1. The aims of the Trio work: Investigating how to raise curiosity levels in the classroom through planning. On the next slide is a little sheet, devised to get students thinking about how curious they are, but also to make the group’s level of curiosity in some way measurable. This sheet (a variation on an example provided by Mike Hughes in ‘And the main thing is…LEARNING’) was used in three lessons taught by all three trio teachers. It provided a vehicle to join up the lessons and give us opportunities to explore student’s curiosity and its relationship to their learning. Teacher participants: Richard Vine, Saira Sawtell & Nik Rorke.

3. How it went and whether it achieved its goals. SS:“Lots went well. Our shared focus on Year 10 was useful although similar ability might have been even better? All lesson observations were interesting with teachers planning the least curious moments as well as the most. I can’t stop thinking about levels of student curiosity and have tried all sorts of things with many groups. I presented at my local pyramid day to 15 teachers from across Weymouth and Portland plus two from elsewhere in Dorset and to our cohort of PGCE students. I Set up a trio in my school investigating the same thing across three different subject areas. [Trio/collaborative learning is] much more useful [than traditional forms of CPD] as it is rooted in the classroom which is the most exciting place to investigate things like this.

4. How it went and whether it achieved its goals. NR:“Although the original focus was curiosity, the agenda became far broader as the trio work progressed. I felt that having the opportunity to see lower ability students within the trio was very positive as it was clear how the boys I teach needed a broader variety of strategies and stimulation to maintain their interest/curiosity and focus. Strategies used with lower ability student groups were transferable and thus the variation in ability groups across the trio was useful. Our findings were in line with commonly accepted theories that curiosity was at its peak at the start and end of lessons. It was interesting to match up the feedback from the students with the observations and our prior perceptions of the students' curiosity. Students who apparently seemed disaffected showed great interest and challenged teacher's perceptions of their engagement."

5. How it went and whether it achieved its goals. RV: " The collaborative nature of the trio work was most useful in allowing me to get and give feedback about learning/teaching/curiosity without the parameters of a school-based lesson observation. It was possible to take great risks and try out ideas and have the outcomes analysed in far greater detail than any observation I have had in over a decade. This enabled me to question my own teaching and think about how to introduce old topics in new ways to maintain both students and my own curiosity. I enjoyed using the vast quantity of written information to analyse a lesson in great detail. The obvious benefits of seeing other teachers trying to generate the same levels of curiosity using similar systems was enormous and the indicator that we used was useful in and of itself.

7. What were the outcomes and what was the impact on pupil learning? Vast quantities of data regarding individual lessons. Levels of student curiosity identified (charts/graphs and info graphics). Teaching methods revised (beyond the trio work). Trio work presented at conferences/meetings etc. Teacher's pre-conceived ideas about individuals challenged. Learning more about pedagogy by working beyond the subject and school.

8. What were the outcomes and what was the impact on pupil learning?