Better is possible.

It does not take

genius. It takes
diligence. It takes
moral clarity. It
takes ingenuity.
And above all, it
takes a willingness
to try.
- Atul Gawande
 The process of
completing the Inquiry
is the objective, rather
than whether or not
the intervention is
successful...
 What is my inquiry question?

What student cohort have I identified for the intervention and why?

What Pre and Post tests will give me the best results?

What control factors will best ensure that my inquiry is disciplined?

What are the limitations and obstacles that affect my inquiry?

What are the results of my inquiry and how generalisable are they?
 Treatment-Control-All

Treatment group: 11 students

Control group: 4 students
All: 232 students
Opportunity Cost
The students did not look on track to do well in their
MFL GCSEs. The vast majority were heading for a
grade G or U. We planned the intervention through
the MFL and English departments and wanted to
know whether, in terms of their English Language
examination results and consequently their life
chances, the students would benefit from the
intervention over continuing with their MFL GCSE.
My Inquiry Question

How does a twenty-five lesson

programme of intensive training on
writing using the principles of
metacognition impact upon a small
group of low starting Year 11 GCSE
students performance in the writing
questions in the English Language
GCSE?
 We need to model
explicitly the mental
processes involved in
learning which we, as
teachers, can often take
for granted.
Step-by-step guide to Paper 1, Question 5
Underline the key word in the question;
Split the picture into four quarters;
Make three bullet-point observations per
quarter;
Choose your favourite nine or ten bullet-point
observations and put them in a logical order;
Write nine or ten paragraphs following these
rules:
One observation from the picture per paragraph;
Three or four sentences per paragraph;
A maximum of twenty words per sentence;
Include the key word in each paragraph where you
can.
Step-by-step guide to Paper 2, Question 5

Underline the key words in the question;

Identify Form, Audience and Purpose;
Decide whether to agree or disagree;
Mind map your ideas, choose six or seven
detailed points and put them in a logical order;
Write your 6/7 paragraphs following these
rules:
One point per paragraph;
Four or five sentences per paragraph;
A maximum of twenty words per sentence;
Include the key word in each paragraph where you
can;
Begin paragraphs 2-6/7 with a Janus-faced sentence.
Moorland sizzled with
the sound of crickets
clicking and birds
whistling
 What is my inquiry question?

What student cohort have I identified for the intervention and why?

What Pre and Post tests will give me the best results?

What control factors will best ensure that my inquiry is disciplined?

What are the limitations and obstacles that affect my inquiry?

What are the results of my inquiry and how generalisable are they?
Evaluation 1
Treatment Group Control Group
Jan 2017 vs June actual Jan 2017 vs June actual
11 students 4 students
An average of 0.55 of An average of 1 grade
grade improvement per improvement per
student student

Conclusion: the intervention may have had a

negative impact on improving students
outcomes as the Control group improved by
0.45 of a grade more than the Intervention
group between January and June.
 ENGLISH LANGUAGE GCSE
PAPER 1 2017

22.48
19.48
17.75
15.5
14.18
1st 40
marks
10.45

2nd 40
marks

Intervention Control All students

 23.16

22.84
17.25
14.45
14.00

13.75
1st 40
marks

2nd 40
marks

Intervention Control All students

 Difference between 2nd 80 (2 x 40)
marks and 1st 80 (2 x 40) marks
5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00

Intervention Control All students

Evaluation 2
Treatment Group Control Group
Intervention vs non- Intervention vs non-
intervention intervention
halves of the exam papers halves of the exam papers

11 students
An average of 4.18 (5.2%) marks
better on the 2nd intervention
half of the papers vs the 1st non-
intervention half of the papers.
4 students
An average of -1.25 (1.6%) marks
worse on the 2nd intervention
half of the papers vs the 1st non-
intervention half of the papers.

All students
An average of 2.68 (3.4%) marks better on the 2nd intervention half of the
papers vs the 1st non-intervention half of the papers.

Conclusion: the intervention may have had a

positive impact on improving students
outcomes in the treatment group compared to
the control group and All Students.
Questions

Would that impact have happened

anyway?
Is it possible to separate my contribution
from the class teachers contributions?
Were the successful writers already
successful writers before they experienced
the intervention?
Is the data valid?
Is analysis (1st 80 marks) vs writing (2nd 80
marks) comparing apples and pears?
Are the size of the cohorts 11 (I) vs 4 (C) vs
229 (AS) meaningful?
Opportunity Cost
The students did not look on track to do well in their
MFL GCSEs. The vast majority were heading for a
grade G or U. We planned the intervention through
the MFL and English departments and wanted to
know whether, in terms of their English Language
examination results and consequently their life
chances, the students would benefit from the
intervention over continuing with their MFL GCSE.
My Inquiry Question

How does a twenty-five lesson

programme of intensive training on
writing using the principles of
metacognition impact upon a small
group of low starting Year 11 GCSE
students performance in the writing
questions in the English Language
GCSE?