Introduction In this assignment, I will reflect and evaluate the learning steps on a specific case study to which I observed a ‘critical incident’ in a Secondary School in South Wales. The critical incident will be evaluated and compared to the relationship of the four purposes and will be linked with the outlines of Donaldson’s report. Pedagogical research will also be considered when critically evaluating the incident. The critical incident I will be focusing on is a “random name generator”, meaning that a pupils name will be called out at random when asking a question, as opposed to the more voluntary participation of hands-up technique. Active participation is deemed an essential role of pupils’ learning (Harrison and Howard, 2009), where pupils are expected to participate, thus taking ownership of their own learning (Hammond, 2016). Effective questioning techniques within the classroom can raise standards (Black and Wiliams, 1998), encouraging pupils to think and reflect (Wiliam, 2011); express ideas (Alejandro, 2017) engaging pupils in the classroom to enhance their own understanding of a given topic (Shore, 2015); provide the teacher with useful information about where the pupils are with their learning (Clarke, 2005) thus making adequate adjustments to teaching to better support the future learning of the pupils (Wiliam, 2011). Focusing on the “random name generator”, this essay will critically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this teaching strategy to student learning and engagement. The random name generator allows students to be randomly selected at the tap of a button. This method can ensure random selection for responses, ensuring the more confident ‘hand-raiser’ pupil doesn’t dominate classroom discussions (Goodrich, 2012), facilitates engagement among pupils (Rogers, 1997), and sets clear expectations that all students have a valued opinion (Alejandro, 2017); eliminates assumptions of favouritism amongst pupils (Wiliam, 2011); more accurately identifies common misconceptions and gaps in pupils conceptual understanding (Clarke, 2005). According to Tripp (2012), it is not the event that is important but how the teacher reacts to that event and how the reaction to the incident determines the outcome of the incident. That the whole purpose of a critical incident is to reflect on your own performance and how you deal with the situation, not the situation itself. A reflection of a critical incident gives feedback and reflects on your teaching practice to possibly change the way you deal with a certain situation in order to improve behaviour management. That is why it is vital to observe and to be observed in order for us to pick out a critical incident, reflect, evaluate and improve on our practice and this ties into the Montesorri theory on constantly observing in order to learn and to improve. Observation In order to conduct this research accurately, one of the requirements was to carry out a full observations in a teaching classroom. This took place in an English medium comprehensive in the Caerphilly Borough, and for this assignment the school in question will be referred to as School “X” due to confidentiality (BERA,2018). According to My Local School, (2018), there are 763 pupils on roll, aged from 11 to 18, including a sixth form. Approximately 20.7% of the school population are eligible for free school meals, this percentage above the Welsh average of 16.4% (My Local School). This research suggests that students in this school live in a more deprived area and are from lower socioeconomic statuses than other schools throughout Wales. However, the number of free school meals have fallen since 2010 (Estyn Report) within Caerphilly County Borough, with the percentage of students eligible for free school meals totalling 21.5%. The majority of the pupils are from a white British background (2.8% of the school being a minority Ethnic) with 0.5% of the School population speaking English as an additional language. The school has a statemented 10% with Special Educational Needs (SEN). Methodology The critical incident witnessed among a sample of a Year 8, set 1 English lesson. The lesson was literacy dominant with all members of the class engaged and focused. The research was conducted via an unobtrusive observational case study of students. There are two different forms of observing; unobtrusive observation and obtrusive. With the objective of witnessing a critical incident, it was best to observe without interfering. An unobtrusive observation is a method of data collection and analysis where the participants of the study are not affected, thus, the researcher does not interact with subjects, just observes. Data was collected over a one hour lesson including 25 key stage 3 pupils. A qualitative approach was utilised to collect information for this study. The distinction between qualitative and quantitative data is that qualitative data is defined as a description or an observation of an event, whereas quantitative data is numerical information based on quantities. There are various ways to record an observation, the information for this study was collected by analysing a structured written observation of the critical incident. Information was collected using an observation document and an Assisted Reflective Conclusions Model document. These documents prompted reflections and analysis by adapting Wood (2016) questions, which enabled the researcher to identify key points and reminders of the objectives relevant to the study (Punch and Oancea, 2014). The main benefit of observational research is that it enables the researcher to observe the students in a natural setting, which can reveal pungent insights which would be unavailable via other methods. However, this method is limited due to its lack of validity. Interactions and events are subjective to researcher bias, furthermore, behaviours may be missed by the researcher thus giving a restricted view of what actually happened (Hobart and Frankel, 2004). An observation is a method of collecting systematic data, whereby researchers are able to use their senses to analyse behaviours in a natural setting or situation (Cohen et al, 2011., Hobart and Frankel, 2004., Sharman et al, 2007). It entails a prolonged engagement in a social context or setting and recording the observations. The observation was conducted during the normal school day at School ‘X’. In order to minimise disruption to the school routine, the sample was chosen via a random convenience sample of pupils and teachers. A convenience sample refers to the subjects being selected as a result of their convenient accessibility and proximity to the researcher. The students and teachers being randomly selected to participate in the study will generate more unbiased and reliable results (Cohen et al, 2011). The four purposes The four purposes are fundamental to learning for children (Donaldson 2015). Donaldson’s report implies that all children, adolescents and young adults will be ambitious, that they are willing and ready to learn. Research investigating the correlation between socioeconomic status and ambition suggests adolescent ambitions are influenced by social class (Ashby and Schoon, 2010), suggesting one’s drive to succeed is significantly lower among less privileged individuals (Kirk, 2017). students with uneducated parents in low status jobs are less likely to succeed due to lack of ambition (Harris and Goodall, 2007) suggesting lower educational attainment as a direct impact of their lack of determination to succeed (Goodman and Greg, 2010), and those who underestimate the value of educational requirements fare worse and are more likely to be unemployed in comparison to those in the highest denomination of social class (Sellgren, 2017). This is also supported when analysing data from PISA. It was concluded that disadvantaged pupils perform significantly worse in most countries that participate in PISA (PISA, 2015). The consideration of research that relates to poverty and willingness to learn is important as the school is situated in a deprived area, and averages higher with free school meals. In relation to the first purpose, it is important to emphasise that such a simple, but effective goal and skill, children need confidence and ambition to succeed throughout school and more importantly throughout life. The new curriculum aims more on the individual rather than a group, therefore these purposes are important for the child to grow in themselves and to be the best student and young adult that they can possibly be, also to carry that confidence on in to adulthood. In relation to the critical incident, the teacher used a “Random name generator”, where a random student is selected and expected to answer a question within a certain time limit. This method increases participation among pupils who are less likely to volunteer their answers during class discussion. Studies investigating the effectiveness of the traditional hands-up approach to answer teacher questions as an Assessment for learning strategy seem to concur that it doesn’t challenge and support the learning of all students (e.g Hammond, 2016; Wiliam, 2014) as not every student has the opportunity to contribute and participate (Chin, 2008). Some students may therefore become disengaged and have potential gaps in their conceptual understanding and are reluctant to challenge themselves, take ownership of their work to become confident learners as outlined by Donaldson’s report. Contradictory to these findings, this method can also cause anxiety and distress among some pupils who do not know the answer or are introverted (Cuncic, 2019). Despite some individuals angst of attention from being questioned, avoiding the limelight is not a good strategy to control one’s anxiety (Antony, 2008) with some literature emphasising long-term detrimental effects to mental health (Cornwell et al., 2011). It’s suggested that many cognitive behavioural treatment programs place focus on gradually introducing the individual into situations where you are able to overcome your fears (Mayo-Wilson, 2014). It’s important to consider this method to comply with Donaldson’s four purposed to create a more robust and confident learner. When we talk about ambition, confidence is a key part of it. Confidence is key to any child in the classroom and going back to the first purpose of Donaldson’s report, every child has the right to be confident and to be heard, ambition then thrives through confidence. That is why I chose this particular critical incident because by choosing a name at random is gives the opportunity to the less confident pupil to answer and potentially answer correctly, meaning it is boosting the confidence of that pupil. Literature Review Posing questions to the learners is essential for assessing pupil understanding and ensure pupils are engaged (Collier, 2018). It’s imperative that pupils are given the opportunity to receive and process information, and effective questioning can also encourage independent and critical thinking. Traditionally, the teacher poses a question to the learners and pupils will self-select themselves to contribute to the lesson, while some pupils will not engage with the discussion. Research identifies flaws using this method of questioning suggesting the need to improve methods to enable students to learn through participation and suggests more effective techniques would ask questions in ways that include all learners (Dinkmeyer & Dreikurs, 2000). Using a random name generator as a method to select pupils at random has enabled a move in the classroom dynamic where the teacher poses questions to the whole class rather than often a selected few individuals. This technique allows the teacher to use questions to engage all students and sustain an ‘active’ style to the learning (Gifkins, 2015). Furthermore, this method more accurately identifies gaps in understanding and is a more effective assessment of learning (Wiliam, 2010). In a learning environment random name generator can increase classroom engagement (Rogers, 1997), and increase participation of students who are less likely to volunteer to answer the question. Research suggest that randomisation is an effective method within the classroom (Olvares, 2016). Posing questions to students by name is a direct and efficient way of encouraging pupils to participate in classroom discussion (Rogers, 1997). Contrary to the alternative of relying on voluntary participation, this method includes all learners. This method also includes the involvement of quieter students who may be reluctant to actively participate by raising their hands, and therefore, would not have been assessed during the lesson. Research suggests that if methods of randomization become normative within the learning environment, it’s possible to develop high standards and clear expectations that all students are to participate. As students can be named at any given moment, pupils will actively improve awareness, engagement and interest. Active learning appears at the forefront of educational discourse in which pupils are expected to participate in order to take ownership of their learning. With Donaldson’s new curriculum it is vital that we focus on the learning of every individual child, that every single child is learning. With the traditional “hands up” to answer approach, this would contradict with the new approach to the curriculum because some children will not have the confidence to answer voluntary, therefore not learning to their full potential. Which leads me to the critical incident and how it agrees with William (2010) findings. Using a method that randomly picks a member of the class, any student can be called upon to answer any particular question at any particular time. Research suggests that teachers seem to avoid asking the less able students and only the higher ability students (Shore, 2015), and are more likely to ask the same students time after time (Wiliam, 2010), but with this system of picking students at random then it avoids going to that one exceptional student to answer the questions and gives opportunity to all students. Research has also identified the importance of providing positive reinforcement via praise and encouragement to increase the efficiency of this method among students who are more reluctant to answer (Olivares, 2016). Creating a safe and positive learning environment will support with setting clear expectations and standards, this will enable students to gain confidence and if maintained can promote academic growth. This all leads to the Skinner’s (1985) approach, that effective teaching must be based on positive reinforcement. Behaviour theorists believe learning is facilitated through both positive and negative reinforcement, and that learning is one’s reaction or response to a stimuli. However, the studies investigating the influence of reinforcement on behaviour and learning. Previous studies mostly employ an animal sample (e.g Blackman, 1970; Skinner, 1938 ). The findings of other studies are also limited due to the ethical considerations that emerged when examining an infant cohort, and a small sample size also means that the findings can’t be generalized to the whole population. Furthermore, despite Behaviour theorists arguing that reinforcement encourages learning, it’s argued that the drive to learn is actually instinctive (Piaget, 1954; Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, research suggests that it’s unclear whether reinforcement has a direct impact on an individuals learning and is instead a more effective method to control behaviour (Kounin, 1970). It’s questioned whether learning therefore, is a direct effect of reinforcement or reinforcement directly affecting behaviour which in turn is enabling better learning. Despite these limitations and results from different studies, the importance of positive feedback and encouragement on behaviour within the classroom has been indicated. More timely studies suggest a correlation between positive reinforcement and learning (Kounin, 1970; Burke, 2007; Lewis, 2009) emphasising the importance of managing classrooms to avoid undesired behaviour. Reinforcement has been consistently identified as an efficient approach to promote appropriate behaviour (Evertson and Weinstein, 2013) which promotes learning among students (Skinner, 1953). The social learning theory also supports this notion, suggesting student’s behaviour can be explained as a result of cognitive, behavioural and environmental influences. (Bandura, 1977). Cognitive processes are encouraged in social contexts through observations, reinforcement and internal processes within the individual. A positive environment where clear rules and objectives are identified promotes appropriate behaviour thus encouraging learning (Bandura, 1977). Using the random name generator in an environment where pupils feel safe to share their findings, ideas and conclusions that has been developed through positive reinforcement can lead to meeting healthy and confident learners who take ownership of their work as detailed in Donaldson’s four principles. Creating a positive learning environment with emphasis on the growth mindset where failure is seen as an opportunity to grow is important when utilising the random name generator (Pope, 2013). Some research suggests that a hands up approach is the most damaging method to use in a classroom. It’s found that only a quarter of students consistently put their hands up to answer and students only participate when they have confidence in their answer. Students who participate learn with results suggesting an increase to an individual's IQ’s, it’s also suggested that some pupils will forgo an opportunity to learn by not participating. Research suggests that if pupils are given the opportunity to participate or not the achievement gap becomes more significant. Literature concludes that in order to increase engagement emphasis has been put on banning the use of hands up to answer questions, and students are chosen at random when a teacher poses a question. However, Research suggests that more able and talented students do not respond well to a no hands up policy in the classroom. More confident and able students seemed to dislike this approach as they feared the embarrassment of having a question incorrect and how this would impact on their reputation. It appears that having a question incorrect could impact on learner’s identities (Wiliam, 2012). More able students had not experienced failure before this point, they have not come across a time where they have had an incorrect answer. This will, of course have an impact on them, it will knock their confidence, which yields contradictory findings to other research that finds random name picking approaches have a positive impact on engagement and confidence. However, this finding is limited due to the limited sample size, employing only girls the results can’t be generalised to the whole population. To bring it back to Skinner’s approach and how it links to positive reinforcement, whichever way you look at it then there is somewhat positive reinforcement, if the higher able children has an incorrect answer then it is positively reinforcing them that it is ok to be incorrect and that the learning is far greater than only answering the questions you already know. With the less confidence, the evidence is far more clear, if they say the correct answer then it has a positive effect on them and their learning. It’s important to create a positive learning environment that encourages characteristics of a growth mindset. All of this ties into the theme “reward”, the sense of reward is important to the children, if they have a correct answer then of course they will have that feeling that they accomplished something and it all ties into positive reinforcement. If a child has an incorrect answer then we must praise them and correct them (Skinner, 1985) , same as if a student has a correct answer, then the positive reinforcement, something as little as “well done” can be as effective as saying “that is a good answer but not quite what I am looking for”. It all comes down to adapting that positive mindset. Skinner believed that positive reinforcement helps with behaviour management, that a positive praise will impact their behaviour in a positive manner. Therefore inforce their learning in a positive way, which also leads to Skinner’s beliefs of some sort of reward system. He suggests that the reward system is what I just mentioned, with the positive reinforcement, but a reward system could be in it’s literal way. That you could have a reward system, for example stickers, a well done card or even a points system whereas the children obtain rewards when they reach a certain amount of points. Some may argue that this is a form of conditioning, it is proven that a reward system is healthy for the brain and that people respond to it well, it also ties into competition but we will come across this later in the essay. To go back to a reward system, (Claudio Sosa, 2016) suggests that the reward system drives children and adults to get what they want or to meet an objective, that we thrive for that feeling of excitement and pleasure, the reward system allows you to feel this even if it is in its simplest form. Operant conditioning refers to behaviour management and to obtain good behaviour through the reward system. There are also controversy to the reward system, as (Travis Hirschi, 1969) argued, every child has a different motive, what if their motive is not to have that sticker or not to comply with the reward system, different people thrive off different things, that the practice is different to the theory but like every theory, it is a trial and error on what works for you and your class. The reward system leads me to competition and how healthy competition in a classroom is important for success. Healthy competition drives learners to interact and to learn more through determination and the will to succeed more than others. As the research of Burguillo suggests, competition within the classroom can strengthen the drive, ambition and learning of the students, keeping them engaged throughout (2010). Children will thrive to be the best in the classroom and to beat their peers. Nonetheless, there are also cautions whilst using competition as a means of educating and motivating children. Other research suggests that collaborative work is a more effective technique, where children work better in a small group rather than a larger group and has a greater impact on learning than a general free for all competition (Johnson et al.,1981). The research also proposes that it all depends on the setting of the learning, that we must consider the age of the group, the size of the group and also the level of learning and how it is impacted on the child's learning needs. The correlation between competition, desire and the learning works a lot better within the younger years rather than the older students. Research suggests that gender has a factor on learning through competition, with male being more competitive than females (Chanlin, 1999). It also depends on the personality of the student, if a child does not enjoy competition or if a child avoids such tasks then the learning of that child is not present, therefore competition is not as effective as it could be with other students. When creating such tasks, it is always important to be mindful of who the target audience is, it also leads back to the reward system and the no hands up Dylan William approach, if a child does not comply with the learning techniques then there is no learning taking place, therefore the techniques and approaches mentioned is invalid. Referring back to the new curriculum and Donaldson’s four purposes (2015), the focus is on the child as an individual and how the individual is learning rather than the class or group of students. Reflection As previously mentioned, the critical incident can be very effective in the classroom. It shortens the gap between the different abilities in the classroom and has more of an effect on the individual rather than the class as a whole. The “random name generator” allows every child the opportunity to be correct and incorrect, it allows the students to gain confidence and maybe allow failure and embraces failure as a positive feeling rather than a negative. A critical reflection is important to my future practice, it allows you to observe and to take away what you would want to take into practice and potentially what you want to avoid. Whether someone is observing a particular lesson or thinking back on their own lesson, it is always important to critically reflect and evaluate the lesson, it is a form of learning and what makes good practice. This leads back to Montasorri theory, where we constantly observe and to improve because that is what reflection and evaluation is all about, self improve. ((Donald Schon,) suggests 1991), that we must reflect on a specific incident, meaning a lesson and to learn from it and then change it, there is no point to reflect for the sake of it, it is only good practice if you can take action on the reflection, meaning to put into practice what you have reflected on and want to change for the next incident (lesson). He linked reflection into practice and studied how we can better our own practice, to look deeper into the surface and to change what needs to be changed in order to improve. Therefore improve the learning that takes place in the classroom. “The past is all we have as a guide.” This simple but effective quote sums the thinking of Donald Schon, that our past can only determine our future by learning from the past and learning from our mistakes. To move onto my own professional practice, I will reflect my own work in order to improve my teaching but in the case of my critical incident I will try and implement the technique, so the “random name generator”. It was very successful when I observed and it had its challenges, it was clear that they were familiar with the technique so it was not a shock to them but it was clear that not every child wanted to comply with the device. As William(2010) suggested, it gives every child the opportunity to succeed and to let children feel failure but of course as seen by William and myself, there are students who just do not want to answer. There are many reasons for this, maybe the lack of knowledge, maybe the lack of confidence, there could be any reason but with picking students name being picked out at random, these flaws, these problems will appear a lot more where children still will not answer the question. This refers back to what was mentioned prior, if the child is reluctant to answer or reluctant to participate in your methods of teaching then it is important to reflect on it and to change or improve it, that could be possibly presenting these techniques in a different approach or creating new techniques to fit every child. It is important to me to take all this into consideration with my own teaching, it is important to test a technique and it is important to reflect on that technique. When it comes to my own professional development, the critical incident and observation has given me an insight of how pupils react to this and many other methods of learning. The research shows that the result of the methods depend on the confidence of the pupil and the willingness to answer questions, even when called upon. Conclusion To conclude, in this assignment there has been many different topics analysed. The critical incident has been reflected and evaluated and how it links into Donaldson’s four purposes, there are many advantages and disadvantages of my critical incident, “the random name generator”, with many arguing for and against this practice but research suggests (William, 2011) that picking names at random allows more engagement in the classroom, that there is less of a gap between the more able and less able students. The critical incident in the year 8 class suggests that behaviour and classroom management can be improved in the classroom environment (Turner and Patrick, 2014), the growth mindset in a classroom can improve the confidence and engagement of the pupils (Hansen, 2014). To actively speak in front of a class can be daunting for any child, therefore it is crucial for the pupil to feel confident, secure and to be familiar with a growth mindset (Fisher, 2014). Saying this, a growth mindset is not solely liable for the participation of the students (Elliot, Hufton, Willis and Illushin, 2015). Moreover, if a child felt the confidence to answer a question and felt secure, this could have an effect on classroom participation (Pollard, 2006). The random name generator allows a more fair lesson, meaning that every child has the opportunity to answer, meaning the more confident students does not control the classroom dialogue (Goodrich, 2012). Random selection helps ensure all students are attentive, as they may be next to be picked. It also gives voice to those who may shy away from discussions. On the other hand, the method can create additional pressures for students, particularly those who lack confidence. It can create stresses and divide classrooms.