Developing a departmental lesson structure – Part 1
Sharing the work I have been doing with one maths department
We'd love to invite to try Eedi Beta, a new version of our platform designed with feedback from our wonderful community of teachers. Learn more about how you can get streamlined assignment planning, automated retrieval quizzes and rerequisite quizzes by clicking here.
Last week, I wrote about the different components of lesson planning. I argued for high-quality, centrally planned lesson resources, shifting the emphasis away from creation and curation towards adaptation and preparation.
A natural question to ask following this is: What does that high-quality lesson look like?
In this post, I will provide a concrete example, sharing my work with one maths department to create a departmental lesson structure.
But wait…
Just before we dive in, let me pre-empt two objections you may have:
1. A lesson is not the correct unit of time to think about when planning!
This is true. But it is a useful unit to start with. Over time, teachers can be encouraged to flex – rolling one lesson over into two, for example, if students need more time to consolidate. But I believe in the benefits of routines and structure, and with everything else in schools dictated to by the bell, I am happy to start thinking about planning in terms of individual lessons that form part of a logical sequence.
2. Not every lesson is suited to such a rigid structure!
Yep, fair point. But such lessons are the exceptions. If we instead start with the assumption that all lessons can be made to fit this structure and only break this when absolutely necessary - perhaps students are going over an assessment or working on a project - then we have a structure that teachers can get better at, and that is ready to be adapted when needed.
With those objections aside, let’s dive in.
The department
I have been working with the department in question for a year now. It is typical of many maths departments, made up of teachers of varying levels of experience and expertise, which in turn leads to a varying quality of learning experience for their students. But most importantly of all, colleagues are keen, committed, and willing to try things.
We had already done some work improving the Do Now, similar to what I describe here. This has led to a smoother start to lessons, and mini-whiteboards have bled through to other parts of the lesson, such as the modelling phase and when answers are assessed at the end of independent practice. We also worked on embedding checks for listening throughout the lesson to improve student attention. Colleagues responded well to the call for more consistency and appreciated the extra direction.
As a result, the department head, line manager, and I felt that the team was ready for the next phase of development: the move to a departmental lesson structure.
So, the three of us sat down, and this is what we came up with, along with approximate times for teachers to aim for:
The lesson structure
1. Retrieval Do Now (10 minutes)
Content:
No date and title during Do Now - students can copy it down after
Four questions
Each question is retrieval, not related to the content of the lesson, and from a different topic
White Rose Maths Flashback 4 questions can be used as a starting point
Cut out the Vocab check to concentrate on the four questions
Adapt the difficulty of the questions for your class
Ensure that the order of the questions is appropriate. Question 1 should be immediately accessible to all students; on average, students should get 3 out of the 4 questions correct.
Pedagogy:
The Do Now is done in books in silence
There is a 5-minute visible timer from the point the teacher has a critical mass of students in the room
Circulate straight. away, then do the register, then circulate again
At the end of 5 minutes, ask students to copy their answer to Q1 on their mini-whiteboards, hover, and show in 3, 2, 1
If 80%+ are correct: confirm the correct answer, write it on the board, and move on
If fewer than 80% are correct: collect different answers on the board, refer to misconceptions if you can identify them, model the correct answer, and ask a follow-up question to check whether your explanation has made sense (plan these follow-up questions in advance)
If students are still struggling, move on, but make a note to return to the topic in a future lesson.
2. Perquisite knowledge check (5 minutes, but could be shorter or longer)
Content:
As I discuss here, I don’t think it is a good idea to include prerequisite knowledge questions in the Do Now. So, this is a separate phase of the lesson.
Ask one question per atom of prerequisite knowledge
If in doubt, ask the question instead of assuming
Use White Rose Maths Get Ready as starting point, but adapt as needed
Have one question per slide
Pedagogy:
Students answer each question on mini-whiteboards
Make this phase snappy: around 20 seconds per question
80%+ correct: confirm, move on (check in with kids who are struggling later)
If fewer than 80% are correct: explain, recheck for understanding with a follow-up question
If students are still struggling, continue to explain and recheck until you hit 80% as there is no point moving on.
3. Explanation and model (10 minutes)
Content:
I Do
Two We Dos
Pedagogy:
I Do is teacher-led, with checking for listening questions, not checking for understanding questions
Aim for a greater proportion of examples to be modelled under the visualiser
Students have empty hands and eyes on the teacher during the I Do
The first We Do is done on mini-whiteboards using Step-by-Step
The second We Do is done in books using the Tick Trick
They copy the I Do into their books after the two We Dos so as not to kill the pace
4. Fluency practice (15 minutes)
Content:
Straight-forward questions chosen from White Rose, Corbett Maths and Maths4Everyone
Where appropriate, include high-value activity structures such as completion tables and Venn Diagrams
Pedagogy:
Use the 4-2 approach: 4 minutes of independent silent work, followed by 2 minutes of paired discussion, and then repeat
Review answers by first selecting a critical question that students all answer on mini-whiteboards
Self or peer assess the rest of the answers
5. Problem solving (10 minutes)
Content:
As I discuss here, not enough students are exposed to regular opportunities to think about non-routine questions. In this structure, this happens every lesson for all students.
One question chosen from: Eedi collection, Open Middle, NRICH short problems
Pedagogy:
30 seconds no talking or writing
2 minutes work independent work on MWBs
2 minutes Turn and Talk
Class discussion
What’s not included?
Notice the lack of a plenary or an Exit Ticket. These can be useful for getting a final snapshot of student understanding. However, if mini-whiteboards are used throughout the lesson, as they are in this structure, then the teacher should already have a reliable sense of student understanding. Hence, I would rather allocate those precious minutes to the problem-solving section.
Notice also that there’s no mention of Atomisation. This process fits into this structure but is much more complex to plan and teach effectively. So, we decided to leave it out for now until the other aspects of the lesson structure were secure. I’ll discuss where Atomisation fits in during an upcoming podcast conversation with Ollie Lovell and write about it in a future newsletter.
How will this lesson structure go down with teachers and students? We will find out when I return to the school in a few weeks. Stay tuned!
What do you think of this approach?
How similar is it to your lessons?
How about your colleagues’ lessons?
Let me know in the comments below!
🏃🏻♂️ Before you go, have you…🏃🏻♂️
… checked out our incredible, brand-new, free resources from Eedi?
… read my latest Tips for Teachers newsletter about asking tricky questions?
… listened to my latest podcast with Ollie Lovell about a recent lesson he taught?
… considered booking some CPD, coaching, or maths departmental support?
… read my Tips for Teachers book?
Thanks so much for reading and have a great week!
Craig