The resources chosen allow lower ability pupils to access and comprehend the text. Verbal reasoning

and genre knowledge is a cultural construction and it must be noted that by placing pupils who would

struggle with word recognition and language with more able pupils has a detrimental impact on their

being able to access content. Piaget; Huitt and Hummel (2003), would in this case argue that children

have different development stages and we must allow for this based on their individual cognitive

development. This is contrasted by Mcleod (2007) who suggests that socialisation and an interactive

curriculum should be adopted by the school. I agree with Mcleod as I feel in particular more should be

done to acknowledge that children, dependent on their schooling and background may not have full

access to relevant schemas as their thinking is limited based on their experience of language or lack

of. This is further developed by Stanovich and West (1981) who discuss the role of the English

Teacher being one that of making the reading process visible to all readers not just to those who are

beginners. We need to at this to point consider the access for those pupils who may be disaffected,

particularly boys who see reading as necessity and not undertaken for pleasure, the DFE report,

‘Reading for pleasure’ (2012) examined the reasons children read and found that between 2005 and

2009 the gender gap tripled from 3% to 12%, engaging boys from ethnic backgrounds is more

problematic. Through the careful reading of the text I have tried to ensure that I meet the DFE’s

requirement that all pupils should have similar opportunities to access the work in order to have

similar life opportunities. As West (1984) states that readers are made or unmade largely at school

and not born, a contrast to Chomsky’s (1972) idea of language being innate, I have found that in fact

for some of these students language, reading and speaking skills are not innate nor are they ingrained

but rather as their English Teacher I have sole responsibility of developing lessons on which they are

given literacy skills at more than a functional level or one where they are just gearing towards passing

exams. This is where the study of the text combined with the film works very well as pupils can see

how English has developed and is constantly changing.

The, ‘The resources chosen…’ paragraph is very good indeed. Here, you start with one idea,

add more support, some contrasting and apply your evidence throughout. This is very good

critical dialogue and this paragraph is not unique. Mainly, you are in critical dialogue, that

essential ingredient of Level 7 work.

This move towards empowering the individual learner (Tilstone, 2004, p.48) through developing their

metacognitive processes is also possible through the use of Makaton. Although Vygotsky would not

see Makaton symbols as being socially interactive, due to its accessibility, Makaton allows pupils to

interact with text when this may not have previously been possible. Moreover, pupils are finally able to

articulate their responses – a crucial part of social interaction. It could be argued therefore, that the

Functionalist view is far more credible to the learning of Shakespeare than Vygotsky’s theory of Social

Constructivist theory, therefore implying that Makaton is a more effective resource in the teaching of

Shakespeare. Furthermore, by creating a more inclusive, accessible and tangible reference of

Shakespeare’s language (Walker, 1972, p.10), Makaton enhances pupils’ self-confidence. The lack of

readability ‘leading to slow reading and a high error rate’ (Westwood, 2015, p.101) is minimised by

Makaton’s ability to enhance participation (Detheridge, 1997, p.62) in Shakespeare of non-readers

who are now offered control, self-sufficiency and an opportunity to find their voice, whether the pupil is

verbal or not. On the other hand, as Reid and Goldbart concede, ‘Too much use of symbols may well

impede experience and giving pupils “something to say” once they have the skills to say it’

(Detheridge, 1997, p.82). This suggests that there is still value in Bruner’s Functionalist theory, that

experiential and discovery learning through role play is more effective than formal language study in

teaching Shakespeare in the SEN context because ‘comprehension is not something that comes after

learning the mechanics of reading’ (Woolley, 2014, p.108). In determining whether Makaton and

traditional language-based methods of teaching comprehension are more effective than experiential

methods of teaching comprehension, the individual, their level and their learning preferences must be

considered. Each individual’s learning will benefit from an increase in self-esteem and autonomy.

Nevertheless, the resource that may enable certain skills and therefore confidence to be enhanced

with one pupil, may impede, demotivate and reduce the learning potential of another. Furthermore,

the resource which provides the most ‘enriched, experiential learning environment [that] stimulates

developmental processes’ (Moyles, 2010, p.207) depends on whether the learner is firstly able to

access the decoding of Makaton, but also whether that learner’s self-confidence is so low that the fear

of participation in role-play would simply impede engagement with that lesson.

Your best paragraph is, ‘The move towards empowering…’. Take the one part which goes from

Makaton increasing comprehension to its limitations of experience of the original – here you

have dialogue, it is concise and thoughtful work.

In the case of using laptops and software as a learning resource for SEND students the British

Educational Communications and Technology Agencys (BECTA) (2003) found that ‘technology can

benefit pupils, teachers and parents / carers. Specific benefits identified in by BECTA (2003, 2007,

2009) include “greater learner autonomy, communication support, personalised learning opportunities,

attainment, motivation and engagement with learning” (Kuegal, C 2014). The SEN Code of Practice

further supports the use of technological resources such as laptops and computer software such as

Adobe Photoshop, the Code of Practice identifies four main areas of need for SEN students:

“communication and interaction; cognition and learning needs; behaviour, emotional and social

development; and sensory and / or physical needs” (DfES, 2001, p. 52). However, there are

drawbacks to using these resources with SEND students. Slobodzian (2009) believes “the use of

YouTube in the classroom has been seen as one method to bring the larger world into the classroom;

however, teachers must realise that many aspects may not be accessible to student with visual or

hearing impairments”. In addition the issue of SEN students using resources such as laptops and

varieties of software raises concerns with education theorists such as Speilhofer (2010) who although

acknowledges there has been as improvement in the e-safety believes there is still some work to go

as he states “knowledge and understanding in the area of online safety has developed. There is still,

however, a need for further research. Specifically, more data is needed regarding risks to children

with SEND, teacher’s knowledge and understanding of methods to safeguard children, and how to

teach online safety skills to pupils”. I believe that the use of laptops and software such as Adobe

Photoshop is a valuable resource for EAL learners and SEN pupils, with new technological

developments e-learning resources can play a pivotal role in helping EAL and SEN pupils overcome

barriers they are facing.

In particular, the paragraph, ‘In the case of using laptops…’ is an example of what it takes to

be at this level. Here you summarise the conclusions of BECTA, move to the DfES then have a

theorist (Slobodzian). This is dialogue and you also have a view coming through so it is also

‘voice’.

Furthermore, the role of multimodality is also encouraged when using multi- media resources in order

to propel students to think for themselves and discover meaning. Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996)

describe the ability to understand and read images as ‘visual literacy’. They argue that images, like

words, are made-up of elements that can be used to communicate meaning (Kress and Van

Leeuwen, 1996). For example, they claim that a ‘visual mode could fulfil the communicative functions

of language in being able to communicate moods, form of address, ideas and textual coherence’

(Kress and Van Leeuwen, 1996 in Machin 2007). However, it is important to note that the similarities

between language and images does not suggest there is a universal structure of communication and

any desire to impose this may hide the way that images really communicate (Mitchell, 1986, p.63).

Mitchell (1986) refers to this as ‘linguistic imperialism’. Therefore, students are not explicitly taught

how to analyse images but rather asked how they feel or what they recall or associate with certain

colours, positions, typography and layout. Additionally, some researchers (Elkins, 2003; Dillon, 2006;

Panofsky, 1970) argue that the term ‘visual literacy’ is ambiguous and means many things across

various academic disciplines. Elkin (2003) rejects the term visual literacy’, preferring ‘visual

competencies’ since he argues that we have become familiar to certain kinds of images in the 21st

century and may not be as successful with images such as diagrams, microscope, radar and many

older images like hieroglyphics.

The paragraph, ‘Furthermore, the role of multimodality’ is a good example of a strong

paragraph, though there are plenty of them. Here, you have more synthesis than in other

places and you confident list of ‘other researchers’ is the way to go.

Since the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 mainstream schools have been required to offer an inclusive education for students with special educational needs (SEN): ‘Schools… Should actively seek to remove the barriers to learning and participation they can hinder or exclude pupils with special educational needs’ (p.2). This legislation is supported by both the Teaching Standards 2011 and the 2015 SEN Code of Practice. My approach when dealing with pupils with barriers to learning in my classroom is to treat every pupil as an individual with individual needs: in fact that is true for the non-SEN pupils too. To me, differentiation is about understanding how individual students learn and tailoring my teaching to facilitate that. My experience in both being dyslexic and working as a teaching assistant with dyslexic students for a number of years tells me that attempting to treat two dyslexic students the same simply because they’re both dyslexic does not work. This point is emphasised by Mortimore who a swelling from 11 to over 40 definitions of dyslexia in just a few years (citing Rice and Brooks, 2008, p.50). With over 40 definitions of what dyslexia is, attempting to treat any two dyslexic pupils in the same way simply because they’re both dyslexic would be folly. I was not diagnosed with dyslexia until I got to university as a 19-year-old. I went all the way through school and further education and achieved GCSEs and A-levels with an undiagnosed learning difficulty. I was able to do this because I developed coping strategies to help me overcome my difficulties. Once I was made aware of my unconscious actions I was able to identify a number of techniques I had used throughout my education. I am a strong believer that SEN pupils need to be able to develop these coping strategies while at school because once they leave education the inclusive and supportive nature of the school environment is no longer there: ‘In the 19th [century], as the modern emphasis on qualification by examination came into being, the bad speller might find his livelihood threatened by his disability’ (Stirling quoting Scragg, 1993, p.16). Students with barriers to learning have to work harder than those without simply to keep up. I often liken this to an athlete going to altitude training – it is more difficult in the moment but when facing a competitor who has not trained at altitude you have an advantage. Students need to develop their own coping strategies as this is what gives them strength, their motivation to do this comes from not wanting to appear weak or stupid in front of their peers: ‘Most children in school are at least afraid of the mockery and contempt of their peer group as they are of their teacher’ (Holt, 1964, p.36). My view of how to treat SEN students is based in the same logic as my view of how to approach pedagogy: we must allow students to craft their own learning, there is very little point telling them the answers (Dewey and Dewey, 1915, quoted in Cope and Kalantzis, 2012, p.46). This means that I attempt structure my lessons in a way that allows pupils to both struggle and succeed in a variety of ways, not simply the lesson objectives. I believe drama is a holistic subject, and there are few better examples of this than when talking about SEN and barriers to learning. Allowing students to express themselves, their feelings and experiences in a safe and encouraging environment is a large, long-term aim of mine. Learning how to express oneself is a major factor in learning an art. Encouraging pupils to understand the feelings of others is very important, both students with barriers to learning towards those without, and vice-versa: as Brecht said “one thinks feelings and one feels thoughtfully” (Brecht, 1964, cited in Eagleton, 2006). Within a drama lesson any task will have a range of challenges for students: it may be the refinement of a specific skill, interacting in a group, saying a line on a stage or overcoming stage fright. My task as a teacher is to structure and scaffold (Vygotsky, 1978) all of these different, unseen and unrecognised (Petty, 2004, P.19) lessons so students can achieve.

Most of your paragraphs were well-blocked and it is hard to find a ‘stand-out’ but the, ‘Since the Special Education…’ one has that interjection of ‘voice’ from your experience as well as a balance of theorists. It also has places where, quite casually, you could fit in names and dates of theorists who have written on this topic as you synthesise their work.

If we take into account Bloom’s Taxonomy, using this visual scaffolding which then leads into

discussion is an effective way for teachers to encourage and challenge all student’s ideas and through

dialogic teaching, the teacher can ‘probe children’s understanding’ (Alexander, 2008, p.32) by using

higher order questioning to deepen the level of analysis through discussion. Not only does it

encourage this, but also aids and progresses the ‘cognitive thought process’ (Gershon, 2015,

p.14).This resource allows for all levels of Blooms to be accessed, even to the highest level of

Evaluation as students will begin to compare ideas and assess each other’s theories. However, there

are theories that state that ‘there is no neat set of recipes for fostering critical thinking’ (Paul, 1985,

p.2) such as Bloom’s suggests. This therefore brings about the question of why use Bloom’s if there

are alternate ways of encouraging the students to become critical. Paul argues that the use of Blooms

only guides the students to consider the ‘explicit’ (1985, p.3) instead of the ‘subconscious’ (1985, p.3)

meaning within texts and therefore the students do not attain the level of information required for it is

asking the students to achieve the impossible.

The best paragraphs was, ‘If we take into account Bloom’s…’ where you discuss the nature of

cognition with confidence, voice and theoretical support.

The Shakespearean language used in both resources raises questions of language and power. This

is because, “Historically, standard languages have been superimposed on dialects” (Milroy & Milroy,

1985, p.9) and the Early Modern English of Shakespeare’s plays is a clear example of this. Similar to

Early Modern English, Standard English is considered to be “the prestige form of English” (Thomas,

2004, p.174) in today’s society and the two are considered to be quite similar in form. Thomas points

out that the National Curriculum in England and Wales “made it a requirement that children should be

taught to speak in Standard English when appropriate” (Thomas, 2004, p.186); therefore the two

resources play an important role in teaching students the language of the elite. Standard English,

however, emerged “at the expense of other, ‘non-standard’ social dialects” (Fairclough, 1989, p.57); it

was “regarded as correct English, and other social dialects were stigmatised” because they weren’t

considered to be “correct” (Fairclough, 1989, p.57). Despite this, teachers are encouraged to support

dialects other than the standard and they should never undermine non-standard varieties (Thomas,

2004, p.186). Therefore, when teaching students this kind of Shakespearean language, it is important

that teachers value colloquial dialects and understand the difficulty students may face when accessing

this challenging language (particularly when reading or attempting to pronounce it).

I did like the part where you show an understanding of the language and power. This

paragraph which begins with the words, ‘The Shakespearean language…’ is the strongest of

the essay. Repeat this style through your essay next time and you will be getting a high mark

as it shows a range of texts, synthesises ideas and has a clarity and engagement to it that sets

it apart.

My intention for developing the resources was to apply Kyriacou’s suggestion that “changes in

student’s behaviours takes place as a result of being engaged in an educational experience” (1997,

p.22). However, the expectation that a student is ready to experience and engage in the resources on

offer, is one of the many challenges a teacher must be aware of and adapt to. Why are we to assume

that a student within a year 9 class is functioning within Piaget’s (1952) level four stage of

development? Although these stages are questionable within the classroom environment, the

resources on offer do support some of his Piaget’s theories. This can be seen as he highlights

‘maturation’ as “one of the main influences on children’s cognitive development” (2012, Muijs, p.44)

and ‘activity’, which increases the child’s “ability to act on their environment”. Therefore, while utilising

the resources, the students will actively build the explicit knowledge they require, while developing

“interaction and collaboration among [the] other learners” (Ozer, 2004.) Other current theories of

cognitive development have also had a significant impact on education. As Coleman suggests

“cognitive development is the growth of abilities and capacities from birth to old age” (2009, p.143).

Therefore, as we grow the brain develops and absorbs new information, how we absorb this

information is subject for debate. A constructivist approach within the second resource, offers

students the opportunity to develop individual meanings. Consequently, as the students “have had

different experiences… [their] individual understanding” may not be the same (Kinchin, 2007, p.35)

Therefore, the resources were subject to differentiation, which provided support to those who required

it and additional work to students who were more capable.

There is good critical dialogue – though please do read more for the next essay as it is not

always the case. You show an understanding of the limits of ideas. Your ‘voice’ is coming

through. To have a convincing one, it needs more than the imperative tone. Your reading must

be widespread enough for you to accept or deny ideas and support everything. You do it in,

‘My intention for developing…’ and elsewhere so it is just a matter of consistency. Once you

have read more, then synthesise the ideas.

The National Curriculum for Key Stage Four states that teachers are to encourage pupils to ‘develop a love of literature through widespread reading for enjoyment’ (DfE, 2013). In contrast to this the pupils I teach struggle to access British heritage literature as it is not easily accessible in terms of presentation and print. Thus the A3 worksheet provides a unique large individual space which is also a brightly coloured resource for each pupil to personalise and gather their responses, their own interpretations for the questions set around the extract from Act Three. I found that by focusing on specific extracts pupils were able to learn and understand the play as a whole. The Vygotskian perspective on learning being a co-construct between the teacher and the learner providing an interdependency to guide and facilitate learning enables a child-centred approach to take place where pupils are able to learn through a structured approach while having the flexibility to move around the questions. This freedom to select enabled pupils to begin and decide how they wanted to learn by answering a range of questions, including higher order questioning together with enabling pupils to respond to the questions using their own ideas and views. Dweck (2000, p.121) states that effort and praise is ‘highly appreciative of a child’s accomplishments’ as this enables a dialogical opportunity between the teacher and learner exploring questions on how they came to their decisions at different stages and teachers can speculate with the pupil on their responses, thus enabling Bloom’s Taxonomy to be utilised. Whereas Gray and Macblain (2012) state that Piaget’s stages of cognitive development are child-centred however they are too rigid and inflexible, underestimating children’s ability. Both Piaget and Skinner believed that children were active participants in the learning process. This is an idea that School A incorporates through a new scheme called ‘Flip Learning’ which encourages pupils to take responsibility for their learning. Pupils have to research and come prepared to lessons with some knowledge of the theme or topic being covered. This learning can take place through the use of Multimodal text. Bearne and Wolstencroft (2007, p.20) argue that ‘multimodality involves the complex interweaving of word, image, gesture, movement and sound, including speech’ which pupils are surrounded by. Thus it is ‘imperative to teach multimodality if they are to realise their potential as communicators’ in the 21st century’ (2007, p.20).

In the first lesson, rather than introducing the pupils to the text immediately I set film based research tasks. This was also to tie in with the usage of the second resource, being of the technological medium, Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) talk of a new literacy which they call Multi Modality in which we need to make a shift from relying upon previous linguistic theories to take an approach combining language-based theory, understanding of semiotics and visual theories to develop a new literacy (Goodwyn 1995). There is a fear within education, previously I have spoken about the school’s view on films in literature lessons that is voiced by Leavis and Thompson (1933), that suggest that literature as it is understood will eventually ‘die out ‘if we give way to new technologies, however the likes of Wright (2012)speak extensively on engaging and making lessons relevant to pupils in addition to Goodwyn who suggests that we use media as a ‘carrot’ and assume that the learners are the ‘donkey’ in that we show them snippets of the film in order to entice them. The objective being that the play is understood in terms of delivery, stage direction and character rather than a non-interactive text.

Learning can be seen as the ‘active process of acquiring and retaining knowledge so it can be applied in future situations’ (Sousa, 2001, p.31). Learning is a sense of developing the student's cognitive ability, ‘developing implies a sense of “coming to be” or pushing ahead toward a more “advance” way of thinking , if one is developing, then one is growing in understanding, moving forward, purposefully building on that which is already present’ (Loughran, 2006: p.3)…Tolstoy discusses teaching to be an act of transmission (Pike, 2004), knowledge may then move from the teacher to the students, ‘for it is the teacher who is in command of the learning situation and leads the lesson’ (Baumann, 1988: p.714). Transmission of knowledge does not rely on the relationship between facts and skills and it is assumed that students do not need to be active in the teaching-learning process (Baumann, 1998; Trigwell et al., 1999). Heidegger (also) constructs teaching to be more difficult and complex than it just being a transmission of knowledge. He states that ‘real teacher, in fact, lets nothing else be learned than-learning’ (Heidegger, 1968: p3). Students move away from traditional role as passive receptors, but rather start thinking about the things they are doing (Eison, 2010).

By KS4 a Shakespearian play must be picked as there is the understanding that students should be at this level. Pupils must explore ‘aspects of plot characterisation, events and settings’ (National Curriculum, 2014, p.5) in order to build empathy and ‘make an informed personal response’, (National Curriculum, 2014, p.50) then a resource must overcome Shakespeare’s ‘impenetrable mysteries’ after all he is a ‘dead white male… who is historically inaccurate, insufficiently philosophical, insular and elitist’ (Salwak, 2011).

Pupils may find the novel challenging, which may result in them trying to hide their poor reading skills, by refusing to engage, as they do not feel that they are able to succeed (Powell and Todd, 2004). Consequently, they could become despondent and reluctant readers (Blum 2004; Powell and Todd 2004) and for pupils to overcome their difficulties, they need to be supported once their needs have been assessed (Blum 2004). However, it might be argued the setting does not assess pupils reading needs on a one-to-one basis, therefore some pupils do not engage in the resource. Perhaps this is because secondary teachers have little training on how to improve reading (Dean, 2003) and regardless of the curriculum depending on pupils being able to read fluently, reading is not taught in secondary schools (Dean, 2000), which I believe is apparent within the setting.

A good lesson also needs to include kinaesthetic learning to meet the needs of all the students in the class. Therefore, I recommend that the teacher uses the two resources as part the development stage, which is then followed by the main activity of writing in the lesson. The VAK learning styles utilise parts of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence which suggests that ‘all human beings have all eight intelligences (linguistic, logical-mathematic, spatial, musical, intrapersonal, bodily-kinaesthetic, interpersonal and naturalist) […but] no two people have exactly the same profile of intelligence…because their experiences are different (Gardner, 1999). For example, the music (sound) of the heavy rain is a musical intelligence, the first chapter of Wuthering Heights is a linguistic intelligence, and the learning outcome requires the students’ interpersonal intelligence. These intelligences are considered to be important in the real world, and Gardner describes the term ‘intelligence’ as having ‘the ability to solve problems or fashion products that are of consequences in a particular culture, setting or community’ (Gardner,1993, p. 6). Gardner’s theory is useful in offering the different learning styles with intelligences focus, however, Ireson and Levinson argue that it is ‘unclear just how autonomous these intelligences are and a common view is that a likely model of intelligence is one that operates through a general underlying intelligence backed up by small number of special abilities’ (Ireson and Levinson, Learning to Teach in Secondary School, p. 238). Furthermore, I suggest that ‘emotional intelligence’ would be most appropriate in describing what is needed from the student, to achieve the learning outcome of the designed lesson. This is because as part of the student’s understanding of the mood, the student needs to be able to recognise, express and reflect their own emotional feelings towards the setting (Salovery and Mayer, 1990, p. 185). However, like Gardner’s theory, Salovery and Mayer’s theory has some complications when trying to separate what the students might feel from the mood portrayed in the setting, and what the students might feel in relation to the real world. There is no clear explanation on how to avoid mixing the two emotions together.

Gardener’s (1993) theory indicates that human intelligence cannot be measured using one framework, but that we should reconsider what we consider intelligence to be in order to devise more appropriate ways of assessing and teaching intelligence. He presents a theory that suggests that there are seven intelligences, all of which humans may or may not have. For instance, some people may have one intelligence, whereas others may have a combination of a variety of intelligences (Gardener, 1993). Using this theory, it is important to recognise that some students may learn best through watching a video than they do to reading the play, thus making it highly necessary to both teach and assess students through different means. Not only does this bring variety to the classroom itself, it also creates fairness as those students who prefer to learn in other ways have the opportunity to do so. However Gardenr’s theory is criticised. Waterhouse suggests that ‘[t]o date there have been no published studies that offer evidence of the validity of the MI’ theory (2006, p.208). She claims that brain functions are not consistent with cognitive neuroscience findings, and therefore discards

Gardener’s theory as incomplete (Waterhouse, 2006). Despite Waterhouse’s criticism, there is a lack of both critical and validating literature surrounding MI theory. It is apparent that it is difficult to use this theory to validate the use of a variety of teaching styles in the classroom as to assume that Gardener’s theory is correct would be ill-informed. Notwithstanding the lack of theory surrounding the topic, it is crucial to employ a variety of teaching methods and a range of resources in the classroom to ensure every student’s chances of success are maximised.

In regards to tone of voice and accent, the film indicated how upper class people may have spoken in society and reinforced the concept of capitalism. William Labov’s (1997, p.170) study showed that the clear articulation of postvocalic (r) in words like “fourth” and “floor” indexed a higher class. Received Pronunciation can index high education and class, which is central to the characters identity in the play. Likewise, this can also highlight the relationship between language and Ideology. Simpson (1993, p.6) portrays that “dominant ideologies have become ingrained in every day discourse” and have become a process of naturalisation. In regards to this assignment, Received Pronunciation within the film links to language used in the original text, which maintains and reinforce this dominant ideology of the Birling family who are Upper class and successful. This raises the question Does the government want a return to Received Pronunciation? Mitler (2010, p.235) cites that Cox argues that the insistence on speaking Standard English in Received pronunciation, and the construction of a canon of great literature are all part of the traditionalist populism. He sees this populism as the ideological heart of the Tories. This can also be exemplified in the new GCSE curriculum whereby it states that pupils should be “taught to control their speaking and writing consciously and use standard Standard English confidently in a range of formal and informal contexts, including classroom discussion (Department for Education 2013).

It might be questioned the purpose of learning is. In my view current educational practice can be seen as an ‘exam machine’ and the process that could be called ‘examification’ of education has resulted in most children failing (Holt, 1964). Since 2007 various studies and reports have concluded that our education system based on examinations league tables is not fit for purpose and that some schools focus more time on ‘borderline’ pupils than is equal or fair to others (Ali citing Baker 2015; Cambridge Assessment, 2011; CBI, 2015; Gurney-Reid citing Seldon 2015; Lipsett citing Boston 2007; NUT, n.d). It could be argued that this return to traditional methods of teaching is a reflection of the government’s ideology of accountability (Stewart citing Bassett, 2014: Vaughn citing Sahlburg 2014): teachers are held to account for their pupils grades and therefore narrow the curriculum so only teach what is in examinations. The process of teaching to an exam criteria is the traditional pedagogy in which pupils taught through rote, repetition, copying and testing. However as Holt writes: ‘by encouraging and compelling them to work [for] petty and contemptible rewards… We encourage them to feel that the end and aim all they do in school is nothing more to get a good mark in a test’ (Holt, 1964, p.168), the current system does not encourage pupils to learn to love learning. Due to accountability and league tables, pupils at the school I currently work in a school in which pupils at will sit exams after just one year of studying a subject. This is done to maximise the number of qualifications pupils get over a three-year Key Stage four. Pupils enter the exam machine not to develop independent learning skills, critical thinking skills or skills of the workplace – the very things the above reports call for. An alternative to this traditional pedagogy would be a progressivist approach in which pupils are able to explore topics for themselves. As Dewey wrote ‘textbooks and lectures give the result of other men’s discoveries, and thus seem to provide a shortcut to knowledge; but the outcome is just as meaningless reflecting back symbols with no understanding the facts themselves’ (quoted by Cope and Kalantzis, 2012, p.46). This progressivist approach would still allow examinations to be the destination of the teaching however the journey would be different. A possible reason why teachers may be reluctant to take on this progressivist approach is that because of accountability teachers retreat to what they know is successful in regards to passing exams. However, I do not believe that ‘petty and contemptible rewards’ (Holt, 1964, p.168) should be the end goal of education, I am more interested in encouraging pupils to think critically about the world around them and their place in it. I agree with Thompson when she suggests that pupils should not conform to the current system simply because previous generations’ logic suggests they should, rather they should deal critically in

transforming their world (Jane Thompson, 1999, cited in Mayo, cited in Owens 2013). Our job as teachers and educators is to structure this learning in such a way to make it relevant to students’ understanding and experiences. I agree with Freire when he would describe my role as a teacher as being ‘passive’ and part of the ‘status quo’ (Freire, 2006, p.139) in regard to my subjugation of the oppressed. I wilfully teach pupils the relevant information to pass their course through what I perceive to be the best possible manner: exploration of the subject, allowing pupils to construct understanding and the acquisition of knowledge in order to change their behaviour (Prichard, 2005). I teach pupils from a position of relative power, authority and influence; I possess a middle-class background and a university degree. Although I do wilfully attempt to forget the thousands of pounds of debt I have been ‘saddled’ with for the right to teach and further subjugate - the irony of which is not lost on me, perhaps I too am one of the oppressed.

The resource also allows for exploratory talk within the classroom to take place. By doing this the teaching becomes child centred and is concerned with the student’s voice and evaluative judgements as opposed to carrying out the traditional whole class discussion (Wegerif and Mercer, 1997) which can hinder progress. Rogoff argues that Vygotsky’s idea of pairing children with ‘more skilled partners’ (Barbara Rogoff, cited in Patricia Murphy, 2000, p.69) for example the teacher, does not always foster ‘children’s individual learning and development’ (Barbara Rogoff, cited in Patricia Murphy, 2000, p.69). Therefore, it is more likely that in small working groups, a larger fraction of the class will become actively involved with the discussion taking place and a more ‘symmetrical talk’ (Mercer, Hodgkinson, 2008, p.55) that allows for equal status will resume. This encourages Behavioural Conditioning to take place as the original response to the stimulus is being reinforced through the discussion (Mujis, Reynolds, 2011, p.21) but at the pace of the student. It is the learner who brings new ideas to the classroom and who ‘actively constructs’ (Mercer, Hodgkinson, 2008, p.3) their way of understanding therefore challenging and changing their current schemas (Piaget cited in Mercer, Hodgkinson, 2008, p.3) for the minimal basis of learning comes from something the students will already know and then build upon.

One of the chosen resources requires reading, and therefore, it would be useful to look at how learning the English language and creating meaning happens. Piaget’s cognitivist constructivist theory looks at how the language is being obtained at the different stages of age with some of the support provided, in which the student’s cognitive abilities increase with age (Baumann, Bloomfield, and Roughton, 1997, pp. 43-4). Piaget’s theory is useful in assessing the child’s development in learning the English language, however, it fails to address what stage an EAL or s SEN child might be at. Ireson and Levinson state that ‘Evidence has accumulated to suggest that a lack of stimulation in early childhood limits the capacity of children to benefit from school and other learning situations’ (Ireson and Levinson, 2013, p. 245). I disagree with the statement made by Ireson and Levinson’s, as many schools in the UK today, spend a percentage of the financial funding on accommodating students with learning difficulties or who might be disadvantaged in learning. Recently, the government has introduced ‘a number of important changed to how local authorities distribute funding to schools’ with around 90% of the schools’ funding based on the needs of pupils who are SEN, EAL, deprived and looked after children, compared to the 71% in 2012-13 (Fairer schools funding, 2014,). Therefore, the schools are receiving a funding to produce the right support for students who have had ‘a lack of stimulation at early childhood’, and offer the students the additional support to pass the GCSEs. Saussure argues that ‘language is a system of signs’ that express ideas (Holdcroft, 1991, p. 47). Some students are able to understand the sign that signifies a signifier, for example, in Wuthering Heights, ‘stormy’ signifies thunder, lightning, dark clouds, wind and pelting rain (Brontë, 1847, p. 2). However, some students might not be able to see this sign when reading because the students might not be able to think in this way.

The learning objective for the next lesson required students to analyse how the author uses language to create imagery. This was derived from the National Curriculum which requires students to “recognise a range of poetic conventions and understand how they are being used” (DfE, 2014). The

pupils were advised to explore the recognition of, and the meanings of words. They analysed the structure of the text which in turn aided their understanding of the poem. This follows Roger Beard’s taxonomy of reading adopting the ‘bottom up approach’, where starting from the smallest aspects of reading students “will deploy the skills, with the idea of finding pleasure in the act of reading, at the top of the hierarchy.”(Naylor, A and Wood A. 2012, p, 37) Therefore, exploiting whole- text and word - level work the students are using different strategies to interact with the texts. There is of course the worry that depicting words and analysing structure may actually have the adverse effect on the student. Pupils may never reach the top of the Beard’s taxonomy as they are approaching the text in a traditional manner. This approach which deconstructs the poem may disengage the student and the pleasure of reading is replaced with an examination process. However, while exploring the poem I wanted the pupils to also connect with the text in an aesthetic way. As Rosenblatt suggests, “in aesthetic reading the reader’s attention is centred directly on what he is living through during his relationship with that text (1978, p.25). Therefore, the students engage with the text on a more personal level allowing them a “gateway to personal development”. (Holden, 2004,). This is only possible if the pupils are given the freedom to express their own interpretations of the poem and as Kohl (1969) suggests (cited in, 1972, p.414) the “teacher accepts the ideals and ideas of children” within the class.

Therefore the only good kind of instruction is that which marches ahead of development and leads it’ (Vygotsky, 1986, p.188). The use of both resources are an aspect of support in which they are to learn themselves. In contrast, Jean Piaget ‘believed that children learned through action and that learning was thus a process of discovery in which children could not progress to higher levels until they were ready’ (Myhill et all, 2006, p.8). This process is valid as through the action of written and spoken word we are able to identify the levels in which students are learning at. However, without the value of instruction, a student could convey an action which does not meet the outcome of your lesson nor scheme of work. What is the point of actions if students do not understand the subject of which they are writing? Dewey and Dewey (1915) support this by illustrating that ‘textbooks and lectures give the result of other men’s discoveries, and thus seem to provide a short cut to knowledge; but the outcome is just a meaningless reflecting back of symbols with no understanding of the facts themselves’ (Cope and Kalantzis, 2012, p.48). Therefore, both aspects of these theories highlight their significant within schools, they interlink in assisting students within their learning, as my resources try to do.

Dweck (2000, p.121) states that effort and praise is ‘highly appreciative of a child’s accomplishments’ as this enables a dialogical opportunity between the teacher and learner exploring questions on how they came to their decisions at different stages and teachers can speculate with the pupil on their responses, thus enabling Bloom’s Taxonomy to be utilised. Whereas Gray and Macblain (2012) state that Piaget’s stages of cognitive development are child-centred however they are too rigid and inflexible, underestimating children’s ability. Both Piaget and Skinner believed that children were active participants in the learning process. This is an idea that School A incorporates through a new scheme called ‘Flip Learning’ which encourages pupils to take responsibility for their learning. Pupils have to research and come prepared to lessons with some knowledge of the theme or topic being covered. This learning can take place through the use of Multimodal text. Bearne and Wolstencroft (2007, p.20) argue that ‘multimodality involves the complex interweaving of word, image, gesture, movement and sound, including speech’ which pupils are surrounded by. Thus it is ‘imperative to teach multimodality if they are to realise their potential as communicators’ in the 21st century’ (2007, p.20).

I believe having a creative flair opens up students chances to adapt their revision techniques and improve analysis. Creativity is a process something that all students are capable of it takes time to understand the importance. Mayer’s multi-media approach ‘people learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone’ (Mayer, 2001, p.47) with students’ being able to follow the lyrics and hear the dialogue, knowledge is being ascertained through multiple modes of resources. Having a low ability set I found handouts have proven to support, not hinder learning, especially students with

Moderate learning difficulties (Raymond, 2012, p.63). Incorporating both visual and audio resources, two different aspects are on offer for any one child to expand on their learning. Different modes of learning automatically differentiate lessons making them accessible for every student in the room in line with Sweller’s cognitive load theory; an important thing to remember is the working memory is distributed over two independent processors. (Sweller et al., 1998). When studying at Key Stage 4 you have to be able to instantly recall quotes for exams to aid your analysis. Varying ways to revise and adapting resources allows individuals to find the perfect way to revise for them in accordance to this theory. Teaching in segments with the use of the CD may overload their minds (Sweller (1999) however, Mayer and Moreno (1998) believe after research that students understand a multimedia explanation when in learner- controlled segments rather than continuous presentation. I agree with Mayer’s outlook, segmenting the text into smaller extracts allows the students to focus on what I have requested through small differentiated tasks. A focus of my pedagogy is to enable all of students can access the tasks and have equal opportunities to achieve at English Literature.

Learning should be the overall predicate for which teaching takes place (Russell, 1916; OFSTED, 2010) Cosgrove shows the dichotomous nature of ‘teaching and learning’ when he writes ‘(pupils) are there (in school) to learn things, not to be taught things’ (1995, p. 81). While it might be argued that this seems to be at odds with the curriculum, he makes a holistic point when it comes to pedagogy and education – why are teachers in schools if not to facilitate learning? And is it solely teaching that generates learning, or is it a combination of factors that engender a modal style of data retention and application amongst pupils?