A few months back I came across a blog from Claire Harley relating to “Modelling Elaborated and Collegiate Codes in History” (see links at the end), it’s a great blog that builds and discusses practical in-class implementation strategies to develop the elaborate code – most famously coined by Basil Bernstein – in learners, and also extends to the collegiate code of academic expectations in writing and verbalisation, as discussed by Doug Lemov in “Teach Like a Champion”. Whilst the blog focusses on the history classroom, many of the things discussed are universal across disciplines, even within mathematics, and got me thinking a lot about active strategies to pursue this within students in my own classroom.

I’m not saying this is not something I don’t already do, but reflecting on positives and negatives from mock exams, and analysing scripts I have received from summer 2023’s exams – I have noticed there are weaknesses in the written responses, the clarity of responses, with a number of student responses being overtly vague, unsophisticated and pronoun heavy, missing specific context. The most extreme contrast can be seen below in the responses to a question asking students to discuss the suitability of a model given a provided real value. The two students had a similar overall performance, have had historical high achievement prior to Level 3 study and happen to have quite contrasting socio-economic backgrounds and life experience.

Working in an A Level environment in a predominantly working class region, a widening participation institution, with a regional cohort from ex-mining and isolated communities, suffering from lack of investment and a high level of social deprivation – encouraging and developing higher quality linguistic behaviours in students is a must to help with high aspiration progress. However, I do think it’s something I have not necessarily been as strategic and planned in my implementation as I could have been, up to this point.

I don’t think I am alone on this within the profession, a recent TeacherTapp survey indicated that only 37% of the 10,320 surveyed consistently challenge their students to provide ‘full sentence answers’. Now ‘full sentence answers’ isn’t necessarily a direct match or conduit for the elaborated code that will be discussed in this blog, however aspects of the elaborated code will more likely manifest where students have opportunities and expectations to provide more sophisticated and structured verbal responses. 

Under a previous leadership regime, our Sixth Form had a push on developing academic language and collegiate code in students – reflecting back on timeframe this was likely inspired by the first wave of popularity of ‘Teach Like a Champion’. However the parameters and expectations of implementation, nor the ultimate reasoning why we were looking to implement the strategy were ever fully formed and explained to staff, staff were not directly trained on the theory or research of the situation, and therefore implementation was far from cohesive and consistent – with a wide variety of interpretations and potential to simply ignore the diktat as well.

Between the aforementioned blog, a discussion with colleagues at a recent external training event, and reading the fantastic “Teaching as Communication” by Bob Hodge – I have been inspired to look at how I can strategically develop elaborated and collegiate codes of learners within my own classroom.

The Elaborated and Restricted Code and Social Class – Theory

Sociologist Basil Bernstein’s work primarily focussed on the field of sociolinguistics. He proposed two types of language codes, which he linked to traditional class structures and educational achievement and potential in young people. 

Restricted Code: Less explicit communication that relies on shared assumptions and understanding among those who use it. Speech (and writing) in the form of the restricted code is generally concrete, narrative and descriptive, rather than analytical or abstract (Bernstein, 1964) – there is a greater prevalence for pronouns and cliché. Bernstein proffered that those limited to just the restricted code were primarily found within the lower socioeconomic classes, such as the lower working class. Instead of explicit descriptions, filler phrases such as “it is”, “you know”, “you see” etc are often used – again assuming shared  and almost a requirement to ‘fill in the blanks’ on behalf of those receiving the communication.

Elaborated Code: A more explicit and detailed form of communication, where the user has a wider variety of synaptic alternatives in which they can draw on in order to produce meaning, and linguistically it makes fewer assumptions about shared knowledge. Bernstein suggests that middle classes tend to have greater opportunities to develop this within domestic and societal interactions – as it is a language that transcends social barriers, lending itself to academia and professional institutions – and from an educational point of view supports more analytical and abstract responses.

The element pertaining the the class system within Bernstein’s theory is something that has subsequently been explored by others. As well as language there are elements of interaction, identity and approach to schooling that can come into play as well. Within studies it has been shown that middle class students ‘condition’ better to being told they are “correct”, whereas working class students ‘condition’ better to being told they did/are “good” (Argyle, 1967, Pg.93). Furthermore in “Teaching as Communication” by Bob Hodge (1993, Pg.98) there is reference to a study in the 1970’s by Hess and Shipman where parents were asked about how they would prepare their children for school. They analysed the responses, a quoted middle class parent made greater use of the ‘elaborated code’ in their response, referenced ‘learning’ and opportunities for discussion and consulting the teacher for help. The lower working class parent instead emphasised knowing ‘how to behave’ and ‘doing what the teacher tells you to do’.

The potential here is that from an early age it is driven into some young people that what they are doing is ‘for’ the teacher. If that is the approach that students take then it may not be a surprise that they fall into the restricted code, lacking explicit identifiers, overuse of pronoun identifiers etc. As their responses are aiming to ‘please’ and build rapport, this is one of the key elements of the restricted code identified by Bernstein. It also unwittingly puts the teacher asking the problem/question at the centre of things – the student ‘knows’ that the ‘teacher knows what “it” is’ – they are verbalising or writing an answer to ‘please the question setter’ – why explain what “it” is? They already know they’re ’testing me’.

Bernstein’s theory and subsequent research are at-times criticised. In-fact the aforementioned Hess and Shipman study is discussed in “Teaching as Communication” as a study accused of having sexist and classist overtones – with discussion centred on the fact that whilst the response from the middle class parent was impressive to the researchers, the language and structure would arguably be too complex to be understood be a pre-schooler. Within Bernstein’s 2nd book “Class, Codes and Control: Volume II” (1973, Pg.180), there is a study by W.P Robinson “Where do children’s answers come from?”, which evaluates the quality of responses by 7-year old daughters and their mothers to who/what/when/where/why questions. Whilst there are a number of interesting elements to the study, criticism can be labelled as to why only maternal factors were used and why only daughters? Particularly when father’s occupation was often the main identifier of ‘social class’ for the young people in these studies stemming from Bernstein’s work.

One of the major counterpoints to Bernstein comes from William Labov, an American linguist who focussed a lot of his work on disenfranchised communities in the United States, such as predominantly black areas of New York – Hodge (1993) discussing their contrasting views at various points in his book. The different social structures and less established ‘class system’ led to different interpretations forming from the academics, Labov pointing out that often the lower socio-economic working class speakers are better story-tellers, reasoners and effective and succinct communicators – contrasting elements of the elaborated/restricted code theorised by Bernstein. Labov’s work was showing that despite slang, the written and verbal logic was just as strong in those individuals communicating as with ‘middle class’ communicators. 

The difference in viewpoints can possibly be explained by the background and disciplines of the academics. Labov as a linguist focussed on the absolutes of language, challenging prejudice that many had/have towards African American vernacular – whereas Bernstein as a Sociologist was more interested in the realism of society and explaining outcomes for young people, not directly challenging the structures that had formed within the British class system, education and academia.

The concept of elaborated code is just one within the realm of academic language, however is one that has a number of links and influence to other areas within the domain.

What’s old is new again

More recently, academics such as Thompson and Watkins (2021) discuss issues with ‘academic language’ in comparison to ‘contemporary’ language. Whilst there is an acknowledgement that there are some ideas with nuance that cannot be expressed using everyday language – they also share a viewpoint that sometimes however academic language and concepts that are often associated with the elaborated code are not actually clear and concise, and instead obstruct meaning. They use an example from a geography textbook relating to sedimentary rocks and water, where they analyse an extract – “…the phrase “is closely associated with” leaves unclear what exactly the conceptual relationship is between the formation of sedimentary rock and water. Does one cause the other? Does one facilitate the other? Does one enable the other?” and “…because it is a passive construction, “is closely associated with” obscures water’s role as the agent of the sentence…” (Thompson & Watkins, 2021, pg.11). You could argue that the authors are pointing out poor writing in a resource, but the extract they discuss within the article satisfies the criteria of the elaborated code, however unless someone engaging with it already knew the science and relationship, the text provided wouldn’t actually tell them directly, calling into question aspects of clarity in certain contexts.

There is also the ‘risk’ of victim blaming when it comes to looking at Bernstein and ability for young people to access and use an elaborated/collegiate code, and to work with appropriate academic rigour. That the reason for barriers like the ‘fault’ at lower-working class students. We’ve seen this elsewhere in the last decade with regards ‘grit’ and Dweckian ‘Growth Mindset’, as policy and approach has often been crafted upon the idea that lower-working class are ‘lacking’ socio-motivational characteristics, and that is why they underperform in comparison to peers.

This has essentially allowed governments to shirk responsibility of addressing the root cause of social deprivation, and putting onus back onto those suffering as being lacking or ‘not working hard enough’. Whilst there is evidence that disadvantaged students do have elements of socio-emotional and motivational skills lacking in comparison to middle-class peers, simply crafting interventions on those factors alone does not yield positive results. This was shown most comprehensively in the 2014 ‘Changing Mindsets’ report from the Educational Endowment Foundation, where simply implementing ‘growth mindset’ workshops to KS2 pupils does not provide a statistically significant difference in progress (not enough evidence to suggest differences to a control group weren’t by chance or other demographic makeup), with no differences observable from the 2019 scaled study. More recently smaller scale research has shown that a broad variety of socio-emotional and motivational skills account for less than 10% of the socioeconomic gap in learning outcomes, approximately only 6.6 points in a PISA Science test between the most privileged and the least (Gruijters et.al, 2023). The UK average score was 509 in 2015, to put the 6.6 points into perspective.

Language skills and ability to readily access a particular form of symbolic mediation are not socio-emotional skills, but I am using the above point to illustrate this is not a ‘silver bullet’, we should not try and treat it as such, it will not wipe away nor compensate for other aspects of inequality, just like other singular interventions will not, and have not in the past. However, if we are aiming to motivate young people, drive social mobility and develop the next generation of undergraduates and professionals, supporting in widening diversity across the white collar areas of society, we therefore need to help support students in developing and accessing the skills that those areas traditionally require.

In their 2021 article in the British Educational Research Journal, Ian Cushing discusses some of the negative aspects that using language ‘hygiene’ as an ideological component of behavioural management. Cushing discusses its growth in popularity following the likes of ‘Teach Like a Champion’ and policy pushes that lead to ‘zero tolerance’ or ‘no excuses’ approaches in schools – it’s a growth of linguistic conservatism, leading to policies of requirements for ‘standardised English to be used at all times’ by staff and students alike. Now as previously pointed out by Thompson and Watkins, a rigorous upholding of ‘standardised’ and ‘academic’ English at all times may be prohibitive in building meaning and knowledge in young people. This can also be tied by to the work of teacher and researcher Douglas Barnes in “From Communication to Curriculum” (1976). Barnes discusses the concept of world-makers and world-receivers when it comes to forming and applying knowledge. In his observations he points out that ritualistic emphasising of ‘appropriate language’ can be preventative of learners constructing knowledge and world-building, being able to develop their own understanding – instead merely becoming ‘transmitters’ of knowledge in a specific language form, without actual comprehension.

Returning to Cushing (2021), he emphasises the inequality and power aspects of language – discussing how practice in education can be influenced by governmental ideologies that English is not just a set of skills, but also a set of values. Much like linguist Labov 50-years earlier, he articulates this clearly through the following, “Standardised English is based on and constructed by the repertoires of those who continue to protect it: white, male, middle-upper class, ‘native’, ‘literate’ speakers…Given that these speakers typically enjoy social dominance and privileges, this gets indexically mapped on to the standardised forms .” (pg.3) In his research Cushing shares observations he made during school visits, of teachers disciplining students for use of slang and non-standardised grammar, noting that students would often look embarrassed, ashamed and would subsequently withdraw from contributing further (pg.14).

Cushing is also critical of certain aspects of Doug Lemov’s work, such as SLANT methodology, and what he calls a verbal stigma perpetuated by ‘no excuses’ mentality. This might seem a controversial take given TLAC’s position as gold standard of education, however Uncommon Schools, the Charter School management organisation in the North East of the USA, where Lemov is a managing director have dropped significant elements of the behavioural policy approach suggested by TLAC, and have faced huge backlash from the community, past students and staff for the manner in which they are run and how policies that are supposed to be about ‘lifting up’ young people are anything but. Whilst writing with an agenda (as they are her only posts on the site), significant issues are compiled and outlined in medium posts by Emily Hoefling of ‘Lifelong Readers’ back in 2020. There is even an Instagram page to share stories of mismanagement, racism, prejudice, bullying and cultural bias towards staff and students from within the institutions.

The sentiment of the note is not incorrect, those words aren’t appropriate in a traditional academic setting, and learners should be challenged to extend vocabulary beyond that. I doubt you’d find an educator recommending discussing the “rizz” of Henry VIII in an essay discussing his marriages – however the tone here is all wrong. There is a huge difference between aiming for an environment where students are “not causing an issue” and where students are “able to thrive”, and this seems firmly rooted in the former. The goal of that note is simply to have students not use those phrases – it’s not a motivator to actually develop and nurture young people into building their skills with enthusiasm – the ‘motivator’ is a ridicule of culture, background and experience – and sees language being policed through sanctions, such as poor behaviour. 

Whether you sit on the side of those who are critical of the manner in which elaborated/collegiate/academic code is enforced or whether it is necessary – we are stuck as educators as we don’t have the ability to change what society dictates or institutions have a preference for, and as such have to prepare students for this. It is needed to boost exam performance, it is needed to access university syllabus in the future, it is required to comfortably fit in a professional career. In my role I have students predominantly 16-18, or adults retraining for STEM careers on a 1-year course leading to an undergraduate degree. A large number of these, whilst predominantly White British, will be first generation university attendees, come from working class and disadvantaged backgrounds – they are providing diversity to fields they wish to pursue. I am with them a short time, it is vital I work to prepare them for the world to follow, but it’s striking that balance of motivation and enthusiasm to develop these skills they may be missing, but given the short time with them, the risk of a heavy handed approach is that I project ‘this world is not for you’ – the very last thing I want to do – playing the part of gatekeeper and barrier to social mobility.

Language, symbolic mediation and the classroom – the barriers to overcome

Soviet educational psychologist Lev Vygotsky discusses the idea of there being two sets of concepts, Scientific and Spontaneous (Karpov, 2003). Spontaneous concepts are those which form naturally through observation of the world and what others do without the need for systematic instruction. Scientific concepts are the taught concepts, what we gain through formalised educational structures – they do not have to be scientific in origin or content. In the classroom the aim is to build knowledge of scientific concepts, but there is a blend of all aspects in a young person’s learning journey. Spontaneous learning concepts can often provide the basis for abstract scientific learning, it’s why as educators we try to pin knowledge to everyday life or make the use of analogy. However, we are also aware that these spontaneous concepts are often causes for misconception, e.g. ‘all small objects float’, ‘zero is the smallest number’ etc – where a student has ‘observed’ something and attempted to create their own meaning to what they witness, which may not be correct.

There is a framework of learning mathematics that has become increasingly popular in primary education called ‘Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract’. Learners are first introduced to physical representations in order to manipulate, experiencing the mathematics – think back to hundreds/tens/units cubes of your youth. They then move onto a pictorial representation, this aims to make a mental bridge between the physical activity and the abstract to follow. Now these are ways of building to ‘scientific knowledge’, using observable and tangible formats that often link back to spontaneous concepts of addition and subtraction, or shape based properties, that young people have developed through everyday experience.

Above is a method I would often show learners within KS3 and GCSE resit provision. It is a visualisation to assist with common denominators required for addition and subtraction of fractions. The vast majority of students I taught, did not use the diagrams, they have come to understand the ‘game’ of the classroom. They understand it is the teacher’s job to help them learn something. This representation is part of that. It’s to build meaning, it is a ‘non-essential’ part of the solution process for future problems.

The process is a prime example of the difficulties that face both teachers and students within the classroom environment. The role of teacher is to facilitate in knowledge acquisition for the student, we do this with appropriate analogy, metaphor, diagrams etc. Students understand this as well. This then begins a battle for the student, “what is a vital component for replicating the articulation of this knowledge in the future” and “what is part of the classroom routine of illustration in order to build my ability to access this knowledge” – how clear are we making this?

This conundrum is a component of what Psychiatrist Benson Snyder discusses in his 1970 book “The Hidden Curriculum”. The hidden curriculum in short is the disconnect between the formal curriculum and what pupils themselves begin to identify as the ‘real curriculum’ that they are experiencing. How they are rewarded and assessed in the day-to-day, the expectations that are placed on them by the teacher in-front of them. In Hodge (1993) he shares an example from a Geography lesson observed by Douglas Barnes, which can show this disconnect in action;

In this example there are two agendas in place. The teacher is aiming for a specific piece of vocabulary, nothing but the term ‘crescent’ is to be accepted – nothing else satisfies the demands of what they perceive their question to be. This is likely due to external factors such as specifications and exam boards setting very specific criteria for technical language. The students however have a different agenda, they are pursuing meaning development, they are treating the question as an enquiry and are sharing their knowledge through the framework of their lived experience. If you view the initial question, is there anything there which indicates what type of response the teacher is looking for?

In his discussion of the extract, Hodge (1993) goes even further by suggesting that whilst the initial question was ambiguous and could be taken to mean either curriculum agenda, the teacher’s first reply is what reinforces to the cohort that they are pursuing the ‘correct’ agenda of building meaning – diverting the discussion further away from what the teacher is actually looking for. By including the positive reinforcement of “Yes, they’re like low hills” – this tells the students that they are following the right approach. In this scenario the teacher is posing a retrieval style problem for a specific piece of technical language – but by the conclusion, given the number of terms and descriptors provided by the cohort, the knowledge of that technical term could even be more confused in the cohort, given the wide number of terms provided during the discussion that could lead to confusion. Thinking of my teaching, this is something I can improve upon – being more deliberate in phrasing and aiming to make question agenda clear to the class.

A second Vygotskian concept is linked with symbolic learning. Yes disciplines such as mathematics are built around its own world of symbols, notation and terminology that students need to grapple, but Vygotsky points out in its simplest form, language is itself the most influential form of symbolic mediation. Language is merely a set of codes in which we are able to store meaning, and distribute knowledge. It is an effective communicator, written language in-particular allowing for knowledge to be shared beyond methods of ‘observation’ and ‘apprenticeship’, as literacy allows those to encode and decode knowledge. Whilst we use this coded ‘language’, either in a verbal or written form in order to impart knowledge, the knowledge itself isn’t the ‘code’ or the ‘language’ – it is the image, concept and meaning that are wrapped up within this symbolic representation.

This is summed up well in the essay ‘Some Cognitive Tools of Literacy’ (Egan and Gajdamaschko, 2003);

“…Books do not contain knowledge. Books contain symbolic codes, which serve as external mnemonics for knowledge …… The goal is not to get the symbolic codes as they exist in books into the students’ minds …… Rather, the teaching task is to reconstitute the inert symbolic code into living human knowledge”.

At this point, in swaggers the peril of curriculum. Sometimes the specific symbolic codes are what are being assessed, sometimes the ‘language’ itself, not the image or concept associated with it is actually the ‘knowledge’ required to impart on learners. At which point the goal literally does become to get the symbolic codes as they exist in books into the students’ minds, providing a disconnect between the two agendas of the classroom. Sometimes when you ask students why plants can’t photosynthesise at night, you are looking for students to be world-makers, explaining concepts and making meaning. Sometimes you are literally looking for light to be referred to as a limiting factor, and nothing else will suffice.

Again, there are potential potential barriers given the fact that students are often unreliable evaluators of their own learning. If you start discussing photosynthesis a student can have the inclination to ‘switch off’ because they ‘know it’, missing the nuance of the purpose of an intervention towards specific terminology or the appropriate manner in which to structure an academic response to a question on photosynthesis. In an observation record (Nuthall and Alton-Lee, 1994) this is evidenced in a primary classroom where when a teacher is discussing how a barometer and thermometer work, and a student whispers to her friend she knows how they work as her grandfather has them, at which point she zones out of the explanation, disengaging from the delivery of the teacher. Evidence then shows that the student does not know how the objects work, but had made a judgement call based on perceived familiarity. This can be an issue when revisiting aspects of academic language – and why in my implementation I am aiming for strategies to codify these expectations to learners – we aren’t ’revisiting’ but ‘building’.

Approaching Implementation

Using information from mock exams and past scripts, I can see there are limitations of a significant portion students accessing the codes and linguistic expectations of the syllabus particularly with AP3 modelling questions, particularly 3.3-3.5, requiring specificity and interpretation and confident verbalisation of technical aspects of mathematics and scenario context – with future assessments, mocks and terminal examinations providing opportunities to gauge success of initial implementation. Some of this is elaborated code based, however other elements can be pinned to specific niche and technical terminology as well.

There are potentially broader benefits of a strategic focus on this development that may be yielded for students of a lower-socioeconomic background, but this is harder to evidence or view long-term. Whilst working in an exclusively post-16 environment I have been reading the EEF guidance report for ‘Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools’ (Quigley and Coleman, 2021) which is geared towards KS3/KS4, as there are a lot of fantastic guidance that is suitable and adaptable to myself in level 3.

A significant element of this guidance is focusing on domain specific terminology and language, and I have spent a lot of my planning for implementation delving into recommendation 1, 2 and 6 in-particular, as well as elements of recommendation 3 as a supportive measure. Whilst my implementation is domain specific to mathematics, there are recommendations for adaptation in a joined up approach across curriculum areas, such as Isabel Beck’s Tiers of Vocabulary, where approach to emphasising and developing key Tier 2 vocabulary across a STEM (and Philosophy) pathways could have a more coordinated approach than is currently implemented.

These are the strategies that I am implementing;

1. During curriculum development, resource design and assessment creation – find areas where the conflicts between the perceived curriculum and formal curriculum are at their largest. Adapt plans in order to explicitly tackle and reduce the gap between the two agendas. For example, one intervention to tackle this is a “What is the model?” activity for A Level Maths. I will provide a number of written responses to an unseen question about the nature of a model and see if students are able to explain what the scenario/model/type of function is involved from the given information. I am hoping this will emphasise the importance of clear and descriptive language within responses.
2. Challenge for clarification in verbal responses built around “it”, “that”, “they” etc. Encourage the student to clarify what “it”, “that”, “they” etc actually is. We can often be attracted to build with probing questions to promote higher order thinking, such that this clarification is overlooked. I want to get out of this habit. This same approach can be used for broader slang and informal language within academic problems, but the overall aim is to develop and build up young people not to criticise. Yes you can challenge, but the goal is to broaden the lexicon available to the learner for responses in a future situation, and develop confidence for young people to choose to do this in the future through positive experience.
3. Share high quality student answers when going through homework questions, assessed exam questions etc as opposed to a teacher worked answer. Peer representation and teacher representation can produce different viewpoints in students as to what the expectations of a response are. High quality peer response may potentially emphasise “This is what I need to do” in a student.
4. Think carefully about the phrasing of my questions during modelling and Q&A portions of a lesson, and can I develop indicators within my routine to indicate the style of response I am looking for. Am I wanting elaboration and for students to develop understanding and their own meaning, or am I looking for a specific response that maps to the expectations of the awarding body? Develop a code of verbally indicating this “What would an examiner expect to see here?” or “What is the technical term used by…” in contrast to “What do you think?/What is the…” etc. Am I making it clear to my class if I am looking for world-building or a specific ‘inner-circle’ disciplinary academic response? I will think about my responses, avoiding positive reinforcement to answers that don’t fulfil the agenda of the line of questioning.
5. Monitor outcomes and discuss implementation with peers within the department, across STEM disciplines etc.. Can we develop a uniform approach, sharing and building upon best practice?

Links and References:

Argyle, M (1967). The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour. Penguin Books

Barnes, D (1976). From communication to curriculum. Penguin

Bernstein, B (1964). Elaborated and Restricted Codes: Their Social Origins and Some Consequences. American Anthropologist, vol.66(6)

Bernstein, B (1973). Class, Codes and Control: Volume II, Applied Studies towards a sociology of language. London. Routledge

Cushing, I (2021). Language, Discipline and ‘Teaching like a champion’.  British Educational Research Journal. Vol.47(1).

Education Endowment Foundation (2019). Changing Mindsets study. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/projects-and-evaluation/projects/changing-mindset-2015 

Egan, K & Gajdamaschko, N (2003). ‘Some Cognitive tools of literacy’ in Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge University Press

Gruijters, R.J, Raabe, I.J & Hübner, N (2023). Socio-emotional Skills and the Socioeconomic Achievement Gap. American Sociological Association: Sociology of Education

Harley, C (2020). Modelling Elaborated and Collegiate Codes in History. https://www.researchtoclassroom.com/post/modelling-elaborated-and-collegiate-codes-in-history 

Hoefling, E.R (2020). Uncommon Schools has Always Been an Authoritarian Regime. https://emily-rose-hoefling.medium.com/uncommon-schools-has-always-been-an-authoritarian-regime-b8f6aa48192b

Hoefling, E.R (2020). Uncommon Schools has an Apology Problem. https://emily-rose-hoefling.medium.com/uncommon-schools-has-an-apology-problem-425f96530752

Karpov, Y.V (2003). ‘Vygotsky’s Doctrine of Scientific Concepts’ in Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge University Press

Nuthall, G & Alton-Lee, A (1994). How Pupils Learn. New Zealand Council for Educational Research 1994(2)

Quigley, A & Coleman, R (2021). Education Endowment Foundation Guidance Report: Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/literacy-ks3-ks4 

Thompson, G.A & Watkins, K (2021): Academic language: is this really (functionally) necessary?, Language and Education