Professional Enquiry Final

ProfessionalEnquiry2– 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
ConductingtheEnquiry
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 ownworld-
knowledge when analysing the implications of language, as wellas evaluating the emotional outcomes, or
consequences of a text (Bowyer-Craneand Snowling 2005). A reader’s capacity to make inferences relies on
general literacy (Gathercole2004), prior-knowledge (Cain et al 2001), vocabulary (Cromely and Azavado
2007), and the capacity of their workingmemory (Calvo 2004).
To create a control group for the enquiry, I selected pupils to reflect an average range forthe 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 tookthe assessment data
along withqualitative interview and questionnaire data and used it to analyse the outcomes of the enquiry.
I selected the pupils for the controlgroup 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 reflectiveof wholeschool 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 forrelevant subject areas (art, science, religious education and drama)
for each pupil within the controlgroup. 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 offereda 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 coveredthe topic of adaption and
evolution, religious education (RE) coveredthe topic of creation, art coveredthe topic of facialexpression 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 foreach 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-curricularplanning 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. Forexample 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 forthe 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 whichmight contribute to their understanding of some of the themes within the extract by
giving them appropriate terminology and keywordson the board. I did this to enable pupils to make the link

between 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 toomuch 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 whichwould 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 keywordfrom 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 withthe question ‘How is the language
of the text scary?’. The group had some previous experience of annotating text, howeverit 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(OFSTED2012), and helping pupils articulate their link between language and
religious ideas (forexample) 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 conductpupil interviews and questionnaires. I drafted
the questions forthe interviews as the enquiry progressed – the content of the questions was shaped by how I
saw the enquiry developing, and whichareas of it would need to be investigated further. I worded these
prompts and questions in accordance withthe 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 withyoung people – were used from Blaxter, Hughes and Tight (2010) meant I wouldbe absent to avoid
my influence on responses, and the interviews were recorded digitally on a school-owneddevice. Pupils
responded to this task in a mature fashion, using the question prompts appropriately and taking it in turns to
give responses whichgave 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 wouldhave compromised my role as researcher too
much.
Finally, I provided each member of staff in the department witha copy of the mark scheme forinference
(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 tworesponses each from the control group, and provide
summative justification fora mark from the mark scheme. I got other staff to assess the work of the control
group to avoidany 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 effectivenessof the enquiry on the
pupil’s ability to make accurateinferences (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 feltthis could introduce bias
in my research due to my role as teacher – staff justified their marking withsummative comments as I
requested, and gave a final assessment grade whichis listed in the next chapter.

My practices during the enquiry were ethical, consistent with the guidance of the British Educational Research
Association’s EthicalGuidelines forEducational Research (BERA2011) 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 fromthe controlgroup 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 withqualitative 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 wouldhave liked more time forteachers of
other class subject to integrate preparation for the English assessment within their lessons. Within this time,
there wouldhave been more opportunity for dialogue between teachers of different subject areas, better
subject knowledge and perhaps better, more informed cross-curricularteaching. This might have had a more
profound impact on the pupils’ ability to make cross-curricular inferences; learning relevant to the
Frankenstien text fromareas in other subjects may become more embedded overtime, 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 forthe controlgroup.

Section7
In order to present the findings from the enquiry, I willbe 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 followingthe assessment:
I will give a brief explanation of the component data in Figure 1. The second column (PP stands forpupil
premium – these are pupils who qualify for extra funding from the government due tofactors effectingtheir
family’s financial status. The ‘SEN’ (Special Educational Needs) column clarifies the levelof need fora 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, whichis 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 whichrecords a pupil’s reading level across a range of disciplines within reading (forexample
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 twosub-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 fortheir response to the enquiry assessment.
What is clear fromthis set of attainment data is that all pupils in the controlgroup had made improvements
between their end of year assessment and their post-enquiry score. One pupil (3) made one unit of progress,
twopupils (7 and 8) made twosublevels 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 twoattainment levels does not give an entirely accurate barometer
of success. Comparisons withthe 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 twomonths before the beginning of this enquiry. This gives the enquiry data the context of a
controlgroup that werealreadyon a trend of improvement, but still had made further improvements during
the enquiry. The next thing to identify is whichpupils benefited most from the enquiry:
Figure 1 - Assessment records of enquiry control group

Figure2 - Pupil progressresultsfromenquiry
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 twoassessment points. As noted on Figure 1, this
pupil’s workwas scribed by a Teaching Assistant whowas briefed about the enquiry. I asked her to be wary of
her ownresponses to the text and not to infer on behalf of the pupil when guiding them to their own syllogistic
completions. The workitself (Appendix 2.1) shows one annotation – noted by the assessor – as being
significantly more sophisticated than the others. It is difficultto 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 workwas 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 twosublevels 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 forthe end of year 7 total (column9, fig 1). This could have
significant implications for a pupil within school – rapid progress, if sustained, couldmean 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.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UnitsofProgress
Pupil Progress - Inference Enquiry
School Action
School Action Plus
English as Another Language
Statement
Underachieving Pupil
Overachieveing Pupil
White British Boy

In 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-curricularlearning, forexample, ‘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.
Figure 3
When we consider that a ‘successful cross-curricular inference’ is an accurateobservation 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 effectivenessof 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 controlgroup – this appears to contradictthe finding of a cross-
curricular approach facilitating rapid progress, especially for pupils with SEN, found in the previous paragraph
(Figure 2). Accordingly, wemight 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 couldhave
been the focussed nature of the lesson, forexample. Toinvestigate this theory further, I measured the quantity
of cross-curricular inferences as a percentage of the total score in the chart below:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NumberofInferences
Successful Cross-Curricular Inferences
School Action
School Action Plus
Statement
White British Boy

Figure 4
Here wecan see how many of the pupils’ inferences were generated from cross-curricularprior-knowledge as a
percentage. For example, pupil 1 (SchoolAction) 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 couldsuggest that cross-curricular planning allowspupils to make betterquality 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. Withall candidates responses including at least half of
their response generated from the cross-curricularoutput, 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, followedby a summary of pupil’s comments in
response to each question:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percentageofmarksgained
throughcross-curricularinput
Cross-curricular inferences as a percentage
of total
School Action
School Action Plus
Statement
White British Boy

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 fiveresponses, 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-curricularframework; ‘yes, I found it easier’, ‘it was
much better to understand’, ‘Yes (it was)a lot more easier’, and ‘yes it was quite easy’.
Figure 6
In response to the second question ‘Did youfind 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 wewent over it’, suggesting that re-activating prior
knowledge as part of the English lesson was an important part of the process.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Yes No
Did you find the Frankenstein text easier
to understand after the work you have
done in other subjects?
Number of Pupils
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Yes No
Did you find it easy to make links
between Art, RE, Science, Drama and
the Frankenstein text
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. Tothe first
question, ‘Did you find the Frankenstein text easier to understand after the workyou have done in other
subjects?’ responses suggested that the cross-curricular approach ‘makes us go into depth (about body
proportions, forexample)’, ‘you understand more because after the art lesson (welooked 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’. Tothe second question, the main responses included ‘it is fun
and lets us be creative with our answers to the text’, and ‘if youhave done it in Drama, if youknow how to act
out, and youshow emotions on your face,then when youare writing it, it willhelp youdescribe 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 formof new vocabulary. There is further evidence forthis 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 collectedfrom 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 controlgroup 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 effectivelearning strategy forthe
teaching of inferences – the findings from the pupils response to the Frankenstein text suggest pupils are
piecing twoor 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 fromthe assessment data, the
interviews and questionnaires link to suggest that the enquiry may have found a proficientapproach forthe
teaching of inference. This is perhaps best read in the sense of fulfilment that is conveyedby 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 affordedby a demanding process is not
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Yes No
Is it helpful to have things learned in
other subjects linked to English?
Series1

surprising 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 worthof expected progress during the enquiry.

Section8
I will now attempt to assess what the academic literature suggests about issues identified with the findings of
the enquiry.
It seems that cross –curricularpedagogy 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 workyou have
done in other subjects?’ Twocomments that stood out were that the cross-curricular aspect of the reading
‘makes us go into depth (about body proportions, for example)’, whichhelps 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 (youlearn 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 whichis 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 wellinformed 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 forthe pupils.
Although wemay 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 discoveredin 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 workingmemories
(Calvo2004). From this questionnaire, it seems that pupils in my schoolsetting are more used to (and
comfortablewith) 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 lowestwhen
compared to similar schools (OFSTED2014), whereas Cowles (2011) has foundevidence that a cross-
curricular approach facilitates independence and higher levels of attainment in reading comprehension at 11th
grade in schoolsin 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 crucialhere 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 witha cross-
curricular approach.

The relevance of the high levels of progress seen here is better viewedin the context of the Department for
Education’s expected progress measures forpupils 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 tooktheir 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 wouldof course benefit pupils
but also the learning community of the school whichrequires improvement. As mentioned previously,on-line
inference (or during a controlled assessment) is demanding on workingmemory (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 efficientthe 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 whichis demanding on
their workingmemory. 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 conceptualand
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 functionallevel of literacy,differences in the quality of
their written language workreflect variation in intellectual skills affecting analysis and interpretation rather
than literacy per se.”
The idea that working memory’s capacity forcomprehending texts can be developed through constructivist
processes is made by van den Broek (2005), whoargues that memory based and constructivist pedagogy (such
as a cross-curricular frameworkforcomprehension – 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-curricularapproaches 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 wouldhave to be spent improving working memory, basic literacy and concentrating the ‘intellectual skills
effectinganalysis 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 wouldtake 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 cognitiveprocess on pupils, but ultimately one whichcould 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 youngperson’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 actout, and you show emotions on
your face,then when youare writing it, it willhelp youdescribe 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 withwhich to understand and showcomprehensionofachallenging text. In the literature
review we find weaker readers would not – unlike stronger readers – spend time decoding (or evaluating) the
‘inconsistencies’ (oxymorons, juxtapositions, conflictsect) in more challenging texts whichprovide inferential
opportunities (Oakhill,Hartt and Samols (1996). When we consider the reading ages of the controlgroup
(average 8.6 years, Figure 1), we can see we are workingwith exactly these kind of weaker readers – certainly
not the kind of readers whowould find inconsistencies in words ‘fun’, or their responses ‘creative’ as one
student responded. However, cross-curricularplanning clearly gives them the vocabulary and the conceptsto
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), whosuggested
inconsistencies in texts are explored by good readers as part of gaining an amplified understanding, whereas
poorer readers acceptinconsistencies like this as normal in a world they perceiveto 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 forSEN (OFSTED2014 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.

Section9
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 (Calvo2004) 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 wellas 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 whichtheir knowledgeis 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, withthe 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 fromwhat 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 workingmemory
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 clarificationwith 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 willbe as successful in strict examination conditions.
While this did not achievethe exact aims I set out toachieve, it helps us to understand that cross-curricular
framing of reading activities could be beneficial to developing pupils working memory forliteracy purposes
(Gathercole 2004) if embedded across the KS2, KS3 and KS4 curriculum – wecan only speculate on KS4
attainment outcomes at this stage. The aim for the KS4 assessments wouldbe that pupils could bring their own
prior learning in other subject areas to the reading of the text withoutprompting fromthe 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’ (OCR2012) of its
meaning in accordancewith assessment criteria forKS4 examination assessment. Only then would this kind
of pedagogy be described as helping pupils make accurate‘on-line’ inferences that could reflectwhat might be
achieved in the context of a KS4 examination.
Therefore, we need toanalyse the findings of the quantitative assessment data from the enquiry, and ask if they
do indeed signify potential forsustained 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 (whichwas based on a narrative text) imply
that a KS4 course whose narrative reading contentoutnumbers expository content by 3 to 1 suggest how
important inference is as a reading skill which results in academic attainment overa GCSE English course
(Edexcel2014); the data implied more rapid rates of progress were achieved (especially in pupils withSEN),
and therefore approaches used in the enquiry couldin theory increase attainment levels at KS4 if implemented
appropriately. Evidenceforthe 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 practiceimproved less skilled comprehenders performance by 20 months and
average skilled readers by 10 months on the standardized Neale Analysis of Reading Ability Tests.

As wellas improved academic attainment levels, there is evidence to suggest that a pupil’s academic skill set –
their workingmemory 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 confuselearners and ‘corrupt the
sanctity of subject divisions’ (p1), as wellas providing logistical difficultiesfor timetables and teachers. While I
sympathise with the latter claims here from my ownexperience of coordinating cross-curricularplanning, 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 (Gathercoleand Pickering 2000)
(Cowles 2011). Therefore, the compound effectof cross-curricularpedagogy could help pupils develop their
academic performance in any other areas related to language comprehension and reasoning (Baddeley 1992).
As wellas 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) whofound 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 wholeschool community going
forward:these subjects withhigh demands on workingmemory include humanities, science, modern foreign
languages and others, subjects whichcomprise of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc)(DfE2014) whichis 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 (Gove2012) .
Therefore, a cross-curricular approach to reading is important in this context, as the development of learning
strategies to improve workingmemory and quickly accessed prior knowledge, vocabulary and resilience are
paramount academic skills schools can (Cowles2011) and should be developing given these moves by the DfE
to try and negate ‘bite-size learning and spoon feeding’ in favourof ‘academic rigor’ (Gove2012).
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-moralcognitive development wouldbe affectedthrough 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 couldimpinge 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 conflictswithin their ownlives, 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 schoolcurriculum
could fully mediate the path between aspiration and academic resilience – though worksuch 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
context (OFSTED2014). Furthermore, both the academic skills and holistic benefits discovered in this enquiry
could lead to a very important implication in my schoolsetting; set in the most socially deprived national
quintile (OFSTED2014), pupils from similar socio-economic settings facegrowing up in a nation with the
worst record forsocial mobility amongst OECDnations (Francis and Wong 2013) and as wellas this, Unicef
have found British children to be living withthe least sense of well-being in the economically advanced nations
(UNICEF2007). 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 comewith cross-curricular
collaboration couldhave a significantly positive impact on the opportunities forsocial mobility and general
happiness and wellbeing for pupils in my school.

Section10
Conclusion
After implementing a cross-curricular frameworkfor a small controlgroup 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, witha limited number of participants – the sample size was limited and so further
research witha bigger sample should be conducted to affirmthe validity of the approaches in the enquiry.
Findings showed that the cross-curricular frameworkhelped all students make academic progress, withall of
them achieving a higher score than their most recent reading score. Pupils withSpecial Educational Needs
seemed to benefit particularly from the cross-curricularframework.The findings suggested that pupil’s re-
integrated vocabulary and prior-knowledge learned in other subject areas whichallowed 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 discoverif the benefits from specifically targeting inference as a skill
could have significant ramifications for pupil attainment and the development of the wholeschool 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 workingmemory capacity.Although this is a
demanding pedagogical approach forpupils, there are many potential benefits to developing workingmemory,
particularly as pupils pass through Key Stage 3. Additional research into pedagogy which develops working
memory and inference across the curriculum is necessary when weconsider that the use of working memory
and inference is a cognitiveskill whichis not exclusive to English. Other subjects whichare 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 cometo replace GCSE’s as an end of KS4 subject
measure; it is highly important that schoolswho have previously focusedon previous performance measures
(such as 5 *A-C including English and Maths) address this more academic performance measure, and the
enquiry suggests a cross-curricularapproach could facilitate this successfully.
There are also more holistic implications fora cross-curricularapproach toreading 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 whichwill prepare pupils for the challenges of post-16 life in Britain. From conducting the enquiry
it is evident that executing a cross-curricularplan 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
areas could be targets based on assessment data fromprevious years (the Year 8 second half term study of the
novel, forinstance) 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 effectsof a cross-curricularinput on reading comprehension
– in order to make stronger affirmations of the effectivenessof the enquiry’s approach, Iintend 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-curricularapproach, a three step follow up
procedure can be followed:after sharing the results withmy 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;
followingthis cross-curricularplanning 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, withthe goal that at least,
English teachers should know that a cross-curricular approach can help improve attainment outcomes with
classes whichmight 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 forother 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, fromany subject area, can have some positive effecton a pupil’s ability to
comprehend, and therefore it wouldnot be professional of me not to pursue it.

ReferenceList
Ashley-Cooper,M (2013).ProfessionalEnquiry1.MMU.Unpublished.
Baddely,A. (1992).Working memory Science 31 January1992:255 (5044), 556-559.
[DOI:10.1126/science.1736359]
Barnes,M.A., Dennis,M.and Haefele-Kalvaitis,J.(1996).'Theeffects of knowledge availabilityand
knowledgeaccessibilityoncoherenceandelaborativeinferencingin childrenfrom six to fifteen years of age',
Journalof ExperimentalChildPsychology,61,3,216-241.
Bell,Judith. (2010).,DoingYourResearchProject. [online]. Open University Press. Available
from:<http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=302868>5June 2014
BlaxterL, HughesC andTightM (2010) Howto Research.Publisher: Open University Press Published: Jan 1,
2010
Bowyer-Crane,C.andSnowling,M.J.(2005). 'Assessing children's inference generation: What do tests of
reading comprehension measure?', British Journal of EducationalPsychology,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). ‘Readingcomprehensiondifficulties.’In:Nunes, T. and Bryant,P. (Eds)
HandbookofChildren’sLiteracy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Calvo (2004)‘Relativecontributionofvocabularyknowledgeandworkingmemoryspanto elaborative
inferencesin reading’,Journal of EducationalPsychology,96,4,671-681.
Cappella,Elise;Weinstein,RhonaS.(2001).Turningaroundreadingachievement:Predictors ofhigh school
students' academicresilience. Journal of Educational Psychology,Vol93(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. andAzevedo,R. (2007). 'Testing and refining the direct and inferentialmediation model of
reading comprehension', Journalof EducationalPsychology,99,2,311-325.
DenisHayes(2010):Theseductivecharms of a cross-curricularapproach, Education3-13:InternationalJournal
of Primary,ElementaryandEarlyYearsEducation,38:4,381-38
DepartmentforEducation.(2011).2011KS2 – KS4 PROGRESSMEASURES
DepartmentforEducation.(2014).EnglishBaccalaureate:informationforschools.Takenfrom
https://www.gov.uk/english-baccalaureate-information-for-schoolsAccessed:3/11/2014
Denscombe,M (2007).The Good Research Guide. Open University Press. Retrieved 5 May 2014, from
<http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=112920>
Dugdale,G.and ClarkC. (2008).Literacychanges lives:An advocacyresource.London: National Literacy Trust.
Edexcel (2014).GCSE English Specification 2EH01

Ericsson,K. Anders;Kintsch,Walter. (1995) LongTermWorking Memory.PsychologicalReview,Vol102(2),
Apr 1995, 211-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211
Francis,B; Wong, B. (2013).What is PreventingSocial Mobility? A Review of the Evidence. Association of
Schools and College Leaders. Taken fromwww.ascl.org.uk.Accessed 3/11/2014
Gathercole,S et al. (2004). Working MemorySkillsandEducationalAttainment:EvidencefromNational
Curriculum Assessments at7and14 Yearsof Age.APPLIEDCOGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGYAppl.Cognit. Psychol.18:
1–16 (2004)
Gathercole,S.E. and Pickering,S. J. (2000), Workingmemorydeficits in childrenwith lowachievementsin the
nationalcurriculum at 7 yearsof age.British Journal of Educational Psychology,70: 177–194.
doi: 10.1348/000709900158047
Gove,M. (2012).Speech to theHouseof Commons 17th Septpmebr2012.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 andTrabasso,T.(1994) ‘Constructinginferences duringnarrativetext
comprehension’,PsychologicalReview,101,3,371-395
Kipsal,A. (2008)– Effective TeachingofInference Skills for Reading.National Foundation for Educational
Research.
ManchesterMetropolitanUniversity(2007).ApplicationforEthical Approval Form
ManchesterMetropolitanUniversity(2011).Guidancenotes forapplications forethical approval of research
ManchesterMetropolitanUniversity(2014).MeetingtheLearningObjectives -Learning Outcome 8.2 -
Structure and organise findings clearly and concisely fora 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).'Theeffect of inference trainingon skilledand less skilledcomprehenders',
EducationalPsychology,23,1,49-59.
Narvaez, D. (2002).'Individualdifferencesthatinfluence readingcomprehension.'In:Block,C.C. and Pressley,
M. (Eds) Comprehension Instruction: Research Based Best Practices.New York,NY:Guilford Press.
National Strategies(2010).AssessmentofPupilProgress Grid.Curriculum and Qualifications Agency.
Oakhill,J.V., Hartt, J. andSamols,D. (1996).‘Comprehensionmonitoringandworkingmemoryingoodand
poorcomprehenders.’Presentedat the XIVthBiennial ISSBD Conference, Quebec City, 12-16 August. Cited in:
Cain, K. and Oakhill, J. (2004). ‘Readingcomprehensiondifficulties.’In:Nunes, T. and Bryant, P.(Eds) Handbook
of Children’s Literacy. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
OCR (2012) – A680/ 02EnglishLanguageExamination PaperNovember2012 – Mark Scheme
OCR (2013)– A2 MarkScheme – EnglishLiterarturePoetryandProse 1800-1945 F661

OFSTED (2011).Theimpact of the‘AssessingPupils Progress’Initiative
OFSTED (2012).MovingEnglish Forward
OFSTED (2014i)– Report pending
OFSTED (2014)– Report105362 PrestwichArts College
PAC (2014). SchoolProspectus.
Pressley,M. (2000).'What shouldcomprehensioninstructionbetheinstructionof?' 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). VerbalProtocols ofReading.TheNatureof ConstructivelyResponsive
Reading.New Jersey, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Robertson,S.(2006). Curriculumfragmentationimpedes students’understandingoftechnologyandthe
environment.MonicaLeggett, Susan Robertson Journal of Education Policy Vol.11, Iss. 6, 1996
Shelly,M. (1993). Frankenstein.WordsworthClassics.
Shelly,M. AdaptedbyPullman, P (1990).FrankensteinPlay Script. OxfordPlayscripts.
Vanden Broek,P. (2005). IntegratingMemory-BasedandConstructionistProcesses inAccounts ofReading
Comprehension.DiscourseProcessesVol. 39, Iss. 2-3, 2005
UNICEF. (2007).Child Povertyin Perspective:An overview of child well-being in rich countries

Professional Enquiry Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Professional Enquiry Final

Similar to Professional Enquiry Final (20)

Professional Enquiry Final