Monday 8 October 2018

Scripting lessons – surely not?


Scripting lessons – surely not? 

https://www.tes.com/news/tes-magazine/tes-magazine/gripped-script

These are some thoughts that have been swilling around after reading the TES article by @EnserMark, published on 31 August 2018 (I know, I know…) and after @dylanwiliam suggested I was dismissing scripted lessons without due consideration on Twitter a short while before that. 

In his TES piece Mark talks of his lessons being different in that they are scripted. He quotes @bennewmark saying that the preparation of explanations was now taking up most of his planning time. 
I have always understood ‘scripted lessons’ to mean reading from an ‘approved’ script. This is not teaching. Mark’s TES article made me revisit what ‘scripted lessons’ might be.

I realise I am writing with my primary and early years hat on and that both Mark and Ben (and Dylan) are secondary colleagues. But I am interested in exploring Mark’s interpretation of ‘scripting’ lessons and how that might (or might not) apply to the mathematics sessions I teach in early years and primary classrooms.

Here is my conjecture; that effective early years and primary teachers, in the sense Mark writes, do script their lessons. What follows are my reflections on the process I go through when planning a maths session.

Firstly, after deciding the focus, I have to think through the sequence and possible trajectories of a fragment of learning; the “foreseen possibilities” to quote Marion Bird (1991). I have to think about how this links to other learning, and prepare how to make this accessible for all participants (“What will Esme do?” What resources / images do I require?” “How will I actually start?” “What will I say first?” “Then what?”) 
Mark focuses his article on scripting explanations, and I see this as analogous to my thinking through the start of a session. What I say and do here, in those first moments, I have found to be critical; after that, I need to plan likely interactions with the children. The questions I am going to ask and when, the times to wait, the times to sum up… 
I make sure I plan the moments I am notgoing to speak, by highlighting in my notebook the thing I say beforeI stay quiet. These are key moments for me; key in shifting who does the mathematics from myself to the pupils. 
I think through how I might respond to an off-the-wall child response: “Can you say a little more about that?” “Who can see what Sam is saying and can say it in their own words?” 
In particular, I think about how I respond to ‘correct’ answers, because I know a lazy response to a ‘correct’ answer  - “Yes, well done Rafael” - can shut down everyone else’s. 

I have worked with teachers where we have developed sessions by justplanning the things we are going to say. These have been illuminating and have made us better prepared in other teaching sessions. 

Mark talks of the anxiety he felt of starting an explanation that he didn’t know how to finish. I recognise this; for me it was the anxiety of dealing with what I considered an off-the-wall response. A critical moment for me took place a while ago, in a Y1 class, with a bucket of 3 colours of interlocking cubes. I asked the children to “See how many different pairs you can make”, and turned to work with another small group. When I turned back there were indeed constructions, but none I recognised as pairs. At a loss, I asked what they had been working on: “Well, I made pears and he made bananas and over there is an orange”.
I now recognise such responses are only off my wall, and time beforehand thinking what might be heard and what I might hear; rehearsing the session, if you like; prepared me better for moments I don’t see how what is said connects with what I am thinking: “Let me just write what you said up here, Alice, for now, so we don’t forget to think about this later”, “Ah! I think you are seeing 6s here, is that right or wrong, Aarav?”

A lot of this ‘planning’ is done in the car, or walking the dog, or ironing, or in front of the TV (but not exactly watching it). I don’t know about anyone else, but I have always found it impossible to do this sort of thinking in school-based PPA time; in-school PPA is the time I used for sorting, organising, outline planning, researching. The sort of planning I refer to here requires previous head-space and quiet. When I have had that, I can write it down quite quickly (5 minute lesson plan style).

And this sort of scripting, to my mind, is what the craft of teaching is all about. 


Reference:
Bird, M. (1991) Mathematics for Young Children. An active thinking approach. London: Routledge

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mathematics-Young-Children-Thinking-Approach/dp/0415059518/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1538751938&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3AMarion+Bird 

No comments:

Post a Comment