What role can families take in supporting their children as lifelong learners?

It would seem incredible in today’s UK primary schools not to think that

families can play a significant role in supporting their children as lifelong

learners. Indeed it is declared through Government initiatives such as Every

Child Matters, Department for Children, Schools and Families (2004) and

more recently Every Parent Matters Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) that parental support is whole heartedly embraced. It is

widely recognised that for pupils to realise their full potential they need the

support of parents and carers. (Wolfendale and Bastiani, 2000). We have

come a long way from the 1960’s when McGeeney (1969) describes how ‘No

parents beyond this line’ (cited in Green, 1970:11) could be seen painted on

primary school playgrounds.

In addition, at the beginning of the 21st Century education is being given the

job of producing Lifelong learners. From an economic perspective this is

driven by a desire to remain economically competitive through constant

updating of skills. From a wider social perspective it is recognised that to

meet the challenges of 21st century young people will need as Claxton

(2006:2) states the ability to be ‘good choosers, skilful problem solvers and

powerful learners.’ Taking into consideration the widely used statistic that

children spend only 15% of their time within formal education (Campaign for

Learning 2008), it would seem that parental involvement is the untapped

resource that is essential in equipping children with the skills of lifelong

learning.

And yet, despite current thinking on lifelong learning, the legislation,

Excellence in Schools (1997) and the many initiatives cascading from the

standards and inclusion agenda established by this legislation, challenges

remain relating to the widening of parental involvement and the measuring of

the impact of parental involvement on raising standards.

1

Historically, in western culture we have isolated learning to within the

education system and seen it as something done to children, confined by a

specific location and time and delivered by professional teachers (Bateson

2000). Although this is only a relatively recent phenomena since the

Education Act of the 19th Century, it is now so embedded in our culture that

despite much rhetoric to the contrary relating to lifelong learning and the

importance of ‘…parents as the single most important factor in shaping their children’s well-being, achievements and prospects’ (Johnson 2007:1), it can be argued that confidence has been lost in the fact that

families are ‘the foundation of learning’ (Alexander 1997) (cited in Wolfendale,

2000:15) and that learning is not only confined to the education system.

It can also be argued that the institutionalising of learning through the

education system has contributed to the lack of confidence in and by parents

and carers to be teachers of their children. Is it little wonder that as soon as

children start in a reception class parental responsibility relating to preparing

the child to be ready, willing and able to learn (Claxton, 2002) is handed over

to the “professional teacher”.

To summarise, to meet the need for widening parental involvement and

therefore enable families to support their children as lifelong learners, learning

needs to be freed from the constrains of the education system and the

barriers perceived by children, families and schools need to be broken down

through an understanding of what lifelong learning is and how each can play a

role in developing the other as a lifelong learner.

Turning from widening participation to the second challenge identified;

measuring the impact of parental involvement on raising standards.

2

In order for the impact of parental involvement to be taken seriously and

embedded in a schools strategic planning Bastiani (2000) suggests that the

criteria by which it is measured has to be related to the current criteria of the

day, namely school improvement targets and SATS results. However to

impose on families a quantifiable target that is set annually would be even

more complex than it is to set for a school with its well defined structures,

procedures and policies.

Therefore Bastiani (2000) proposes three models summarised in the table

below which are characteristic of approaches used to analyse pupil

achievement and school effectiveness and can be used in relation to the

impact parental involvement has upon these two factors.

Model Examples

1 Standards and Effectiveness Ofsted Criteria

Key features of home- school work

that are associated with effective

schools e.g. good use of homework

planners/diaries by pupils.

2 Planned Development Compilation of inspections and a

consultation process across a region

to develop a framework for schools to

use as an auditing, self evaluation

and development planning tool.

3’What works?’ ‘Stakeholder approach’

A qualitative approach taking into

account the views and judgements of

parents, pupils and teachers

3

As an Educationalist who has not been trained formally as a teacher within

the primary education system, my professional values have developed from

outside of the education system. Interest in my own learning journey from that

of fragile teenager to resilient lifelong learner and gaining an understanding,

through the writings of Vygotsky (cited in Das Gupta P. and Richardson

K.1995), Abbott (1999) and Claxton (2001) of the immense capacity children

have to learn and the influence of the role model has all contributed to my

understanding of what role families can take in supporting children as lifelong

learners. In addition my experience of personnel development within the

workplace and specifically within the engineering industry has influenced my

understanding of the importance of lifelong learning.

Consequently The Learning Tree, an independent project has evolved over

seven years experience working with the parents, children and teachers of

several primary schools in Wiltshire. Its uniqueness comes from the fact that

its roots do not lie within the education system but instead comes from:

a personal desire and passion to learn by the people who work within

the project.

a duty of responsibility and a feeling of privilege to be a parent.

an enthusiasm to share an appreciation of science and technology with

everyone.

Unlike many other family learning programmes it does not focus upon literacy

and numeracy. Instead, it works with families to enable them to identify the

skills and experience they have already within their family group such as team

work, problem solving and creativity. Secondly, it enables families to

appreciate that these are the skills of a life long learner and that are essential

to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Another striking difference between The Learning Tree and that of other

family learning programmes is that it focuses on developing a dynamic

relationship between that of home and school and it recognises as Peter

4

Hannon (1993) (cited in Wolfendale and Bastiani, 2000:40), states that home

and school offer very different, but complimentary learning environments.

Through the development of a relationship rather than an initiative such as a

home-school agreement, where the requirements of the curriculum are so

often imposed upon the home, the needs of the family are taken into account

and many of the barriers such as timing, place, and delivery of learning that

make families “hard to reach” are reduced.

The project achieves this through developing a relationship by firstly sharing

with the children a passion for learning. Secondly it supports the children in

presenting this information to the rest of the school and more importantly to

the parents, carers and families of the children, who as a result become

aware of the essential role they are playing in their children’s learning and as

a consequence gain confidence to become involved in their children’s

learning.

This process can be illustrated in diagrammatic terms.

Here it is clearly illustrated that the success of this relationship lies in

reciprocity. As Wolfendale (1992) states reciprocity is a key principle in

parental involvement.

5

‘…Each person involved is contributing and sharing information, expertise

and ultimately the responsibility for actions and decisions. Thus accountability

belongs to all [and] all involved stand to gain from a productive discourse on

behalf of children…’ (Wolfendale, 1992:3)

This case study is a retrospective analysis of The Learning Tree project.

Through firstly an exploration of research related to parental involvement and

secondly lifelong learning it will reflect upon the work of The Learning Tree

project to determine how well this approach enables families to support their

children as lifelong learners.6

SchoolStaff

Parents and

CarersPupils

The Learning

Tree

School Council

In doing so, the barriers to widening participation and how these can be

broken down will be examined. Secondly approaches to measuring the

impact of parental involvement has on raising standards will be examined.

As a consequence of this analysis and examination the implications for

developing the model as an integrated part of a school’s development plan

will be considered. Because as one parent so succinctly put it recently when

participating in an enquiry walk at a school who has embedded the

programme into their parental involvement strategy.

“School is so different when we were at school, we never did anything like this and everyone is so approachable, we are doing this in partnership.”

(cited in Woods, 2007:5)

7

Review of Literature.

In order to address what role families can take in supporting their children as

life long learners two areas of literature will be reviewed. These relate to

parental involvement in their children’s learning and to the wider picture of

Lifelong learning.

Lifelong learning is a term used extensively and with a wide range of

meanings. It is commonly used to describe the attainment of skills and

knowledge beyond school, thus restricting it to adulthood and suggesting little

purpose or structure to such learning. Therefore for it to be understood in the

context of children’s learning and the support families can give to that

learning, careful definition is required.

Using Smith and Spurling’s (1999) (cited in Deakin Crick R. et al , 2004: 250)

multi dimensional definition of lifelong learning the ease with which the

concept sits within the family and thus, the significance of the family in

developing lifelong learners can be seen. Smith and Spurling consider

lifelong learning to be continuous, from cradle to grave, to have an intention

on the part of the individual or a wider organisation, and to relate to a plan for

that individual or organisation that over time can be re-appraised. In addition

four principles of personal commitment to learning, social commitment to

learning, respect for others’ learning and respect for the truth underlie these

themes. To summarise Smith and Spurling through their themes and

principles of lifelong learning develop the idea of the ‘active learning agent

within the community.’ If the family is taken as a microcosm of the community

or society then what better place for a child than within a family to develop

and test out the beliefs, values and attitudes about learning, self and

knowledge that make up an individual’s learning identity (Deakin Crick et al,

2004).

This definition of lifelong learning establishes that the family does have an

essential role to play in supporting children in lifelong learning, but

8

definitions are only useful in explaining concepts; it is the factors that underpin

this concept that need to be examined in order to discover what in practical

terms that role can be.

It is learning how to learn that brings the concept of life long learning to life.

The importance of this in the 21st century has already been stated in the

introduction. Using the definition of learning to learn from the European

framework of key competence (2006:7) in relation to Peter Hannon’s(1993)

(cited in Wolfendale and Bastiani, 2000:40), interesting insight into the

contrasting learning environments found in school and at home, an evaluation

of which learning environment is best suited to the development of learning to

learn skills can be made.

9

Hannon’s (1993) Home/School Learning environments European framework of key competence (Council 2006)

School Home (family environment)

Learning to learnCompetencies

Shaped by curriculum Shaped by interest Ability to pursue and persist in learning

Bounded by sanctions Spontaneous Identify available opportunities to learn

Timetabled Flexible To organise one’s own learning, through effective management of

time and information

Contrived problems Natural problems Ability to overcome obstacles in order to learn successfully.

Gaining processing and assimilating new knowledge and skill.

Restricted language Everyday language Awareness of one’s learning process and needs.

Limited conversations Extended

conversations

Learning to learn engages learners to build on life experiences in

order to use and apply knowledge and skills in a variety of contexts.

Making use of guidance.

Special resources – limited access ‘natural resources’

unlimited access

Awareness of one’s learning process and needs.

Identify available opportunities to learn

Recognition of achievement in

approved areas

Recognition of

achievement in many

areas

Application of knowledge in a variety of areas – work, education

and training.

Horizontal age group Vertical age group To learn both individually and in groups

Awareness of one’s learning process and needs.

Distant relationship with adults Close relationship with

adults

Pupil role Multiple roles

Accounts for little

variation in academic

achievement

Accounts for much

variation in academic

achievement.

Motivation and confidence are crucial to an individual’s

competence.

10

The table illustrates that the learning environment offered by the home, ‘the

family’ enables many of the learning to learn competencies to be fulfilled.

The learner is able to pursue areas of interest, solving problems through being

creative with resources, assimilating and accommodating prior knowledge with

new knowledge, individually and as part of group. An awareness of individual

learning processes and needs is developed through using everyday language,

the opportunity to take on multiple roles and being recognised for a wide range

of learning that is not just restricted to the curriculum is all offered by the

learning environment beyond the sanctioned, timetabled, contrived, restricted

and limited classroom.

However, despite the classrooms many limitations it does fulfil the learning to

learn competence of organising learning through effective management of time

and information through a timetabled curriculum. Although the compatibilities

of the home learning environment with learning to learn competencies

presented in this table would suggest that it is the optimum place to learn it fails

to take into account the many manifestations of ‘the family’ and the impact

socio-economic factors can have on the degree of parental involvement in a

child’s learning.

In turning to literature relating to parental involvement a review of what it can

mean to be involved in a child’s learning can be made and why some families

will always support their children’s learning and yet others do not.

Parental involvement can take many forms and a clear definition is not a simple

task. However Epstein endeavours to capture parental involvement

typologically in her conceptual framework for family-school-community

involvement. (cited in Desforges, 2003:18)

11

Type of involvement Definition

Parenting Providing housing, health and

nutrition, safety; parenting skills in

parent-child interactions; home

conditions to support study;

information to help schools know child

Communicating School-home/home-school

communication

Volunteering In school help in classrooms/events

Teaching at home Help with homework, help with

educational choices/options

Decision making Membership of PTA/governors

Collaborating with the community Contributions to schools

Through legislation, 1997 White Paper, ‘Excellence in Schools’ in the last ten

years Epstein’s framework has moved from what parents might do to what they

can do. This includes providing parents with information relating to school life

and their child’s learning, enabling parents to have a voice and encouraging

parental partnerships with schools. In turn, this has manifested in the form of

many initiatives.

These have included:

The enhancement of parent governor roles

Involvement in inspection processes

Provision of annual reports and prospectuses

The requirement of home-school agreements

The provision of increasing amounts of information about the curriculum

and school performance.

(Desforges, 2003:7)

12

More recently schools, through the provision of extended services and a core

offer including parenting support, offer parents a plethora of services and are

evolving a new role as a ‘hub for services for parents’ (University of Warwick,

Kings College London, 2007). These are to include information at stages of

transition, signposting to other agencies that can provide advice and support,

access to parenting groups and family learning.

And yet, regardless of policies, initiatives and funding totally £102.5 million from

2008 until 2010 (University of Warwick, Kings College London, 2007) their still

remains a significant cohort of families that do not get involved in their children’s

learning. These families are commonly termed ‘The hard to reach’ by

professionals. Conversely, there is a core of parents that have and always will

be actively involved in their children’s education and the wider school

community, regardless of any legislation.

Many would suggest that the correlation between parental involvement,

attainment levels and social class would indicate who these ‘hard to reach’

might be.

However to only look at social class would be an oversimplification. As

Nechyba et al, 1999 (cited in Desforges 2003) states there are many forces that

will impact upon attainment levels. These include Parents, family, peer group,

the wider community and indeed the children themselves all working in a

complex web of interactions to determine the achievement of the child not only

in public examinations, but as a lifelong learner. Desforges’ (2003) research

based model of effective parental involvement in schooling illustrates this

complex interaction.

13

Parental role definition Parental self efficacy(parents see education (parents are confident they can make as part of their role) a difference)

14

Parental capacity for involvement

Schools as active and reactive

agents

Parental/SchoolInterface

Parent/childinteraction Informed parent

(re aims, values, assessment, programmes,

Courses, expectations

Pupil’s education

Self-schema

General parenting

Modelling expectations, values, skills building

In-school involvement(meeting teachers)

Minimises barriers

Initiatescontacts

Affordsopportunities

Responds to parental initiatives

At-home educational involvement(modelling expectations, support, discussion, encouragement, skills training)

Child shapes parent/teacher interactions

Achievement/adjustment

Pupilvalues

PupilSkills

Research based model of effective parental involvement in schooling

Desforges (2003)

To untangle this web of variables and examine their impact upon how involved

a parent becomes in their child’s learning is a worthwhile exercise because to

understand these is to understand the barriers to learning and as a result

identify possible ways in which to break down these barriers.

Much of the work on parental involvement was carried out using data from the

60’s and 70’s and therefore should be viewed within this historical context.

However research by Sacker et al (2002) (cited in Desforges 2003) indicates

that the degree of parental involvement is influenced, particularly when children

are of primary age, by two factors; material deprivation and parental aspiration.

Viewed on a hierarchy of need, a parent, preoccupied with housing,

overcrowding and whether children have a bathroom, would see reading to

children at bedtime as a low priority. In turn, if a child does not seem to be

achieving at school, aspirations for his or her future will be greatly diminished.

And yet, observation of the achievement of children in relation to their social

class would suggest that cause and effect are not as clearly defined. Some

children seem to achieve despite material deprivation whilst others from

‘comfortable backgrounds’ do not. Schoon and Parsons (2002) (cited in

Desforges 2003:24) identified through the classification of children as either

vulnerable or resilient, ‘protective factors’ underlying social class and material

deprivation. An educated mother, helpful father and parent who displayed a

positive attitude to schooling all played a significant part.

To summarise, to argue social class is the only variable that determines how

involved a parent is in their child’s learning is an oversimplification. Desforges’

model illustrates that parental attitudes to education, the child’s values, skills

and schools’ attitudes to parents all play a part in building the child’s resilience

and developing a positive self - schema related to education and ultimately

lifelong learning. However research shows measurements of social class in

relation to material deprivation and parental aspiration do have an impact upon

parental involvement and in turn achievement. Although resilient children still

15

perform better than the vulnerable, regardless of material deprivation they do

not achieve to the level of the socially advantaged.

The support school can give through signposting to other agencies through the

extended schools provision may go some way to reversing this finding and

breaking down the barriers caused by material deprivation thus freeing up the

family to play a more positive role in supporting their children as lifelong

learners.

One aspect of extended services offered by schools to increase parental

involvement is family learning. Alexander and Clyne (1995) in Riches Beyond

Price (cited in Haggart 2003:3)define Family Learning as a form of

intergenerational learning based on family kinship.’ This definition fulfils Smith

and Spurling’s (1999) (cited in Deakin Crick R. et al, 2004: 250) four principles

of lifelong learning and the European framework of key competences for

learning to learn relating to building on life experiences and making use of

guidance. Therefore a learning activity engaged with by all the family would

seem to fulfil the criteria related to life long learning and in doing so enable

families to support their children as life long learners. And yet, from Hannon’s

work on home/school environments and on research carried out on the socio-

economic barriers to learning it is clear that the ‘hard to reach families’ would

not through their own fruition create such a learning opportunity at home nor

would the traditional learning environment offered by school break down the

barriers to learning experienced by many parents.

Pahl and Kelly (2005) in their work on family learning go some way to

overcoming this through the creation of a ‘third space’ to enable parents and

families to become involved in their child’s learning. Here a family learning

activity creates a physical space that is neither home with all its domestic

pressures and chaos, and nor is it school. Because although it can take place

in a school the nature of its delivery means that it is not school with its rules and

regulations and authority figures. Therefore a ‘borderland’ (Gee) ( cited in Pahl

and Kelly 2005:92) is created to fill the chasm between that of school and home

and begin to change the attitude that children and parents have of learning

being confined to the classroom and to childhood.

16

However, before concluding that the creation of a ‘borderland’ in the form of a

family learning activity may be the panacea to establishing the role families can

take in supporting their children as lifelong learners, the question of how

families learn together in this borderland needs to be explored and in particular

discourse.

Turning from the impact socio-economic factors have on parental involvement,

Sui-Chu and Willms, (1996) (cited in Desforges 2003) identified that after family

social class the most significant factor was ‘home discussion’.

‘Regardless of social class, the more parents and children conversed with each

other in the home, the more pupils achieved at school.’

(Desforges 2003:.21)

What form this discussion takes and to whom was also significant. The

discussions included talk with mother, father, school, activities, monitoring

homework, limiting TV time and going out; home after school, school contacts

parents, volunteering at school, parent /teacher organisation.

In feedback from parents participating in the ‘Help Your Child to Succeed’

programme as part of the Devizes Strong Children project 2005 – 2007 lack of

communication between parents and school and parents and their children is

cited as a main barrier preventing them from supporting their children’s learning.

Although they saw education as part of their role as a parent and wanted to be

involved they did not possess ‘self efficacy’ (Desforges 2003). It can be argued

that this lack of confidence in whether they can make a difference to their child’s

learning is rooted in a parent’s own childhood memories of school and a feeling

of being ‘….put down by schools and teachers.’ (Desforges 2003:1). This is

reinforced by the concept of the ‘….big powerful school’ and the ‘false power’

((cited in Wolfendale and Bastiani, 2000:40), the environment and the

professional language of the curriculum can provide teachers creating an

imbalance in Coleman’s (1998) triad of parent, teacher and pupil.

17

Coleman (1986)

Conversely, Coleman illustrates the influence the ‘family effect’ can have on the

classroom. Parental modelling, expectations, values and the building of skills

can equally create an in balance in the opposite direction. Therefore it would

seem that the solution is more complex than each player in the partnership

talking to each other more. To be able to engage in their children’s learning

families need to know what questions to ask and how to ask them. Parents

need to understand what is being learned at school in the 21st century, to be

able to empathise and interact with their children and teachers and to have the

confidence to ask questions. In turn schools need to demystify the language of

learning. As Wolfendale (1992) states this communication must be reciprocal.

Learning to learn approaches may provide this common vocabulary. For the

purposes of this project two approaches which fulfil this definition of learning to

learn will be reviewed – Deakin Crick’s (2004) Effective Lifelong Learning

Inventory ELLI and Claxton’s (2002) Building Learning Power .

18

PARENT

TEACHER PUPIL

School

Home

The Power of Three

ELLI (Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory) focuses on seven dimensions that

describe a person’s motivation to learn throughout life. The premise of this

theoretical framework is that the social influences of formal learning with its

structured curriculum and teacher dispensing knowledge checks an individual’s

ability to learn and in particular his creativity. By taking a constructivist

perspective on learning i.e. constructing knowledge from innate capacities to

learn and by information from the environment, children can be taught to

identify ‘learning dimensions’ and use them to develop their ability to learn

throughout their life.

Similarly Claxton’s approach to learning to learn termed, Building Learning

Power centres on four learning dispositions - Resilience, Resourcefulness,

Reflectiveness and Reciprocity. Within these four dispositions lie learning

power capacities. As with the ELLI approach children are encouraged to

become aware of behaviours which contribute to their capacity to learn.

Both of these frameworks have been developed to use in the learning

environment of the school and although both acknowledge the importance of

parents becoming involved in learning to learn neither propose how this might

occur.

Having established that family learning would create a learning environment in

which families develop their role in supporting children as lifelong learners, by

acting as a catalyst to learning in the home in the form of a ‘Borderland’; an

evaluation can be made of how these two learning to learn approaches might

be incorporated into the theoretical frameworks used within family learning and

provide the discourse to support life long learning.

The table in figure1 illustrates the learning dispositions of Building Learning

Power and the learning dimensions of ELLI in relation to the three theoretical

frameworks used to deliver family learning. (Banbury M. 2005).

19

A common thread running through all three family learning frameworks is that of

experiential learning rather than cognitive learning. It can be argued that this

approach creates a learning environment where neither adult nor child feels

they are being tested. Encouragement is given by the family learning facilitator

to adult and child to be resourceful, making links with prior experiences,

knowledge and learning in their own lives. In doing so they become reflective

on each other’s abilities, thus raising the child’s confidence and the adult’s

expectations of the child, illustrating on of Smith and Spurling’s (1999) four

themes underlying life long learning.

With increased confidence the child and adult are no longer the passive

recipients of an activity led by a teacher, thus echoing Smith and Spurling’s

(1999) concept of the lifelong learner as the ‘active learning agent in the

community.’ Overtime this can be translated into Desforges (2003) model of the

effective parent possessing self efficacy and the confidence they can make a

difference.

However it is crucial that the design and deliver of the activity is accommodated

within Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (cited in Das Gupta P. and

Richardson K.1995) of both adult and child or as Claxton (2006:11) describes in

a ‘potentiating environment.’ Therefore the activity must generate curiosity, a

desire to have a go and be challenged, but at the same time learners must

develop a resilience to the feeling of being confused, stuck and frustrated,

accepting it as part of learning.

A key aspect of family learning, that of learning together in a non-hierarchical

context enables the learning to learn disposition which Claxton terms reciprocity

to be experienced. The nature of learning opportunities offered by school with

its limited conversations and vertical age groups (Hannon date?), means that it

is often difficult to experience reciprocity in learning; a key competence in

learning to learn and lifelong learning. However within family learning the

intergenerational collaborative partnership which is created through focusing

upon an activity together relies upon the exchange of ideas, the respect of

other’s ideas, the ability to empathise and most importantly the modelling of a

20

learner. It can be argued that the ability to model or imitate learning is the one

key role that families can take in supporting their children as life long learners.

Vygotsky several decades ago stated that ‘….the habits of mind are

contagious.’ (Claxton 2006:6). Now neuroscience has identified that the human

brain is predisposed to learning through imitation and that through ‘mirror

neurons’ the human brain is hard wired to mimic thinking and learning. (Claxton

2006:6).

It is the behaviour of mimicry, imitation or modelling that lies behind the effective

delivery of learning to learn through family learning. Claxton’s learning

dispositions and the Effective Learning to learn inventory as they are defined in

the table would have little impact if taught to parents and children explicitly. To

ask parents to support their children as life long learners by being resilient or to

have a critical curiosity would be an impossible task. However to be implicit

and what Claxton terms ‘infuse’ such learning dispositions in practical, hands on

activities through modelling curiosity, determination, persistence and a desire to

ask what, when, how, why and where questions could effect a behaviour

change. Therefore the role of the family is not to support their children, thus

creating dependency and a fragility to learn, but to model it.

Finally, It is the ‘Split Screen thinking’ Claxton (2006:11) of explicitly

participating in an activity while at the same time implicitly being taught learning

to learn skills that could resolve the second challenge identified; measuring the

impact of parental involvement on raising standards. Structured family learning

activities designed using a ‘split screen’ approach could provide a framework of

planned development against which the impact parental involvement has upon

pupil achievement and school effectiveness is measured using qualitative

techniques. Thus integrating two of the models proposed by Bastiani (2000).

21

Theoretical framework for Learning To Learn

Kolb Experiential learning Hannon ORIM Framework Mezirow Transformative

dimensions of adult learning Theoretical framework for Learning To Learn

Building Learning Power       ELLIPositive learning dispositions       Dimensions of learning power

Resilient    Disorientating dilemma • resilience – children being able to realise that

Curious (proactive)     they will face challenges and that they need toAdventurous (up for a challenge)       cope with their emotions when faced with theseDetermined (persistent)       challenges and to persevere;Flexible (trying other ways)       Observant (details/patterns) Observation      Focused (distractions)        Resourceful       • creativity – children being encouraged to useQuestioning ("How come?")       their imagination and not be constrained byOpen-minded ('negative capability')       rules.

Playful ("let's try….") Testing in new situations    • critical curiosity – children developing a sense

Imaginative (could be….) Forming abstract concepts     of wonder to try and find out what is reallyIntegrating (making links) Concrete experience   Transformation going on (Why? What?, Where?, How?Intuitive (reverie)       questions are important);        • meaning making – children becoming good        connectors who can see that what they might        be learning in the classroom relates to the wider        world and who can make links with prior        knowledge and learning in their own lives;Reflective Reflection   Critical reflection • strategic awareness – children becomingClear-thinking (logical)       responsible for their own learning and having aThoughtful (where else could I use this?)    

Perspective transformation toolkit of strategies which they are able to use in

Self-knowing (own habits)       any particular learning situation;Methodical (strategic)       • changing – children having a philosophy and

Opportunistic (serendipity)  Providing opportunities for learning   confidence that they can be more effective

Self-evaluative ("How's it going?")  

Showing recognition of the child's activities   learners over time and develop strengths in

        other learning dimensions;Reciprocal       learning relationships – developing children asCollaborative (team member)       effective partners in learning with their peers,Independent (can work alone)       teachers and other people;Open to feedback        Attentive (to others)   Interaction with the child    Empathic (other people's shoes)        Imitative (contagious)   Providing a model of a learner    

22

The Learning Tree – A Family Learning project

Widening Parental Involvement by breaking down the barriers

Redressing the Power Imbalance

Over a period of seven years the Learning Tree project has delivered over 50

family learning workshops throughout Wiltshire and as far a field as Cornwall

and Singapore, enabling over 3,500 adults and children to experience

learning together. Examples will be drawn from these workshops and

analysed using the literature review related to parental involvement and

lifelong learning. Details of specific workshops are collated on the Learning

Tree website.

Experience of what works and what does not work has enabled a model to be

developed that is representative of Wolfendale’s (1992) reciprocal relationship

within the school community between parents, children and school staff. The

methodology detailed in the diagram begins to redress the power imbalance

which is identified within Coleman’s (1998) ‘triad’ as a barrier to parental

involvement.

23

Model adopted to develop reciprocal relationship between Teaching staff, parents and pupils.

24

Personal invitation Peer group influence Teacher reminder Setting up on Friday Saturday workshop Passport with photo of

the make and take and their participation.

Points means prizes incentive scheme for attendance

Celebration assemblies

Assembly Newsletter Letter Poster Invitation with reply

slip Meeting with PTA Saturday

workshop

Presentation at a staff meeting.

Assembly Register notices Friday setting up Saturday

workshop Evaluation

School staff

School

The Learning

Tree

Building a relationship with the school.Identify need with teaching staff.Designing workshop

Whole school assembly Key stage assembly Parents attend assembly School council workshop

PupilsFamily members

The need to widen parental involvement is in the majority of situations initiated

by the Head teacher. Therefore the balance of power is immediately skewed

towards the needs of the school and in particular the fulfilment of a range of

initiatives relating to the Every Child Matters agenda and specifically Section 4

of the School Evaluation Framework.

Common barriers related to widening parental involvement are identified as:-

A need to engage with ‘hard to reach parents’

This term relates to parents who do not complete reading record books

regularly, have negative contact with the school often related to poor

behaviour and unauthorised absence and do not tend to support their

children by attending parents evenings, information evenings and

school events.

Engagement of fathers.

Engagement of boys particularly at Key Stage 2.

Firstly, to begin to engage with ‘hard to reach’ parents one of the barriers

preventing them from engaging, namely the institution of the school with its

perceived rigid structures and hierarchies, curriculum speak and protocols

needs to be broken down to enable the parents to begin to feel comfortable

with becoming involved. The Learning Tree project has achieved this by the

family learning activity being presented not as an event organised by the

school but from outside of the education system. The project is run by parents

for parents. It models what parents can achieve for themselves. This can be

developed further as in the case of family learning at St. Pauls primary school

(2003) where the activities were delivered by the Learning Tree and yet all

the publicity and the organisation of getting families involved was carried out

by the Parent Teacher Association who entitled the event ‘We can do it!

(2003) .As family learning is embedded within a school learning community it

can begin to have its own separate and unique identity such as The Saturday

Academy at Nythe Primary School (2006 - onwards)

Although initial contact with a school is mostly at a senior level which is

essential to gain commitment and for sourcing and securing funding, for

25

greatest success to widening parental involvement control of the family

learning event needs to be disseminated to teaching staff and parents in order

to enable ‘the triad’ to see and accept that education is part of the parent’s

role; that Desforges’(2003) parental ‘self efficacy’ is developed and that the

importance of family learning in modelling lifelong learning is infused

throughout the school community. For example the PTA or teaching staff can

become involved by organising and serving breakfast at the workshop.

During the seven years of the project many reluctant dads have found

headteachers to be human. Heads are disarmed of any superiority their

position may afford them when they are cooking bacon rolls for 100 in a

school kitchen. Although the PTA are parents who are already involved in

their children’s learning, they can influence other parents to join in.

Playground “chit chat” is a very effective way of encouraging parents to

attend.

However ‘hard to reach’ parents may not feel comfortable with an

enthusiastic PTA member. Here children can influence their parent’s decision

making as to whether to become involved. The personal invitations given to

each child, the whole school assembly and if possible the session on learning

to learn delivered to the school council all contributes to reversing the role of

parent and child and teacher and child by giving children confidence to learn

through ownership of the family learning activity. In promotional assemblies

Children are encouraged to think about how much time they spend outside of

school as opposed to the 15% spent at school and therefore how important

their family is to their learning.

They are encouraged to look at the different ways they enjoy learning and to

think about learning throughout life. An example shared with many 100s of

children over the years has been that of my father who at 79 still has piano

lessons because he wants to learn and still improve. Recently this example of

lifelong learning has been taken one step further when after 30 years of not

playing the clarinet, I promised a school assembly of 150 children that I would

begin to learn again. Three months later I returned to play Finzi’s ‘Carol’ to

150 stunned children proving that learning never stops if you are resilient to

have a go, be adventurous and are up for a challenge!

26

These learning dispositions are encouraged in the children through modelling

to them at an assembly what they will be doing at the family learning activity

such as building a water rocket or an elastic band powered car. Immediately

they possess more knowledge about a specific activity than the adult they will

bring to school. In addition ICT is often used in the activities and children are

encouraged to consider that they often know more than their parents and

therefore take on the role of teacher.

To summarise, the start of a collaborative learning relationship between child

and adult is developed long before the family learning activity takes place.

The power imbalance identified as a barrier to widening parental involvement

begins to be equalised through modelling learning to learn dispositions and

building the child’s confidence and curiosity. An understanding of their own

parent’s ability to learn as adults is reflected upon by the children who take

the message home enthusiastically and ‘sell’ the idea of coming to school to

do something fun with an adult family member. Parents hearing the message

from the child, seeing publicity headed up not by the school but by an outside

organisation and/or the PTA begin to feel less reluctant to become involved

and barriers begin to be broken down.

27

The creation of learning opportunities.

Right time, right place, right activity

Many schools the project has worked with focus on the need to gain greater

parental involvement from men within a family, particularly to support boys

with their learning. In addressing this issue, not from the perspective of the

school, but from the perspective of adult males within the family three barriers

have been identified as preventing men from being ready, willing and able to

develop a role in supporting their children in lifelong learning.

Firstly, parental involvement has to be at a time that will accommodate work

hours, shift patterns and access times for men. Evaluation of feedback from a

structured conversation with parents at Nythe in 2007 showed that 85% of

those interviewed thought that Saturday mornings are the best day to deliver

a family learning activity, with 39% considering Sunday morning a good time.

Only 0.08% thought Saturday pm was the best day and time.

However reasonable notice needs to be given with regard to the date and also

timing needs to be flexible. This is particularly relevant in families where

fathers may only have access on specified weekends. To engage with families

and to develop life long learning the learning environment of the home as

described by Hannon (1993) needs to be created.

Secondly, the family learning activity has to be in the right place. Small

chairs, confined spaces and classroom paraphernalia all contribute to alienate

men either because of their own negative experiences of school or because of

the perceived feminisation of the primary environment. Recent figures show

that men account for just 16 per cent of all primary school teachers. (Beckford

2008).

Experience has shown that halls, gyms and outside areas are the most

appealing areas to attract dads to school. They offer larger areas of space for

moving around, bigger furniture and can be disguised quickly to become a

design and development laboratory, a launch pad or a race track.

28

However attendance statistics at family learning activities held at one school,

but open to the cluster of schools suggests that although some parents

attend their own child’s school with reluctance they are even more reluctant to

attend another school in their area. Anecdotal evidence suggests that as

parents we feel apprehensive to visit another school because it may confirm

that we made the wrong choice in selecting a school.

The third factor which prevents men from becoming involved is their ability to

become engaged with their child’s learning. For example, a family learning

session focusing on literacy and the use of the story The Gingerbread Man is

unappealing. However by creating Claxton’s (2006) potentiating environment

the activity can become both challenging and appealing. At Southbroom

Infants’ school in 2008 by combining work the children had been doing in

Literacy on the story of ‘The Gingerbread man’ with work in Science on

changing materials, a cross curricular activity was created. This involved the

learning disposition of resourcefulness and asking a ‘What if’ question.

Instead of the Gingerbread man trusting the fox to carry him safely across the

river and then getting eaten the Gingerbread man found a bridge to cross the

river. Then, using the learning disposition of resourcefulness, families were

encouraged to experiment with different materials such as spaghetti,

newspaper or K’nex to build the bridge. Finally, through building in an element

of challenge by testing the strength of the bridges to breaking point, there was

an opportunity to experience failure and therefore develop resilience.

To summarise, through offering a learning opportunity at a time that suited

family members; creating a space that was non-threatening and an

experiential based activity with an element of risk and the need for

collaboration, adult males within the family were offered a learning opportunity

that they felt comfortable to be ready, willing and able to become involved.

29

Engaging with female family members

In focusing on factors that will encourage adult family members to become

involved in their children’s learning the question of whether female members

are discouraged by these factors has to be considered.

There is no evidence to suggest that considerations of time and place are any

different for male or female family members. However qualitative data does

suggest mothers use the opportunity for dads to take children to an activity on

a Saturday morning “Learning tree is his time with the children and I get to

have a bit of space for myself.” (Nythe Enquiry Walk 2007)

Turning to the type of activity, evaluation of water rocket workshops delivered

at five Primary Schools in Wiltshire over a five year period illustrates the

breakdown of participating families.

Gender Family Learning Workshop321 Blast off!

St. Peters

2003

St. Pauls

2004

Walwayne

2005

Nythe

2006

Lainesmead

2008

Male 58% 54% 33% 56% 48%

Female 42% 46% 67% 44% 52%

Boys 61% 64% 53%* 60% 57%*

Girls 39% 36% 47% 40% 43%

This workshop was designed specifically to attract ‘dads and lads.’ although

this is never overtly stated in publicity. It incorporates technology, water the

outdoors and an element of competition. The data illustrates that in three out

of the five workshops more adult males than females did attend and in all five

workshops more boys attended than girls. Interestingly in the two workshops

Walwayne and Lainesmead where more adult females attended than adult

males, the percentages of boys* attending are both lower than in the three

workshops with high adult male attendance.

30

Firstly the data suggests that this type of workshop does attract men and yet

is not necessarily unappealing to women. Qualitative data indicates that

women attending the technology based workshops are apprehensive if it

involves the use of tools or technology based language. However on

completion of the activity the sense of achievement is visible and a common

remark is, ‘I thought this was far too technical for me to make, but I did it.’

(Smith S. 2007).

The data may also indicate that a greater number of boys will engage with

learning if they have a male learning model rather than a female. This would

be a key benefit to a school and fulfil an identified need. As a consequence of

this finding the project uses male facilitators drawn from a wide age range.

Gender Family Learning WorkshopBox of Delights

St. Peters

2003

Margaret Stancomb

2005

Hullavington

2007

Male 39% 14% 33%

Female 61% 57% 67%

Boys 40% 35% 64%

Girls 60% 65% 36%

Attendance data from family learning activities that have a craft and literacy

based theme suggest that men are less interested in getting involved in this

type of activity. The data is too small to conclude if this activity appeals to

girls more than boys and more data needs to be collected.

To conclude, the creation of a third space through the transformation of a

school hall, an outdoor area or an ICT suite into a learning environment that is

neither school nor home to meet the needs of both adults and children

encourages wider participation. Specific groups such as dads and lads can be

targeted without necessarily excluding mums and girls. However data would

suggest that men will engage more with activities with a literacy theme if it is

delivered from an experiential perspective that includes technology and

science rather than art and craft.

31

Nurturing learning conversations

In the early development of workshops the team considered that for parents to

fully appreciate their role in modelling learning to their child they needed to

understand the mechanics of learning to learn; the premise being that to

understand the conversation you need to learn the language fully.

Therefore workshops were designed to include a session separate from the

children where parents were informed of the latest learning to learn

approaches that were being proposed as key to Lifelong learning. Many of

the schools the project team worked in were using learning to learn

approaches and some who were participating in the vibrant schools project

were using Claxton’s Building Learning Power.

However very few parents were aware of these approaches. To support the

session families were given the Campaign For Learning booklet detailing the

Learning to learn approach of the 5R’s adopted by the campaign which is very

similar to the 4R’s of Building Learning Power.

An example of such a workshop was ‘Get the Learning Bug’ delivered as part

of a science week at Southbroom Infants’ school (2007). The analogy of

creating an electrical circuit to make a connection was used to describe how

we learn through acquisition of knowledge by enquiry, accommodation of

knowledge with what we already know through testing and reflecting and the

assimilation of knowledge to transform our thinking and ‘put the light bulb on’

A 20 minute session was presented to parents on Learning to learn.

Meanwhile children were shown in a separate session how to make the bug.

They were also primed to take on the role of teacher when working with the

adults.

The effectiveness of this approach on providing a role for the adults to support

their children as lifelong learners was unsatisfactory. In our enthusiasm to

spread the word on learning to learn we had fallen into the trap of the bolt on

solution, the hints and tips approach and had ignored Claxton’s (2006 :14)

‘infusion approach’ We had also altered the balance of power in the

relationship we were trying to develop with the families. Because the adult

32

group were met for the first time at the session by the facilitate ability levels of

the group of adults were unknown and therefore differentiation was difficult.

Some adults were familiar with the concept of life long learning from their work

experience and gained confidence by making links to their existing

knowledge, others were not and found the terminology and concepts difficult

to grasp and too disorientating in the short session.

However the children’s session proved to be successful. They relished the

role reversal and the responsibility and confidence their new role gave them.

This went some way to counteracting the fragility some parents were

experiencing and although overall the feedback from the activity was positive,

the session needed to be reviewed.

Building upon this experience the team identified that a powerful tool that

could be shared with parents was that of questioning. Through simple open

questioning techniques drawn from a member of the teams mentoring

experience parents could begin to demonstrate fairly rapidly all four of

Claxton’s learning dispositions in themselves and begin to nurture them within

the children.

In the problem solving family learning activity ‘Which came first, the chicken or

the egg?’ (Nythe 2007) again parents and children were separated for a short

session – children to brain storm the problem of building a chicken that could

lay chocolate eggs and parents to have modelled to them the power of open

questioning.

33

During the joint session team members observed a greater emphasis being

put on questioning by the adults. Examples recorded included:-

Questions posed by adults to children during practical activity of making a chicken from recycled materials that could lay chocolate eggs.

(Nythe 2007)

(Looking at scrap materials to build the chicken from) ‘What could this be?’

‘How does a chicken lay an egg?’ Can we think of two ways to make it drop the egg?’

‘If mum was here, how would she build it?’

In response to question from child ‘That’s a really good question. I don’t know the answer, shall we ask someone?’

‘Can we think of anything we know already that works like this?’

Through the development of questioning skills learning dispositions of

observation, flexibility, curiosity, playfulness, integration, thoughtfulness and

empathy were all being nurtured. Instead of bolting on the 4 R’s the activity

was acting as a vehicle, enabling both adult and child to build their learning

capacity.

To summarise through the acquisition of simple questioning skills a learning

conversation could be nurtured without the need to understand the syntax or

semantics of the language in great detail. We were beginning to appreciate

the power of modelling and imitating behaviour.

To develop this approach further Claxton’s concept of split screen thinking

has been adopted in the design, planning and delivery of family learning

activities.

34

Building learning capacity through split screen thinking

Unlike a teacher constrained by the curriculum, the family learning activities

created by the project can evolve from the learning disposition trying to be

developed. Therefore the concept of split screen thinking advocated by

Claxton has driven the creation of the activity rather than necessity to teach a

body of knowledge.

The table below illustrates firstly, the common methodology that has been

adopted for all Learning tree workshops to correct the imbalance of power and

create a learning environment that is not threatening to families. Secondly, it

illustrates the learning disposition predominantly focused upon in each

activity. Although there is a focus upon one of the 4R’s this is not to the

exclusion of the other three. Claxton’s theoretical framework is a neat

construct for the purposes of explaining how learning capacity can be built. In

reality it is harder to separate the dispositions. It is difficult and indeed not

desirable to be playful (resourceful) and not curious (resilient) at the same

time.

Families are introduced to the theme of the workshops through the

promotional materials – posters, invitations, newsletter and an assembly as

well as the programme given to each family on arrival at a workshop. All the

materials are ‘infused’ with the learning dispositions to be nurtured in families

rather than teaching them through a parenting session. However separate

parent sessions can be planned into the family learning activity if through

working with the school it is agreed this would be appropriate, but these are

planned in an informal way and focus on questioning skills rather than specific

learning dispositions.

Throughout the family activity facilitation is used rather than instruction. If a

parent is supporting the child too much, giving instructions and judging the

child, they are not stopped and told this is wrong, as in some situations an

element of this type of behaviour may be appropriate, but not as a constant.

Instead, The Learning Tree team work alongside the families, building and

creating the model. At the same time the learning disposition to be

emphasised is modelled through language and behaviour.

35 Newspaper bridges

‘Loads of money’

penny bridges

‘Split Screen Thinking’

Family Learning Activities

Barriers to Parental Involvement Learning dispositions for Life Long Learning Learning to Learn – Claxton’s Building Learning Power

Disposition predominantly focused upon in activityBalance of Power

‘Triad’Creation of a learning

opportunity‘Third Space’

Resilience Resourcefulness Reflectiveness Reciprocity

Common Methodology used for each activity to overcome barriers to parental involvement

Need identified with Head teacher

Relationship developed with teaching and support staff – staff meeting

Relationship developed with PTA if it exists

Relationship developed with school council

Posters, newsletter, personalised invitations

Whole School assembly

Friday pm set up making staff, parents and pupils aware of something different happening.

Saturday morning delivery. Flexible, open sessions, Pre-booking optional. Registration paperwork minimal.

Simple programme and instructions

Activity distributed as a kit.

Hall/gym, playground, ICT suite transformed to ‘third space’

Layout workstations open to all

Materials mostly recycled and equipment freely available

Secure area for personal belongings

Background music Breakfast Workshop leaders

modelling behaviour to achieve activity and at same time displaying learning dispositions.

321 Blast offWater Rockets

Scrapheap ChallengeCD Tanks

Box of DelightsPop up theatres/story boxes

Learning BugsBattery torch

Angels of ……Christmas Angels

Ginger Bread ManBridges

Chicken and EggScrap chicks that lay choc eggs

Carnival TimeChicken hats

Balloon boatsAir powered boats

Kites

Den buildingCloth and pole framed tents

36

Impact

Much of the impact the project has had on widening parental involvement and

enabling families to support their children as lifelong learners has been

measured using Bastiani’s (2000) ‘Stakeholder approach’. Qualitative data

has been collected after every workshop through feedback forms, informal

discussions, structured conversations, comments collected on post its and

photographs. A continual evaluative loop similar to ‘Kolb’s learning cycle,

used widely in family learning, has enabled an on going reflective process to

take place. Through the consideration of views and judgements made by

teachers, parents and children what works and what does not work has been

identified.

54% of the activities carried out by the project have been ‘one offs’, dictated

by the availability of funding. The table below illustrates the primary schools

in Wiltshire where The Learning Tree has delivered more than one family

learning event. Although feedback from these ‘one off’ schools is positive with

an average of 96% of families describing on evaluation forms the experience

of attending the activity as very good, it is evident from the table that the

impact of the project can be measured most accurately from the qualitative

and quantitative data collected from Nythe. Here a sustained programme of

family learning has been maintained during 2006 and 2007 and continued into

2008/2009 through the use of extended schools funding.

Primary School Number of Learning Tree Events

Period of time

St. Peters 5 2001 – 2004

St. Pauls 2 2004

Walwayne 3 2005 -2006

Southbroom

Infants’

2 2007 – 2008

Nythe 11 and a further 6 planned 2006 – 2008/2009

Lainesmead 2 2008

Quantitative data collected from attendance figures illustrates that a cohort of

102 children from a roll of 146 have attended more than one family learning

37

event with at least one adult family member. 77% of families attending in the

first year had attended three out of four family learning activities and 92% of

families when asked how many of the six activities offered in 2006/2007 they

thought they would attend said they would try and attend all of them. These

figures seem impressive, but it is not until matched with the profile of the

school and the qualitative data collected from teachers and adults that their

significance is understood.

Nythe draws children from a mixed socio economic and cultural background.

The percentage of children with English as their second language is currently

10% and 23% of children have SEN. On two occasions the school has faced

closure because of falling rolls and because of an Ofsted report which placed

it in the category of having serious weaknesses.

Feedback from teaching staff indicate that although many of the families

attending the Saturday activities are families already engaged fully in their

children’s learning a growing percentage of them could be described as the

‘hard to reach’.

However it is not until the qualitative data captured from parents who

participated in an enquiry walk lead by a consultant from the National College

of School Leadership is analysed that a true picture of the impact the project

is making on the parents can be made.

The table illustrates that the family learning activities delivered at Nythe over a

two year sustained period have impacted upon power relationships, the right

time, place and opportunity for adults and children to learn together, and have

modelled learning conversations which the feedback clearly illustrates are

being imitated at home.

In addition the Saturday Academy has provided the school with a parent

governor, an opportunity for Year 7 pupils to return to school to continue

learning with their families, acting as role models to Year 6 pupils and

contributing to transition. Finally, it has provided teachers who attend with an

opportunity to observe pupils learning outside of the classroom and provide

an in-sight into that child’s personal approach to learning. For example, a

child was observed using problem solving techniques, asking ‘What if’

38

questions and making links with existing knowledge when building a water

rocket with her mother who, although the adult was happy for her daughter to

take on the role of teacher. The teacher remarked that this child was normally

very quite in the classroom and reluctant to contribute in front of her peers to

science topics. He now realised that he could switch on her capacity to learn

if he made it more experiential and reflected on the roles he and his pupils

were taking in his class.

Finally, the impact of the project can be measured by the school’s overall

effectiveness in 2007 with a value added measured at 100.3 and a coverage

indicator of 89%. ‘The Nythe Saturday Academy was recreating a sense of

identity and community ties that is usually perceived as having broken down

in modern society’ (Wood 2007:6). It can be argued that this approach is

contributing to the overall effectiveness of the school by developing Smith and

Spurling’s (1999) active learning agents and creating a role for families as

learning models to support their children as Life long learners.

39

Qualitative data from Parents at Nythe Primary School 2008

Power relationship(Reciprocity)

Learning environment 3rd space(Ready, will and able to learn)

Learning dispositions4 R’s

“I would just be doing the house work or shopping and my daughter would be in bed watching Saturday TV, learning tree gives us quality time with our children.”

a learning opportunity where both adult and child can focus on learning together without distractions of home.

“Learning tree is his time [father who works shifts] with the children and I get to have a bit of space for myself.”

A learning opportunity offered at a time when a father can be attentive and children can develop as effective partners in learning.

“It is a great way to learn together, we usually pull it apart and put it back together again several times to see if we can do it better. There’s usually a trip to the library like when we did the bird feeders we put it up and then wanted to find out about the birds that were coming into the garden.”

The environment created makes people feel positive about learning.

Resilient –curious, determined,flexible, observant.Resourceful – questioning, playfulReflective – methodical, opportunistic.Reciprocity – collaborative, imitative, open to feedback

“We usually take it to Grandparents in the afternoon; it’s a great stimulus for talk that would usually be quite mundane.”

IntergenerationalDeveloping a close relationship with adults

Extending learning opportunity beyond the classroom and beyond the 3rd space created by family learning activity

Reflective – giving children opportunity to develop a philosophy about their learning, to become self knowing.

“The children get to know how to do it and show us what to do.” Role reversal giving children confidence and adults opportunity to recognise/respect their child’s learning and heighten their expectations

Reciprocity – collaborative learning partnershipDevelop strategic awareness – a toolkit of strategies that they can share.

“You’re never too old to learn.” said one granddad.” Intergenerational. Opportunity to model life long learning.

Vertical age groups are made to feel welcome in school and seen in school by children and adults.Creation of a learning community

“Sometimes I haven’t got a clue, I give it a go and I get it wrong, we’re showing children that we are willing to learn and show them that we can mistakes to.”

Equalising the power imbalanceTo gain respect from children through not always knowing the right answer.

A learning environment where you can make mistakes and not be judged.

Resilient – face challenges but persevere.

“My son loves it when I go into his class” Increasing parental capacity for involvement – both child and parent feel confident to participate in learning

Adults welcomed into learning community.

Reflective – create a feeling of serendipity

“They see us all getting on and they know we talk to each other so they have to think about how they behave because we’ll find out what they’ve been up to when we all meet up again!”

Developing a collective responsibility that is non judgemental or competitive.

Opportunity to model expectations, values and beliefs and to relate to other experiences of parenting.

Collaborative working

40

Implications

The implications of the findings from The Learning Tree project in relation to

creating a role for families in supporting their children as lifelong learners are

clear.

A role of model learner can be created if the relationships between parent,

child and teacher are addressed. Learning opportunities must be created for

the adult and child and learning conversations that are based upon the

learning dispositions needed for life long learning must be nurtured. This can

be represented as a simple equation.

41

Role of family as model learner to nurture LLL in child

Represents the triad of power between teacher, child and parent

This represents the third space created for families to learn.Its not home and not school.

This represents the learning dispositionsWhich nurture lifelong Learning ResilienceResourcefulnessReflectivenessReciprocity

Brackets represent any activity created.

However further work needs to be carried out on how this can be integrated

into a school development plan. Some initial work detailed in the table below

has been done to map activities at Nythe against its SDP, but this needs to be

developed.

Secondly, the process illustrated in the table could be used as a framework

against which to measure the degree of parental involvement in a school and

thus the contribution it is making to a school’s overall effectiveness. The

checklist below illustrates a skeleton outline

Elements to engage families weak basic good excellent

1 2 3 4RelationshipsParentChildTeacher

Learning Opportunities

Time

PlaceActivity

Learning dispositions

Resilience

ResourcefulnessReflectivenessReciprocity

In addition, the success of Nythe supports the view that any programme of

parental involvement must have long term commitment from a school to see

any positive impact. Also, long term sustainability will only be achieved when

teaching staff, parents and children become more involved in the process of

family learning. Again this is being piloted at Nythe with the introduction of

‘Learning Cadets’ drawn from children who regularly attend the Saturday

Academy and who will work with the Learning Tree to develop family learning

activities using the ‘Split Screen’ approach. Long term plans will also

incorporate closer working with teaching staff and more opportunities to

develop with parents their knowledge of learning to learn. Although this

presents challenges in relation to parental self efficacy, the professional role

of the teacher and also the personalised learning agenda for each child; the

impact on raising achievement for everyone far outweighs the challenges. 42

Term Date Workshop

Suggested Parenting Session

Target Group Whole school plus… ECM SEAL 4 R's Initiatives Curriculum

1September

15thGetting the Learning Bug (Battery bugs)

New parents - supporting children to learn New parents

Enjoy and achieve

New Beginnings

Learning Muscles

Environment/ Year of Reading

Science Electricity

2December

1stThe Angel of Nythe

(making angels)Building Confidence

Possible Volunteers to help at school

Making a positive

contributionGood to be me Resilience

Arts mark? Signing up more volunteers

PSHE festivals/Art - Anthony Gormley

3January

26thBlast off with me

(rockets)Anger Management

attracting Families who have never attended by regulars inviting them Staying Safe

Getting on and falling out

Reflectiveness - Learning Coaches

BECTA safe use of the Internet? Science/ICT

4March 15th

(Easter)

Its Carnival Time! (There's an awful lot of

chocolate in Brazil)

Positive behaviour management

Wider community -Local businesses

Making a positive

contribution (Developing enterprising behaviour) Relationships Resourceful

Global Diversity

Geography, Science, Art

5 May 17th 'Lets go fly a kite' (kite

making)

Adult Learners week IA Whole school

Economic wellbeing

Going for Goals Reciprocity

Adult learners week

Maths - shape, angles, symmetry

6June 15th (Sunday)

Den Building (building shelters)

Enjoying reading together 'curiosity kits'

Dads/Granddads etc. (Fathers Day)

Being Healthy and staying

safe RelationshipsReciprocity - collaboration

Environment/ Year of Reading Literacy

43

References

Abbott J.A. 1999 The Child Is Father of the Man: How Humans Learn and Why

Network Educational Press Ltd

Banbury, M. 2005 Special Relationships How families learn together

NIACE,Leicester

Bastiani J 2000 ‘I know it works...’ in Wolfendale S. and Bastiani J. eds. The Contribution of Parents to School Effectiveness

LondonDavid Fulton Publishers pp.19-36

Bateson B. 2000 ‘Inspire’, in Wolfendale S. and Bastiani J. eds. The Contribution of Parents to School Effectiveness

LondonDavid Fulton Publishers pp.52-68

Beckford M. 2008 Just 2pc of early years primary school teachers male

Telegraph 7th August[Online] available from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news [accessed 14.08.08]

Campaign For Learning

2008 Campaign For Learning publications

[online] available fromhttp://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/[accessed 28.08.08]

Claxton, G. 2002 Building Learning Power

TLO, Bristol

Claxton, G. et al 2005 BLP in Action TLO, BristolClaxton G. 2001 Wise Up Network Educational Press,

StaffordClaxton G. 2006 Expanding the

Capacity to Learn: A new end for education

Opening keynote address British Educational Research Association Annual conference.

Coleman P. 1998 Parent, Student and Teacher CollaborationThe power of Three

Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaCorwin Press,Inc.

Das Gupta P. and Richardson K.

1995 Children’s Cognitive and Language Development

Blackwells Open University

Deakin Crick R. et al

2004

Developing an Effective LifelongLearning Inventory: the ELLI Project

University of Bristol

44

Desforges C.Abouchaar A.

2003 The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievement and Adjustment:A Literature Review

Department for Education and SkillsResearch Report RR433

European Commission

2006 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILon key competences for lifelong learning

[online] available fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc42_en.htm [accessed 28.08.08]

Every Child Matters 2004 Every Child Matters DfES publications

[online] available from http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ [accessed 28.08.08]

Every Parent Matters 2007 DfES PublicationsLKAW/2007(Forward Johnson)

[online] available from http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/ [accessed 28.08.08]

Green L. 1970 Parents and Teachers Partners or Rivals?

London George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Haggart, J. 2000 Learning LegaciesA Guide to Family Learning

NIACE, Leicester

Mc Beath 2000 ‘New Coalitions for promoting School Effectiveness’ in Wolfendale S. and Bastiani J. eds. The Contribution of Parents to School Effectiveness

LondonDavid Fulton Publishers pp.37-51

Pahl K .and Kelly S (p91|)

2005 Family literacy as a third space betweenhome and school: some case studies ofpractice

Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Smith S. 2007 Evaluation feedback from Help Your Child to Succeed course Devizes Strong Children Project

Smith S. 2008 The Learning Tree Family Learning project

[online] available from www.learning-tree.org.uk [accessed 28.08.08]

Smith S. 2007 ‘The Learning Tree bringing family learning to life Wiltshire

Early Years Magazine 2007.

Wiltshire County Council

University or WarwickKings College London

2007 Parent Support Advisor Pilot: First interim report from the evaluation

[online] available from http://www.tda.gov.uk [accessed 1.3.2008]

Wolfendale S. 1992 Empowering Parents and Teachers Working for children

London, Cassell

45

Wolfendale S. and Bastiani J. eds.

2000 The Contribution of Parents to School Effectiveness

LondonDavid Fulton Publishers

Wolfendale S. 2000 ‘Effective Schools for the future: incorporating the parental and family dimension.’ in Wolfendale S. and Bastiani J. eds. The Contribution of Parents to School Effectiveness

LondonDavid Fulton Publishers pp.1-18

Wood R. 2007 Report on Enquiry Walk Nythe Primary School, Swindon

Supplied by Nythe Primary School and National College for School Leadership

46