would find inconsistencies in words ‘fun’, or their responses ‘creative’ as one student responded. However, cross-curricular planning clearly gives them the vocabulary and the concepts to be ‘creative’ in their responses (Figure 3), and may experience ‘fun’ through their enhanced understanding, as stronger readers might. More significantly we should consider the work of Hanson (2004), who suggested inconsistencies in texts are explored by good readers as part of gaining an amplified understanding, whereas poorer readers accept inconsistencies like this as normal in a world they perceive to be inconsistent or contradictory. With this in mind, the results of the enquiry, coupled with the comments from the interview seem to suggest that in a school in the highest quintile of socio-economic deprivation and second highest quintile for SEN (OFSTED 2014 i), the drawing together of fragmented academic experiences can, in some ways, help children comprehend, or find cohesion in contradiction and inconsistency in language and in behavior and most importantly, in their life (Robertson 2006). The highly accelerated progress made by the pupil with the academic statement and the pupil with SAP needs could be interpreted at further evidence for this.

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper

Section 9

I will now attempt to synthesize the outcomes of the findings and the literature on the subject of inference.

Firstly, the pedagogical approach that I undertook – re-activating prior knowledge learned in other subject areas- appears to have helped pupils make inferences they would not normally have done. I selected the prior-knowledge to be activated prudently, so only the most valid knowledge would be available, this would have helped to de-stress the working memory of the pupils (Calvo 2004) which would have already been being taxed heavily by the process of activating and accessing prior knowledge. Consequently, I aided the pupil’s ability to make elaborative inferences. As well as this, giving the pupils their own prior-knowledge in the form of prompts in this way helps enrich what Pressely and Afflerbach (2000) define as the pupils ‘schematic knowledge base’, or the structure in which their knowledge is stored and accessed. It means that the knowledge accessed was accurate and avoided incorrect inference as common in pupil responses (2000). However, this means that the enquiry did not get pupils to make the ‘on-line’ inferential completions I set out to at the start. Graesser et al (1994) explore the differences between ‘online’ and off-line’ inference, with the former taking place during the reading process, and the latter prompted after the reading process. My intention was to replicate controlled assessment and examination conditions, imitating those conditions pupils were likely to encounter in KS4. However, with my prompting and reactivating prior knowledge the result was that pupils benefitted from what Barnes et al (1996) found was ‘quickly accessed knowledge being twice as likely to be used in successful inference than was more slowly accessed knowledge’ (p.232), so that their working memory skills were not stretched to a point where they could not complete the assessment. Moreover, in this enquiry pupils were not ‘inconsistency detectors’ in that they were not able to see their incoherent inferences (Cain and Oakhill 2004) – no editing process was undertaken but verbal clarification with teacher and teaching assistant did and consequently, the findings about pedagogy need to be re-framed in a wider context; we do not yet know if the approach will be as successful in strict examination conditions.

While this did not achieve the exact aims I set out to achieve, it helps us to understand that cross-curricular framing of reading activities could be beneficial to developing pupils working memory for literacy purposes (Gathercole 2004) if embedded across the KS2, KS3 and KS4 curriculum – we can only speculate on KS4 attainment outcomes at this stage. The aim for the KS4 assessments would be that pupils could bring their own prior learning in other subject areas to the reading of the text without prompting from the teacher – this would allow them to become the kind of ‘active-readers’ Graesser et al (1994) describe as being able enough readers to decode and understand print, and then consistently show ‘perception’ and ‘appreciation’ (OCR 2012) of its meaning in accordance with assessment criteria for KS4 examination assessment. Only then would this kind of pedagogy be described as helping pupils make accurate ‘on-line’ inferences that could reflect what might be achieved in the context of a KS4 examination.

Therefore, we need to analyse the findings of the quantitative assessment data from the enquiry, and ask if they do indeed signify potential for sustained improvements across the KS3/4 curriculum. The first thing to note is that the skill of inference is best applied to narrative texts such as novels, poetry and drama as opposed to expository texts such as non-fiction, newspapers, and magazines. Narveez (2002) suggesting a pupil is nine times more likely to be able to produce inferences best on the narrative rather than expository texts. The ramifications for the analysis of progress data from the enquiry (which was based on a narrative text) imply that a KS4 course whose narrative reading content outnumbers expository content by 3 to 1 suggest how important inference is as a reading skill which results in academic attainment over a GCSE English course

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper(Edexcel 2014); the data implied more rapid rates of progress were achieved (especially in pupils with SEN), and therefore approaches used in the enquiry could in theory increase attainment levels at KS4 if implemented appropriately. Evidence for the improved teaching of inference and improved attainment levels – particularly with students with literacy needs in reading - can be found in McGee and Johnson’s (2003) study, who, through specifically developing inference practice improved less skilled comprehenders performance by 20 months and average skilled readers by 10 months on the standardized Neale Analysis of Reading Ability Tests.

As well as improved academic attainment levels, there is evidence to suggest that a pupil’s academic skill set – their working memory capacity, reasoning skills, vocabulary and academic resilience – can all be developed with a cross-curricular approach in the classroom. One of the findings was that access to higher levels of attainment through cross-curricular inference was a taxing process on the pupils (‘it’s good…occasionally). While I have explored the benefits of this ‘taxing process’ in terms of academic progress above, I feel that pupils benefit in developing their working memory, vocabulary and academic resilience and this is of equal importance. Hays (2010) has argued that cross-curricular approaches can confuse learners and ‘corrupt the sanctity of subject divisions’ (p1), as well as providing logistical difficulties for timetables and teachers. While I sympathise with the latter claims here from my own experience of coordinating cross-curricular planning, the qualitative data suggests to me that far from ‘corrupting’ a pupils experience of English, cross-curricular approaches can significantly enhance the reading and assessment experience and can result in a more fulfilling enjoyment of a text.

There are several explicitly academic issues here. As discovered in the enquiry, taxation of working memory is significant as Calvo (2004) predicts, but with a regular cross-curricular approach comes developed working memory and consequently accelerated academic attainment and resilience (Gathercole and Pickering 2000) (Cowles 2011). Therefore, the compound effect of cross-curricular pedagogy could help pupils develop their academic performance in any other areas related to language comprehension and reasoning (Baddeley 1992). As well as this, in order to help pupils make accurate inferences, the enquiry re-integrated prior knowledge and vocabulary from other subject areas, while this is significantly demanding on working-memory, it results in higher attainment (Fig 3) and a more enriching academic experience - similar findings have been made by Harrison (2004) who found that both able and less able readers benefit from orally (re)introduced vocabulary training of this sort. There is an important implication here for both pupils and whole school community going forward: these subjects with high demands on working memory include humanities, science, modern foreign languages and others, subjects which comprise of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc)(DfE 2014) which is a performance measure based on a number of subjects newly introduced by the coalition government, and is planned to replace GCSE’s as a school performance measure and pupil qualification by 2017 (Gove 2012) . Therefore, a cross-curricular approach to reading is important in this context, as the development of learning strategies to improve working memory and quickly accessed prior knowledge, vocabulary and resilience are paramount academic skills schools can (Cowles 2011) and should be developing given these moves by the DfE to try and negate ‘bite-size learning and spoon feeding’ in favour of ‘academic rigor’ (Gove 2012).

A more holistic implication to cross-curricular approaches can be found in the literature in the light of the findings from the enquiry. As well as demanding and developing the pupils working memory, Narveez (2002) argues that pupils socio-moral cognitive development would be affected through the explicit teaching of inference in the fashion of the enquiry – that preliminary discussions in the classroom about factors learned about in other subject areas helps to dissuade students from ‘moral judgments’ which could impinge on their ability to infer accurate meaning from a text, or a character, event, or situation within a text. Coupling this with Hanson’s (2004) claims that developed readers would go on be able to surmount and interpret inconsistencies in texts which may embody troubles or conflicts within their own lives, it seems that a cross-curricular experience could be enriching to the lives of pupils studying within it. This is particularly significant considering the findings of Capella, Elise, Weinstein and Rhonda (2001) who found that a school curriculum could fully mediate the path between aspiration and academic resilience – though work such as that in the enquiry is challenging, a properly considered curriculum could help pupils meet their develop academic resilience and meet their aspirational targets, something that is not happening within my current school

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Coopercontext (OFSTED 2014). Furthermore, both the academic skills and holistic benefits discovered in this enquiry could lead to a very important implication in my school setting; set in the most socially deprived national quintile (OFSTED 2014), pupils from similar socio-economic settings face growing up in a nation with the worst record for social mobility amongst OECD nations (Francis and Wong 2013) and as well as this, Unicef have found British children to be living with the least sense of well-being in the economically advanced nations (UNICEF 2007). The links between literacy and social mobility and well-being have been made (Dugdale and Clarke 2008) and although only a small scale enquiry, I believe the results from it show that a more consolidated approach to English – the academic and emotional literacy that come with cross-curricular collaboration could have a significantly positive impact on the opportunities for social mobility and general happiness and well being for pupils in my school.

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper

Section 10

Conclusion

After implementing a cross-curricular framework for a small control group to comprehend an extract from Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, pupils annotated a copy of the extract with inferences suggesting how they thought it could be interpreted as scary. Data collected was triangulated between quantitative attainment outcomes marked by other members of staff, and qualitative pupil responses to interviews and questionnaires. The enquiry was small scale, with a limited number of participants – the sample size was limited and so further research with a bigger sample should be conducted to affirm the validity of the approaches in the enquiry.

Findings showed that the cross-curricular framework helped all students make academic progress, with all of them achieving a higher score than their most recent reading score. Pupils with Special Educational Needs seemed to benefit particularly from the cross-curricular framework. The findings suggested that pupil’s re-integrated vocabulary and prior-knowledge learned in other subject areas which allowed them to have a more sophisticated understanding of the text. The findings from the pupil interviews and questionnaires implied that while pupils found integrating prior-knowledge in other subject areas allowed them to understand more about a text, the process itself was very demanding.

Inference is highly frequent cognitive skill tested during reading comprehension. The results from the control group warrant further investigation to discover if the benefits from specifically targeting inference as a skill could have significant ramifications for pupil attainment and the development of the whole school community; improved pupil performance within the discipline of inference could result in improved GCSE outcomes and could improve levels of progress between KS2 and KS4. In applying prior knowledge and quickly accessed vocabulary to the reading of a text, inference relies on a pupil’s working memory capacity. Although this is a demanding pedagogical approach for pupils, there are many potential benefits to developing working memory, particularly as pupils pass through Key Stage 3. Additional research into pedagogy which develops working memory and inference across the curriculum is necessary when we consider that the use of working memory and inference is a cognitive skill which is not exclusive to English. Other subjects which are demanding on pupils working memory, language skills and reasoning could benefit from a cross-curricular approach; this is particularly pertinent as subjects in this category (humanities, modern foreign languages and science, for example) all form part of the English Baccalaureate which may come to replace GCSE’s as an end of KS4 subject measure; it is highly important that schools who have previously focused on previous performance measures (such as 5 *A-C including English and Maths) address this more academic performance measure, and the enquiry suggests a cross-curricular approach could facilitate this successfully.

There are also more holistic implications for a cross-curricular approach to reading text, a lessened social cultural bias to comprehension, as well as the ability to surmount and comprehend inconsistencies, contrasts and contradictions in texts - and correspondingly pupils own lives - can be achieved when a text is considered within a context taught professionally in other areas. This is particularly significant in a school setting where many pupils arrive at the school with a below average reading age, with a cohort coming from the lowest quintile of socio-economic deprivation in the country. A cross-curricular approach to English and its links with the wider curriculum and life experience itself could lead to a more coherent and applicable educational experience which will prepare pupils for the challenges of post-16 life in Britain. From conducting the enquiry it is evident that executing a cross-curricular plan to teach inference through texts is logistically challenging, but the rise in attainment levels mean it is time well invested for the pupils and the school – small and specific

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooperareas could be targets based on assessment data from previous years (the Year 8 second half term study of the novel, for instance) and consequently better and more consolidated progress can be achieved and recorded on the pupil’s journey throughout the school.

Recommendations

Results from the enquiry are only indicative of the effects of a cross-curricular input on reading comprehension – in order to make stronger affirmations of the effectiveness of the enquiry’s approach, I intend to adopt similar practices with other pupils and monitor outcomes as a boarder application of the enquiry. However, given the potential benefits to academic attainment in English through a cross-curricular approach, a three step follow up procedure can be followed: after sharing the results with my SLT and Head of Department (HoD),training can be provided on the theory and methodology from the enquiry to help English teachers adapt their practice; following this cross-curricular planning meetings can be set up to encourage a broader input of learning for individual subject teachers and their respective students.

My intention is to share these proposals with my SLT and Head of Department, with the goal that at least, English teachers should know that a cross-curricular approach can help improve attainment outcomes with classes which might be struggling to progress in reading. Collaborative planning meetings can be set up, where assessment texts are shared and commitments are made by teachers of other relevant subject areas to include material relevant to the assessment text for that particular year cohort. These planning meetings could be reciprocal – English faculties can contribute to the assessment preparation for other subject areas, a cumulative benefit of pooling resources from across departments within school. As far as my own practice is concerned, my intention is to pursue a cross-curricular approach wherever it is possible, or relevant; even informal discussions and commitments with colleagues who share the same teaching group could have some positive impact where currently there is none. The findings from the enquiry indicate that the impact of professional educative aid in any form, from any subject area, can have some positive effect on a pupil’s ability to comprehend, and therefore it would not be professional of me not to pursue it.

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-Cooper

Reference List

Ashley-Cooper, M (2013). Professional Enquiry 1. MMU. Unpublished.

Baddely, A. (1992). Working memory Science 31 January 1992: 255 (5044), 556-559. [DOI:10.1126/science.1736359]

Barnes, M.A., Dennis, M. and Haefele-Kalvaitis, J. (1996). 'The effects of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age', Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 3, 216-241.

Bell, Judith. (2010)., Doing Your Research Project. [online]. Open University Press. Available

from:<http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=302868> 5 June 2014

Blaxter L, Hughes C and Tight M (2010) How to Research. Publisher: Open University Press Published: Jan 1,

2010

Bowyer-Crane, C. and Snowling, M.J. (2005). 'Assessing children's inference generation: What do tests of

reading comprehension measure?', British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 2, 189-201.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J., Barnes, M.A. and Bryant, P.E. (2001). 'Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge', Memory & Cognition, 29, 6,850-859.

Cain, K. and Oakhill, J. (2004). ‘Reading comprehension difficulties.’ In: Nunes, T. and Bryant, P. (Eds) Handbook of Children’s Literacy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Calvo (2004) ‘Relative contribution of vocabulary knowledge and working memory span to elaborative

inferences in reading’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,4,671-681.

Cappella, Elise; Weinstein, Rhona S. (2001). Turning around reading achievement: Predictors of high school students' academic resilience. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 93(4), Dec 2001, 758-771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.758

Cowles, L. A. (2011). Reading Comprehension and Analytical Writing in the Content-Area Classroom. ProQuest LLC.

Cromley, R.A. and Azevedo, R. (2007). 'Testing and refining the direct and inferentialmediation model of reading comprehension', Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,2, 311-325.

Denis Hayes (2010): The seductive charms of a cross-curricular approach, Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 38:4,381-38

Department for Education. (2011). 2011 KS2 – KS4 PROGRESS MEASURES

Department for Education. (2014). English Baccalaureate: information for schools. Taken from https://www.gov.uk/english-baccalaureate-information-for-schools Accessed: 3/11/2014

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-CooperDenscombe, M (2007). The Good Research Guide. Open University Press. Retrieved 5 May 2014, from

<http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=112920>

Dugdale, G. and Clark C. (2008). Literacy changes lives: An advocacy resource. London: National Literacy Trust.

Edexcel (2014). GCSE English Specification 2EH01

Ericsson, K. Anders; Kintsch, Walter. (1995) Long Term Working Memory. Psychological Review, Vol 102(2),

Apr 1995, 211-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211

Francis, B; Wong, B. (2013). What is Preventing Social Mobility? A Review of the Evidence. Association of Schools and College Leaders. Taken from www.ascl.org.uk. Accessed 3/11/2014

Gathercole, S et al. (2004). Working Memory Skills and Educational Attainment: Evidence from National Curriculum Assessments at 7 and 14 Years of Age. APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGYAppl. Cognit. Psychol.18 : 1–16 (2004)

Gathercole, S. E. and Pickering, S. J. (2000), Working memory deficits in children with low achievements in the national curriculum at 7 years of age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70: 177–194. doi: 10.1348/000709900158047

Gove, M. (2012). Speech to the House of Commons 17th Septpmebr 2012. Taken from http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/sep/17/gcse-exams-replaced-ebacc-michael-gove. Accessed 3/11/2014.

Graesser, A.C. , Singer, M and Trabasso, T. (1994) ‘Constructing inferences during narrative text

comprehension’, Psychological Review, 101,3, 371-395

Kipsal, A. (2008) – Effective Teaching of Inference Skills for Reading. National Foundation for Educational

Research.

Manchester Metropolitan University (2007). Application for Ethical Approval Form

Manchester Metropolitan University (2011). Guidance notes for applications for ethical approval of research

Manchester Metropolitan University (2014). Meeting the Learning Objectives - Learning Outcome 8.2 -

Structure and organise findings clearly and concisely for a stakeholder audience

Manchester Metropolitan University (2014 i). Meeting the Learning Objectives - Learning Outcome 8.1 - Conduct an enquiry in a reflexive manner using appropriate methods and adopting an ethical stance

McGee, A. and Johnson, H. (2003). 'The effect of inference training on skilled and less skilled comprehenders', Educational Psychology, 23, 1, 49-59.

Narvaez, D. (2002). 'Individual differences that influence reading comprehension.' In: Block, C.C. and Pressley, M. (Eds) Comprehension Instruction: Research Based Best Practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

National Strategies (2010). Assessment of Pupil Progress Grid. Curriculum and Qualifications Agency.

Oakhill, J.V., Hartt, J. and Samols, D. (1996). ‘Comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and

poor comprehenders.’ Presented at the XIVth Biennial ISSBD Conference, Quebec City, 12-16 August. Cited in:

Professional Enquiry 2 – MTL – Max Ashley-CooperCain, K. and Oakhill, J. (2004). ‘Reading comprehension difficulties.’ In: Nunes, T. and Bryant, P. (Eds) Handbook

of Children’s Literacy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

OCR (2012 ) – A680 / 02 English Language Examination Paper November 2012 – Mark Scheme

OCR (2013) – A2 Mark Scheme – English Literarture Poetry and Prose 1800-1945 F661

OFSTED (2011). The impact of the ‘Assessing Pupils Progress’ Initiative

OFSTED (2012). Moving English Forward

OFSTED (2014 i) – Report pending

OFSTED (2014) – Report 105362 Prestwich Arts College

PAC (2014). School Prospectus.

Pressley, M. (2000). 'What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of?' In: Kamil, M.L., Mosenthal, P.B., Pearson, P.D. and Barr, R. (Eds) Handbook of Reading Research: Volume III. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pressley, M. and Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal Protocols of Reading. The Nature of Constructively Responsive

Reading. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Robertson, S. (2006). Curriculum fragmentation impedes students’ understanding of technology and the environment. Monica Leggett, Susan Robertson Journal of Education Policy Vol. 11, Iss. 6, 1996

Shelly, M. (1993) . Frankenstein. Wordsworth Classics.

Shelly, M. Adapted by Pullman, P (1990). Frankenstein Play Script. Oxford Playscripts.

Van den Broek, P. (2005). Integrating Memory-Based and Constructionist Processes in Accounts of Reading Comprehension. Discourse Processes Vol. 39, Iss. 2-3, 2005

UNICEF. (2007). Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries