Talking the talk: subject-specific talk across the curriculum

[Music] I'm delighted to introduce our next episode of Evidence Interaction. The EF podcast, that's explores all the interesting topics of the day in education, new evidence, new projects, interesting practices, and we speak to brilliant practitioners from the front line and experts in the field from around the world. In this episode, it's going to focus on talking the talk, developing subject-specific talk across the curriculum, and we want to re-dig in to what we understand by our language talk in the classroom, and we've got brilliant practitioners and experts from a range of phases. So we'll speak to Shireen Wilkinson, who works across a trust but has lots of rich experience from primary schools, and then Alex Ferlam, who's a senior leader in a secondary school, and again has that leadership role, but also is a teacher of history, and we'll speak to Rachel Dixon, who's based in a college in the northwest, and she's a science teacher, and we get a real strong sense of talk in all different classrooms at all different phases. So I'm going to introduce Mike Kowhoes, the brilliant Chloe Butlin from the EF Chloe, tell us a little bit about yourselves. Thanks, Alex. Yeah, I am the content and engagement, especially for literacy. I'm really interested in exploring how research evidence can mean and relationship approaches to literacy across key stages, how they can be implemented, and also what professional development can support teachers and leaders to embed those effective practices across their settings. I'm really interested in this episode to get underneath what we mean by talk. We can have different language, different phrases, or language, or a C feels like a bit of a hot topic at the moment in policy terms. So I want to get past the excitement, get past the confusion, get past the different perspectives, and try and get some clarity on what we mean by high quality talk. So without further ado, let's hear from our first guest, Doreen Wilkinson. Thank you very much, Alex. So I work most of the week as Executive Director of Education for Leo Academy Trust, and then I work one day a week as an Education Advisor and author, writing and meeting people across the country. I lead on curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment, but previously you probably know already most of you I led on English, and I was an English Advisor consultant for a number of years, but I mourned it, and when I took over for curriculum and I discovered disciplinary literacy, I thought yes, I can still do a little bit of literacy within the curriculum and build on and use my expertise. So I'm just picking up on that. I think teachers and leaders are quite familiar with this idea of subject specific talk in the secondary classroom, but from your expertise, what about in primary school, and why might that be beneficial for pupils in primary schools? If we think about subject specific talk, so just a kind of define that, so I think it's important to define what we mean. So if we look at Robin Alexander in 2020, he says that subject specific talk explores how mathematical talk is different to scientific talk and historical talk, and they ask different questions and they use different vocabularies, and they think and they reason in different ways. And so if we look at Shanahan in 2011 when he looked at expert readers, when we're talking in mathematics and we're reading, the author's not very important, but when we're looking in history, actually the author, the person who wrote a particular source is really important. And there's no reason why primary pupils cannot explore this. So it's really important for primary pupils to be able to talk and speak within the discipline, explore those concepts so that they can then write and understand aspects. So for primary pupils, I think what's important, what's beneficial, what are the key aspects that we can take? So if we look at, oh well, they all in 20, 23, they talked about the language within a particular subject. So understanding the vocabulary and the language structures within the particular discipline. If we look at Birken Kennedy in 2024, they really advocate for children to really understand the disciplinary knowledge of a subject so that children can really access the curriculum. So sentence stems right away from very young are five year olds going onward are really important to start children to really think about the curriculum. I just wondered, are there any kind of misconceptions that you encounter them because we associate and a subject specific talk in the secondary classroom and then we're thinking about this in a primary context, are there any misconceptions that we encounter? So for me, we have to be really clear about what the talk is about and we have to have the depth of learning. So we're not rushing. So one misconception might be that we're replicating what's in the secondary classroom into the primary. We're not, we're making sure that it's age and stage appropriate and we're making it essential that we're building on children's knowledge. So I give an example, let's give a history example. When we're taking part in talking history, there are different types of talks. So we might be thinking about facts, timelines, chronology, in history. So a simple one, the key stage one, Mary C. C. C. C. was born on the 23rd of November, 1805. So those are the facts, the chronology, the timelines, the dates or what we might call the substantive knowledge, the facts of the subject. And so that will become part of our disciplinary language for very young pupils, so we're embedding those concepts. However, we need to really talk about the skills or the subject's specific aspect of the skills of the subject. So if we look at history, looking at cause and consequence, exploring things like how historians interpret sources are really important for children to have discussion about because that will help them to embed their knowledge. I wonder if we've got some nice examples, what that look like in another subject, potentially, in science or math. Of course. Yes. So I've spent as part of my work working with a number of schools, but also working in Atelier Academy Trust. I spent about two years really unpicking. What does the language look like? Keeping it simple, not overloading pupils, but having really clear frames, language frames for pupils to start to talk and speak within the discipline. So in mathematics, you might use language like, I know this because my hypothesis is, or the most efficient method is this. And what's important when we're looking at mathematics is that children are able to justify their views using their knowledge. So the language aspect is really important that the children have the knowledge in order to talk within the discipline. Similarly in science, if they're doing, for example, a scientific experiment, they might be talking about this is a fair test because they might be using their data and analysis or the results show that or it's reliable because if children are, you know, talking within geography, they might be thinking about this fieldwork is important or this place is affected by human or physical characteristics because and they might draw on the maps and atlases, etc. And in art, they might be thinking about why a particular artist has inspired them. So the language frame becomes, this artist has inspired me because and then they're drawing on their knowledge of reviewing photos, paintings, knowledge of techniques. So it's very subject-specific, but it's also age and stage appropriate for primary pupils. That's really helpful, Shreen. I like that that notion of these torque frames and because it offers a real scaffold for that rich way of thinking that you've given lots of examples for. One thing that often identifies and experience in primary school because of just bandwidth of teachers and schools themselves is we can often be thinking about literacy and then focusing on we're doing reading this year or we're doing all our language or we're doing writing next year and we recognise why that might be the case in you know, it's going to be your leadership role, you'll recognise that as well, but is there a relationship between oral language reading and writing that's positively and mutually reinforcing, do you think? Absolutely, they are all interrelated. So if we and we can look at it in various ways and I'll give some examples. So if we're thinking about year one pupils, they're encouraged to say a sentence before writing it and you've got to be able to speak in sentences before you can actually write and you will know this, I feel like I'm preaching to the converted. So I often say with children, think it because actually before you can say something you've got to think it first and that's why those language frames are important because it gives you that language to think about before you're writing. So think it, say it, hear it, listen to what you want to write, like it and then write it. So again, you've got that very clear relationship between the oral language and the writing, but then reading also supports with the writing and the oral language. So if we think about things like stories, most of us know stories are psychologically privileged. If we look at Professor Daniel Willingham, we know that if we read a story on fractions or you know how to find a quarter that the children will understand it more. And if they've got that knowledge that will help them with their talk, I also help them with their writing. What I really like about the response you've given and throughout, but particularly there is around the exemplification, I think that's what teachers need isn't it, that real concrete way of thinking about how thinking can emerge and develop through all language and that can support writing. But then vice versa and sometimes we can just narrow things a little just to make it accessible but miss some of those opportunities. I think what we're describing is that disciplinary literacy and or language and subjectivity talk is quite tricky, it's quite nuanced and for even experienced teachers can require support. And often in your role you'll be thinking about professional development more explicitly for that support. What do you think of some of the key considerations for professional development in this area and maybe a bit more broadly around literacy? First introduced disciplinary literacy which is about three or four years ago, I think teachers wanted to throw things at me, let I'll be honest, because it was such an abstract concept and you know that it wasn't something that they had really been exposed to previously. It does require a lot of professional development and knowledge, so one of the things that we start off with is what isn't so we look at this with pupils, non examples and examples what isn't disciplinary knowledge that's the first thing and what isn't a key aspect of all language across the curriculum. So if teachers for example are talking about if we think about history or we think about science or we think about geography, if they're for example in geography thinking about a letter that they're going to write about the planning application, that's an English discipline or in history if they're going to write a diary from you know Mary C. Cole or Florence Nightingale, that's an English discipline. So the first thing is to just unpack what it is and what it isn't so that's the first thing I did and people were a bit upset so for years they've been sort of talking and putting replicating English across the curriculum, but that was really important just to unpack what it is and what it isn't. Another thing I've noticed just from being a senior leader in school and doing the training was that actually we need to look at the more general aspects of oral language across the curriculum. So things like co co calling, think, share, collaborative working, we also had to look at so it was alongside the teaching and learning, the pedagogical strategies were important. So the aspects in English, the debates, the drama, the speaking and listening and then that knowledge of of what it means to talk like a mathematician and talk like a scientist. So for me, it was a combination of all of those, but it's important for adult learners to break things down into smaller steps so we we did look at one aspect at a time. The first aspect was the teaching and learning, so looking at those strategies, then we had a look at general oral language strategies and then we had a look at the discipline of history, geography and science to begin with because I think we thought that was important. Yeah, I can really see the clarity of that kind of knowledge building, sometimes a bit shift of how we think about things and with professional development, then it becomes about supporting some of those new practices because they can be again not necessarily works straight off. People might need some routine practice and that talking like a scientist, it trips off the tongue is a lovely idea, but then what does it mean in concrete terms? I think often our colleagues need that support. What's really clear, Shrine, is that you've done lots of work with teachers and you've thought about this really deeply and you're a national figure in that regard. You also written a book recently, which is I think great for particularly primary colleagues by think they'll have a wider interest as well. So it's almost going back to a previous point around seeing oral language and writing and that strong relationship but also making those connections with reading. I think the reality will be in primary schools and in secondary schools there'll be a consideration of, okay, do we start with oral language or maybe this is the real buzz right now, but then making those existing connections with curriculum and with teaching and learning. So that feels like a really practical manageable step. I would say the area around, I think oral language generally, there's a good knowledge about how to do that well in primary schools, whereas maybe the kind of disciplinary talk needs some more scaffolding and secondary, it might be the other way around where they might feel more confident with their disciplinary, knowledge and the subject but not so understanding around oral language now to develop it. So I think there's a lot to learn across phases and I think you're often playing a brilliant role kind of breaching that and bringing people to this important area. So we'll end there and a big thank you for your time and all the brilliant work you're doing within four schools. I'm delighted to introduce our next guests on the podcast and we've got two brilliant leaders. So first we're going to hear from Alex, Alex, your history teacher and senior leader in the North East England. Can you tell us a bit more about yourself, about your role, about your character? So I'm a really passionate history teacher. I'm an honorary fellow of the Historical Association and Member of the Secondary Committee. I'm also a senior leader in charge of CPD teaching and learning and secondary literacy and a trust teaching and learning network lead. I've also got a book coming out soon with Rachel Paul, which is called the scaffolding effect and in that we talk about oral language and how that could be scaffolded. And we make sure that we include case studies from both primary and secondary so that we're able to give a representative view of how that could look within each context. Yeah, and I can say, I'm going to see pretty like look about that into brilliant books. So kudos on the brilliant work there. Look forward to that being out in the world. And our next leader and teacher is Rachel Dixon, Crickulum Leader for Science, that old and sixth-form college. Rachel, can you tell us a bit more about yourself? Yeah, so I'm a teacher of A-Level Biology, an old and sixth-form college that you said. I've been teaching since 2000 and I've developed lots of experience within the science field. I've also been a leader of A-Levels for Physics, Electronics, Chemistry, Biology and Applied Science. And my role is to bring together and facilitate teaching and learning within those teams in order to improve students learning and outcomes. Brilliant, thank you, Barth. And so, working off just by getting a reflection about what talk looks like in your subject area, maybe give us some examples. We'll start with you, Alex. I think it's really useful when we're talking about oral languages to break it down into learning to talk, learning through talk and learning about language. And I think with learning to talk, there are some common broad brush principles that can be applied across different subjects and that can be codified in terms of expectations when speaking within class. So say for example, you might have contracts of talk or perhaps techniques and routines that you want them to follow when doing exploratory talk. And I think having that codified can be really useful, but I think with learning through talk, that's where we come into the subject-specific aspect of it. And we see the more distinctive ways that we communicate with subjects and I think that's a really beautiful thing that should be celebrated. So for me, when I'm talking about history, I want them to speak like historians. So I want them to use evidence to support their points. For example, I think Elizabeth's biggest challenge in 1558 was that she inherited 300,000 in debt. I want them to also read against and therefore speak against the grain when it comes to sources. So to look at sources and explain their inferences and insights and discuss what it tells us about the past, but also to identify what's been omitted and what voices are not there and what that might tell us. And within this tradition of oral history, there is also that is a really powerful source. So for looking at the Kingdom of Benin, oral history is something which is really important as something that they need to be able to discuss as historians. I think oral language was also massively important in history because we are required to interrogate interpretations. We've got to support and counter interpretations and appreciate different views and those diverse experiences. And I don't know if you know this, but a collection of historians is called an argumentation of historians. So really it's that argument that we really want. But as Jeff Barton says, you know that we want them to disagree agreeably. And so we need to really kind of teach that within our subjects. So if I can, I'll give you an example because I think there's an interplay between oral language and literacy and the teaching and learning here. And I think about Gorbachev's new thinking in the Cold War, there are lots of new terms that they're going to be learning like Glasnost and Perastryker. And so for my students to grasp that and to become confident with those terms, they need to be explicitly taught those terms, so explicit vocabulary instruction, as well as engage in the reading where they see it in context and they actively pronounce those words. And we're talking about the removal of Reagan's evil empire speech and then I ask them to discuss why might this context mean that the USSR is embarking on new thinking and then I'll introduce what new thinking is and ask them to do a bit of choral chanting. I say you say where they say the words Glasnost and Perastryker and we'll use a fray and model to further kind of exemplify what that definition is. We're going to carry out some teacher led model reading using reciprocal reading where they're going to see those words in context and build that mental model around those different terms and look at the potential problems and the rationale behind that. And I'll use reciprocal reason to pose questions to clarify to summarize that's going to require that dialogic conversation but also that exploratory talk within history and then we'll carry out some exam writing practice where again what they're going to be doing is they're going to be writing. and that'll be followed by self and peer assessment. So you can go to the next slide. can see there that there is a massive interplay between the oral language in history, but also the writing and the explicit vocabulary instruction as well. Thank you so much Alex, you are really interested in what you were saying about the role of oral language in vocabulary and reading in history. And I'm wondering Rachel if that kind of chimes with your approach to oral language in the post-16 science classroom? Yes, very similar actually to Alex's examples and the examples of those is we do a lot of first, interestingly this question. I thought there may be some teachers who would think, oh, I don't actually think about discussion in terms of oral language and how I do that as a whole lesson, but I agree with Alex where she says that it shouldn't be standalone lessons, where teachers are just focusing on this is where we do our discussion lesson and this is where and sometimes that can be very unstructured within the classroom that there are examples of where that can be less effective as you want it to be if it isn't structured particularly well, but then when I started thinking a little bit more about actually this is just student talk and teacher talk, this structured talk and that happens an enormous amount in everybody's classroom all of the time. And I think having models like Alex said and scripts and scaffolding for those that oral language to be shared fed back and to get that information and also to gauge understanding as well, I think is a really fantastic tool. You can use the language to really find out what the students do and don't know about scientific concepts. So we do a lot of vocab instructions similar to Alex, so very, you know, it's interesting isn't it how, you know, science and history, polar ends of the curriculum areas within schools and colleges, but yet there's I think there's so much overlap in terms of the techniques that we use to develop that oral language in lessons. And then that feeds into scaffolded verbal responses, so we would then look at students rehearsing and repeating particular ways of using that language to give feedback about their learning and standing in the lesson. So to give examples in biology there's, there doesn't tend to be, there are, there is essay writing, but it's structured very differently to humanities essay writing. And we tend to have short, for example, question written responses in sciences, but you have a lot of compare and contrast to differences in similarities. Why does this particular condition happen more in males than females? So a lot of comparative analysis and you can scaffold how you want the students to verbalise that. So x is or x has, whereas y is or y has and you model that. So you model the response that you want from the students. Then it works quite nicely because you can do this with a think per share. So you can post some questions to them and then they can model that rehearse to verbal response with each other testing their understanding and then they can reciprocate and feed that back. Lots of explain questions, so they make a scientific statement and then they have to use the linking word so to then talk about the consequence that that scientific concept has on another scientific concept. And again, model that, get the students to rehearse it, say back to you, and then you can do that collaboratively in pairs or individually. And you can link it with reading because they might be reading a large amount of text from an evaluation investigation and you're asking them to find and identify the key strengths and weaknesses of the methodology or the data that's in their other students' conclusions that have been drawn and in evaluating them, I guess something like this, a large sample size in this investigation. So the data is more representative of the whole population. So they're always connecting those ideas and getting better explaining those strengths and weaknesses if we're looking at evaluating and critical annualising those investigations. And that all feeds into writing because through scaffolding verbal responses the students can then plan what they're going to write and it makes them more effective at written responses. It's built their confidence, they've done it either collaboratively or individually, they've rehearsed it, they've picked out these really subject-specific terminology that need to use and then they can use all of that in any of the some questions that do in like compare a contrast or extended response questions. Thank you very much Rachel, you've really helped to kind of draw that overlap between those objects as you've just been talking about. Oh, and Jack Alex, if you wanted to just jump in on Rachel's comment about kind of scaffolding oral language and perhaps in relation to into writing as well. So I think scaffolding oral language is really important and I think you know there is a misconception that the only scaffold that kind of really exists in oral languages is sentence starters. Yes, that is a powerful way to be able to you know get children talking but actually there's multiple different scaffolds that you can use so things like aid memoirs. So having things such as a knowledge organizer in front of them so that they've got something which they can look down and be able to do. I think also as well thinking really strategically about the person that they are sat next to can be really really powerful and having that malleability being able to have that flexible group moving around the different classrooms because you will have some children who are perhaps more confident or perhaps are a higher prioritainer and therefore might have that kind of that knowledge to hand where they feel that they can talk with greater fluency about a topic. So actually sitting in with someone who's perhaps a low prioritainer or hasn't attended the last lesson can really help to create those cultures and conditions to want to be able to talk as well. As something that we've tried to do to promote oral language and explicit vocabulary instruction is we've mapped the different friar models that we use across the different subjects as well so that we can look at where we can draw upon where they've been introducing other subjects. So say for example in my context we study the Holocaust in history and in year 8 after Christmas but actually we do Judaism in RS and year 8 in September. So there's a lot of key terms that we can call upon when we're looking at the Holocaust and likewise if it is that we're introducing a tier two word such as solution or solution means something very different in history to maths to science. So again it enables us to do that into disciplinary work where we're able to really identify with the students here's how you use it in our context and this is how you would use it in a different context and I think the more that we can do that interdisciplinary work together the more that our students are able to use those words powerfully and accurately. I'll jump in there so I think that interdisciplinary, the kind of connect in this, then you've both described lots of overlaps between that subject of the victor but also real, will clear differences that fit with the curriculum needs etc and it makes me think this might be why not every teacher feels the same way about promoting talk in their classroom or why they might be some misconceptions. Can we just unpack that a little bit? Do we think that maybe in your context or people in your schools you talk into or colleges you work with that there are reasons that teachers may not promote talking their subject? Rachel do you want to kick off there? Is there a kind of reality playing out there? Yeah I think if you were to ask really most post-16 teachers they would say time, as would any teacher, you know, they will say the pressure to teach check and stand in apply, recall, meeting goal of the assessment criteria and the curriculum is mine and getting the students ready for their assessments in a relatively short period of time actually. A lot of teachers might think that exploring oral language takes is a standalone effort in terms of planning a lesson, doing a lesson about discussion and bringing all of that but actually it's completely intertwined in everything that we do within the classroom, the reading, the writing, preparing the students for writing, preparing them to read and getting them to share their ideas with one another is structured talk and you can teach them how to do that and use all the language and how you want them to phrase so I think it's changing the narrative of what we mean about using structured talk, it isn't just leading a discussion in a classroom and you facilitate in lots and lots of people all having a discussion lesson about a particular area within a curriculum. It's more about the teacher facilitating more student talk, it's not the way I would like to see it and I think sometimes in science there is a misconception that it's a really complex topic, there's lots of calculations, you draw lots of graphs, it's looking at investigations, it doesn't lend itself well to discussion and talk but actually it's happening all the time with those examples that we've talked about. I think for us there are similar challenges but I think there's also kind of different ones so I think as you said you know there are those misconceptions around that it has to be that purpose we constructed like talk tasks and that's where I think gimmicks have created a sense of kind of concern or confusion around what it is, things like no pen days or subject rules for talks or compliant structures which demand that talk activities are part of every single lesson and you know people come in and like take have they seen like something happening and I think that then leads to learning activities which are not meaningful and we always know it's the content that drives the lesson, not the task and it's become that the task has become a bit of the driver there and I think that leads to a lack of adaptive teaching because they're trying to take off the prescribed elements of a rigid lesson structure. I think in secondary and I think this might also apply in primary and in some ways FA is behavior as well, you know, behaviorious and concerning it can create that sense of kind of fear and worry particularly if you're a novice teacher about letting go of the reins in terms of letting them have that exploratory talk, that turn and talk, think, share. So I think behavior when there aren't instructors in place to promote a positive learning culture and I think that aligns with a lack of codification to promote the culture of talk and the conditions for it and making sure that you know there are shared contracts in place or routines so that it's efficient and there's shared signals that ensure that talk is a routine in [BLANK_AUDIO] boysi nhw nationally wedнож jinadraig. Cadwyd wyngor experimdyddio wedi ti ym Gwas family au gwaint drwgio fel kηνau y meddwl pardiad Mats braeousus oserthankherasant., Ond noi dom ar y cy Navy traitho gyda gymaedd i'r ôl beth amd robotali chfodaf ar gyda syn Unigur www.Torfysche Wafiol Gyda 'Nmor a'u a condi a'u sgplus oserpysche oserthankherasant a'u sgplus oserthankherasant. A'u sgplus oserthankherasant. We have had staff choose in goal language this year and they looked at talking for writing and scaffolding verbal responses. So that was part of the CPD cycle. But again, that we leave that to the autonomy of the teacher. They're trying to look at their own personal teaching learning target that feeds into the curriculum area priorities for that particular academic year. But I think definitely having that support within the department and that training is absolutely essential. For that to move forward and for it to have the momentum and for it to continue to just grow and enhance and enrich all of that talking within the classroom. I think you're right Rachel. I think it's that blend of having kind of like your whole school overarching kind of vision and principles. And then having the departmental and then that personalised aspect to be able to hook into a particular area that perhaps you feel interested in or you maybe feel that there is kind of a little bit of a gap there. Yeah, thank you. And it's a nice point to end on expertise because what you've both done is offer real expertise in clarity about developing talk. And sometimes and maybe I came into this podcast thinking about developing that disciplinary talk, that structure that often fuzzy and really variable across different settings and people are talking about different things. But what you've both given is real clarity, real precision about how this can be done well. So thank you really appreciate your time on the podcast. Much appreciated. That was really great to hear from Alex and Rachel and Shireen and Santa Feats together this kind of rich diverse different picture of or language. So I know in the F talk, we talk about different practices. And we talk about how we can make targeted reading aloud book talk for use of structured question for reading comprehension. I think what really stood out from our expertise is this use of purposeful curriculum focused dialogue and interaction. And how that looks differently. The support needed for that that really stood out. What's your takeaway from hearing from Shireen and Alex and Rachel? I really remember getting colleagues actually about despite this being like such a complex area that actually a lot of the practice does feel kind of deceptively simple and Alex in Rachel and Shireen. I'm really maybe reflect on how can we make talk more purposeful, more deliberate, more integrated into learning and especially when we're speaking to Alex and Rachel. We're really thinking about how we can sequence talk alongside reading and writing and like exploring that let me see for core relationship between oral language and reading and writing. I also went away thinking about how valuable that discussion was across subject areas and actually how I could kind of reimagine this conversation that we have with Alex and Rachel as a kind of paedial opportunity that could be really powerful. So that kind of cross curricular discussion and dialogue. I grew with you that in its cross and cross subject cross curricular reflection as well as being really defined and understand what does it mean to talk in science? What does it mean to write in history? It feels to me, you know, hearing from all the phases pretty much that oral language and talk seems to be a bit of a moving target and that early talk has its own kind of specificity around books and shared reading and early dialogue and conversation. So it's increasingly sophisticated through primary school. Shireen talked about how the language starts to change and then we get to second school and it's like multiple specific languages and being explicit about the routines that support that, you know, from two to 19, you know, you can get to see the changing moving target of oral language. So I think there's an element of I can see why everyone's excited by oral language, but also we might be talking about different things. So I think that point about clarity that we should be excited about the evidence warrant for really high quality talk, whether that's around book talk, whether that's that really focused curriculum dialogue. I think that clarity from the leaders perspectives, but also from teachers perspectives. What exactly do you mean by talking the talk? I don't think in one podcast we've nailed all aspects of it, Chloe, but I think we've heard from brilliant practitioners who've got us really thinking maybe a few more questions, but definitely some interesting answers about high quality talk in every bus. So I think that's it for the addition of evidence, intellectual action. Thank you for listening. Do press subscribe, leave a review, have a little look at what resources we've got shared on the podcast and share it with all your teacher friends and colleague and hope you come back again soon. Now next podcast is on teaching assistants and high quality deployment of teaching assistants. So look out for that one. [Music]