a study of the impact of two models of...
TRANSCRIPT
A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF TWO MODELS OF CLASSROOM OBSERVATION ON TEACHING AND LEARNING IN AN ENGLISH SECONDARY SCHOOL
Julie Smith: May 2015. Presented as part of the requirement for the award of the M.Ed Degree in Advanced Practice within the
University of Gloucestershire
University of Gloucestershire
DECLARATIONS
This dissertation is a product of my own work and is not the result of anything
done in collaboration.
Student signature
Julie Smith
I agree that this Dissertation may be available for reference and
photocopying, at the discretion of the university.
Student signature
Julie Smith
i
ABSTRACT
This study explored the impact of two models of classroom observation on teaching and
learning in an English Secondary School. The aim was to review the literature with regard to
classroom observation in a Quality Assurance context, the Ofsted model of educational
evaluation, and the role of the classroom observation component within this, and additionally
to review the literature with regard to evidence based and practice based approaches to
improving teaching. The study investigated the effectiveness of the Ofsted approach in
comparison with the evidence based and practice based approach in terms of three
positional perspectives: a) those of teachers b) those of line managers and c) those of
students.
The research strategy consisted of a web-based questionnaire, developed to ascertain the
views of the three positional perspectives. The next stage of the research strategy was
composed of lesson study, consisting of a cycle of ‘research lessons’ that were jointly
planned, taught, observed and analysed by a lesson study group. Three students, who
typified different groups of learner in the class, were identified as the focus area of the
research lesson. Observers took notes to capture the case study students’ responses at
different points in the lesson, recorded by video. Students were briefly interviewed to gain
their perspectives. The lesson study group met to assess progress made, then formally
shared the outcomes of the lesson study.
Research questions explored concerned the history and purpose of the Ofsted model of
educational evaluation; the history and purpose of evidence based and practice based
approaches to improving teaching; the positional perspectives of these differing approaches,
and whether an evidence based and practice based approach to improving teaching has any
impact on teaching and learning. Findings are that a systematic approach to using and
sharing research, and the culture of practice based approaches is one of equality, faithful
observation, openness to feedback, reciprocal vulnerability and multiple sources of
evidence: an antithesis, therefore, of the Ofsted quality-assurance approach to lesson
observation, which teachers feel has little impact on their practice. The process of lesson
study seems closer to exploring ways to improve student learning and to meet the needs of
specific groups of learners more genuinely, rather than proving proxies for learning based
solely on Ofsted criteria. Additionally, a further benefit to using this model of observation is
that students have joint ownership of the learning process.
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like the sincerely thank the members of staff who participated in this research
project. Your willingness to give your time, commitment and expertise are a testament to
your professionalism, and I am truly grateful for your generosity.
I would also like to express my thanks to my supervisors, Dr. Ray Chatwin and Mark Gibson,
for their guidance, support, and detailed and incisive feedback.
iii
CONTENTS
List of tables……………………………………………………………………….v
List of figures……………………………………………………………………..vi
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………....12. LITERATURE REVIEW…..……………………………………………......43. RESEARCH DESIGN……………………………………………………...144. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS…..215. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………41
References………………………………………………………………………….46
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………53
iv
List of Tables
Table Page
i: Percentage on time on task in Research lesson 1 34
ii: Percentage on time on task in Research lesson 2 37
v
List of Figures
Figures Page
Figure 1: The lesson study cycle 17
Figure 2: The action research cycle 18
Figure 3: Factors that motivate teachers to improve their teaching 22
Figure 4: Factors that motivate line managers to improve their teaching 23
Figure 5: Aspects of their teaching teachers would like to work on 24
Figure 6: Aspects of their teaching line managers would like to work on 24
Figure 7: Preferred methods teachers use to improve their practice 25-26
Figure 8: Preferred methods line managers use to improve their practice 27
Figure 9: Teachers’ opinions of graded lesson observations 28
Figure 10: Line managers’ opinions of graded lesson observations 29-30
Figure 11: Student responses to teachers’ improvement of their practice 31
Figure 12: Student responses to how they know if a teacher has improved 32
Figure 13: Student responses to aspects of teaching they would like improved 33
vi
A study of the impact of two models of classroom observation on teaching and learning in an English Secondary School
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This study aims to explore the impact of two models of classroom observation on teaching
and learning in an English Secondary School. It aims to review the ‘Quality’ literature with
regard to the Ofsted model of educational evaluation, and the role of the classroom
observation component within this, and additionally to review the literature with regard to
evidence based and practice based approaches to improving teaching. The study will
investigate the effectiveness of the Ofsted approach in comparison with the evidence based
and practice based approach in terms of three positional perspectives: a) those of teachers
b) those of line managers and c) those of students. Findings will be disseminated through
appropriate teacher networks.
The school in this study is a secondary school with academy status, situated in
Gloucestershire. It is a mixed comprehensive school, with 1,242 students, including 250
students in the Sixth Form. It was first set up in 1973. The school’s latest Ofsted inspection
(2014) deemed the school as ‘good’, stating that ‘the quality of teaching is good. Learning is
enhanced by strong working relationships between teachers and students’ and that ‘teachers
have high expectations of what students are able to achieve. They provide students with
high-quality feedback that enables them to improve their work’. In 2014, 70% of students
gained A*-Cs in their GCSE examinations, including in English and maths. However, in
terms of inspection, this has been a period of turbulence in the history of the school. Prior to
the 2014 Ofsted inspection, the school had been placed in ‘special measures’ following
unsatisfactory exam results, and a subsequent Ofsted inspection in 2013.
The focus of this study is to examine the impact of different models of lesson evaluation.
Since the 2005 Education Act, schools have been required to complete self-evaluation
forms, which include a school’s evaluation of the quality of their teachers. An Ofsted
inspector validates this judgement during their visit. This process has incentivised schools to
grade their teachers according to the Ofsted criteria. Additionally, performance management
observations often use Ofsted’s four part grading system, a process likely to become even
more contentious with the advent of performance related pay. Educational research
1
suggests that, despite the increased importance of the role of lesson observation under the
current coalition government, graded lesson judgements are rarely accurate. Coe uses the
American study ‘Measuring the Effectiveness of Teachers’ to show that lesson observation
judgements do not consistently correspond with future student outcomes: only 49% of
observation grade judgements would agree with future student achievement in the best case
scenario. Secondly, Coe explains that lesson observation grading lacks reliability as in the
best case scenario, two inspectors would agree on their grading only 61% of the time.
(Mihaly at al, 2013). The Sutton Trust similarly claims that teacher appraisal and teacher
development observations should not be combined as teachers come to resent the
judgement, and may develop a lack of respect for professional development (Murphy, 2013).
Following a review of the literature with regard to differing models of lesson evaluation, this
study aims to investigate the Ofsted approach to lesson observation in comparison with the
evidence and practice based approach to lesson observation, taking into account the views
of teachers, line managers and students. The effectiveness of both approaches will be
investigated through the use of questionnaires, and the use of lesson study. As O’Leary
reminds us, lesson observation has emerged as ‘an important tool for measuring and
improving teacher performance in schools’ (O’Leary, 2013:11). A dominant model of lesson
observation in schools, increasingly associated with performance management systems,
relies on a ‘simplified rating scale to grade professional competence and performance’ (ibid).
Following Ofsted’s announcement that they will be conducting ‘no-notice’ inspections, many
schools have designed their observation schemes to replicate the Ofsted model as closely
as possible, perhaps as a response to their need to use observation as a performance
indicator for categorizing teachers. (Ofsted, 2012). In contrast, the model of lesson study is
underpinned by an ethos of teacher collaboration and cooperation. In small groups, teachers
plan lessons, observe a member of the group teaching the lesson, meet to discuss their
reflections, then cascade what has been learnt (O’Leary, 2014:137). Unlike performance-
driven models of lesson evaluation, lesson study is designed to promote a collegial
approach, enabling teachers to take control of their own development (Lieberman, 2009).
Ball suggests that the mechanics of performativity mean that teachers are constantly judged
in different ways within a flow of changing demands. Ball claims we therefore become
‘ontologically unsure: unsure of whether we are doing enough, doing the right thing, doing as
much as others, or as well as others, constantly looking to improve, to be better, to be
excellent. And yet it is not very clear what is expected’ (Ball, 2003:220). In contrast to Ball’s
description of the teaching profession, Richard Pring, in his paper ‘Trusting Teachers:
Learning from a bit of history’, describes teaching as ‘an engagement with the learners – an
2
engagement in which: first, they come to know and adjust to the learners’ capacities,
strengths, weaknesses, aspirations; second, they relate the subject and practical knowledge
they have to that knowledge of the learner; third, in doing so, they deliberate about the
values and aims of education for these learners, not just about the methods of transmitting
content which is packaged by others way from the classroom’ (Pring, 2012: 11). This level of
professional expertise requires critical reflection on practice and classroom based research.
In summary, the four questions to be explored for the purpose of this research are:
1 What is the history and purpose of the Ofsted model of educational evaluation?
2 What is the history and purpose of evidence based and practice based approaches to
improving teaching?
3 What are the positional perspectives of these differing approaches?
4 Does an evidence based and practice based approach to improving teaching have any
impact on teaching and learning?
3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Coe suggests that there is no ‘evidential justification’ for graded lesson observations, arguing
that research studies, such as those conducted by the ‘Measures of Effective Teaching
Project’ (Mihaly at al, 2013) have disputed the reliability of graded lesson observations, and
that, as observers, it is impossible not to project our own preferences for teaching styles or
fashionable practices on to a lesson. Additionally, Coe states that ‘learning is invisible’, and
as such, observers merely rely on observing proxies for student learning. Moreover, Coe
asserts observers can suffer from ‘intentional blindness’, missing some aspects of a lesson
as they focus their observation on specific events (www.cem.org/blog, 2014).
The Ofsted model of educational evaluation is essentially a ‘quality assurance’ model of
educational evaluation. Neo-liberal perspectives have been influential in shaping education
since the 1988 Education Act (Apple, 2011), supposing that education should serve the
needs of the economy. Neo-liberals are keen to ensure that market-forces are harnessed to
‘raise standards’, encouraging competition between educational establishments. From a
neo-liberal perspective, business practices and management principles should be introduced
into education with the same aim. The application of management theories, such as
Deming’s chain reaction description of the improvement of quality of products and services
(Deming, 2000) and Ishikawa’s cause and effect diagram (Ishikawa, 1976) to identify
potential factors in quality defect prevention to our education system is evident in the Ofsted
model of assessment against standards. Mahony and Hextall are critical of what they see as
the narrow definitions of the effective teacher prescribed by the state, commenting that the
‘criteria for effectiveness have been increasingly tied to central prescription and what can be
measured’ (Mahony and Hextall, 2000:91). The implementation of programs such as
Crosby’s ‘zero defects’ motivational program (Crosby,1984), designed to eliminate defects in
industrial production on the education system has the power to, as Ball suggests, ‘not simply
change what people, as educators, scholars and researchers do, they change who they are’
(2003: 215)
Before 1992, schools were inspected by LEA employed inspectors. As part of the
centralisation of the school system that had begun with the 1988 Education Reform Act,
Ofsted was established as an independent, non-ministerial government department reporting
4
directly to Parliament, with the responsibility for inspecting and regulating education. The
impetus to form Ofsted may have also arisen from a perception that LEA employed
inspectors were inconsistent in terms of standards, and not always willing to conform to the
agenda of the Conservative government (O’Leary, 2014). Each Ofsted inspection must
follow a specific framework to measure aspects of schools’ work, and from January 2012, to
focus on those that have the greatest impact on raising achievement. To this end, classroom
observation has become a prominent feature of assessment of teachers’ practice under the
coalition government from May 2010. In the policy text ‘The Importance of Teaching’,
classroom observation is regarded as a key tool in the improvement of practice, and
guidelines were removed for the ‘three hour limit’ on the amount of time a teacher can be
observed (DfE 2010: 24).
Graded lesson observations are particularly contentious. As O’Leary reminds us, both the
NUT and NASUWT believe that ‘grading encourages school management to view
observation as a surveillance mechanism with which to monitor the quality of teachers’ work,
instead of seeing it as a valuable means of stimulating professional dialogue’ (2014: 31).
Although O’Leary’s findings are focussed on the Further Education sector, he identifies key
themes and issues surrounding the use of classroom observation in both schools and FE:
O’Leary argues that in both sectors ‘observation has become increasingly associated with
performance management systems’ (2013:11), and has ‘operated principally to satisfy policy
driven agendas’ (ibid: 28). As Ozga et al propose, the use of data to measure schools has
become increasingly important as the current coalition government are ‘preoccupied with
achieving world class status’. In their analysis of policy texts, they find every aspect of
schooling draws on data; government presents policy as ‘informed, justified and legitimized
by data…and in addition to home-grown data systems, global comparative data from PISA
provides a key reference point’ (2013:212). The grading of lesson observations can be seen
as a derivation of this drive to measure and quantify every aspect of the work that schools
do.
O’Leary finds that teachers feel a pressure to ‘normalize’ their practice during graded
observations. He comments on repeated examples in his study of teachers being
‘encouraged to demonstrate normalized models of ‘effective practice’ based on prescribed
notions of ‘excellent’ teaching, often cascaded from senior management’ (2014: 34). This
element of ‘fabrication’ is also explored by Boocock, who finds ‘whilst OTL (observation of
teaching and learning) was presented to external auditors as evidence of the college
undertaking processes to improve the skills of lecturers, the real process was viewed by
lecturers to be technically rational or Fordist in nature’ (2013: 440). Boocock comments on
the ineffectiveness of standardising the OTL process, as ‘lecturers, in not being involved in
5
the process, did not value the feedback from observers. Rather than being challenged to
reflect on practice to meet the needs of students, such lecturers instead ‘played the game’ to
meet the generic requirements of the OTL process’ (ibid). This sense of fabrication is also
manifested in external observations; Perryman comments on the impact of the power of
knowledge being held by inspectors: ‘They hold, it seems, the sacred truth about effective
schools, and make their judgements accordingly. It is not for teachers or management of
schools to judge, but the external and omnipotent forces of inspection. It is the power
wielded by inspectors that can make schools feel that a performance is necessary as the
consequences of failing an inspection are severe.’ (2009:5) Thus, although schools are not
required to measure teachers under the Ofsted framework, it is perhaps unsurprising they
feel the need to prepare their staff for high stakes external inspections: if teachers cannot
demonstrate they meet a pre-determined criteria, the school will fail, particularly as the
January 2012 framework requires that inspectors spend a greater proportion of their time
observing teaching. Thus, is the Ofsted model of educational evaluation and classroom
observation concerned with improving teaching? It could be suggested that ‘standards’ are a
social construct, not defined by the teaching profession, but by the opinions of those with the
power to define them. For Foucault, the ‘unequal gaze’ of power means an institution has the
ability to constantly monitor and record individuals in order to improve ‘standards’ (Foucault,
1977).
The notion of power is a fundamental one. O’Leary argues that by drawing on aspects of the
work of sociological theorists such as Michel Foucault and Stephen Ball, observation can be
seen as ‘normalized as a performative tool of surveillance and control over teachers’.
(O’Leary, 2014:113). O’Leary suggests that viewing observation through a ‘Foucaultian lens’
means the ‘production of dominant discourses and regimes of truth is exemplified by
external agencies such as Ofsted, who are the custodians of quality and standards for
teachers’ (ibid: 24). This lens is particularly useful to examine ‘relationships of teacher
agency and structure’ in addition to aiding description of the ‘phenomenon of observation,
such as the concept of normalisation’ (O’Leary: 2013). Graded lesson observations can be
viewed as a form of control, an inevitable consequence of a low-trust accountability system
with the observer controlling the field of judgement. Foucault describes the measures taken
at the end of the seventeenth century when the plague appeared in a town. During this time,
minutiae of everyday life were observed and recorded, ‘each individual is constantly
located… the plague is met by order.’ (Foucault, 1977:197). Through fear of the ‘plague’ of
being judged inadequate by Ofsted, schools can be driven to the ‘hierarchy, surveillance
(and) observation’ that Foucault describes as the ‘utopia of a perfectly governed city’. (ibid:
198). Stephen Ball asserts ‘not infrequently, the requirements of such systems bring into
6
being unhelpful or indeed damaging practices, which nonetheless satisfy performance
requirements. Organizations will do whatever is necessary to excel or to survive.’ (Ball,
2003: 5). Foucault describes this as a major effect of the Panopticon, that the ‘inmates
should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers’ (1977:
201). Therefore, some schools respond to the pressures of accountability by using Ofsted
criteria written for whole school inspections to judge individual lessons, or by conducting
their own ‘Mocksteds’, potentially causing their staff to suffer inexorably in terms of increased
workload and stress.
Although these measures are understandable in the current political climate, the
consequences of this form of observation on teachers’ professionalism can be catastrophic.
This climate is described by Ball as ‘the installation of the new culture of competitive
performativity (which) involves the use of a combination of devolution, targets and incentives
to bring about new forms of sociality and new institutional forms’ (Ball, 2003:219). Teachers
describe their frustration at having to abandon time spent with students to devote instead to
quality assurance tasks, in addition to the inauthenticity created by the feeling of fabrication
created by the lesson observation process. This is exacerbated by the ‘constantly changing
flow of demands, expectations and indicators that makes one continually accountable and
constantly recorded’ (ibid: 220). As Ball describes, teachers become ‘ontologically insecure:
unsure whether we are doing enough, doing the right thing, doing as much as others, or as
well as others, constantly looking to improve, to be better, to be excellent. And yet it is not
always very clear what is expected.’ (ibid). The need to perform during observed lessons
can lead to a misapplication of the criteria Ofsted suggest are signifiers of a successful
lesson, as observers do not necessarily know how to distinguish learning from performance.
In O’Leary’s 2012 study of the use and impact of graded lesson observations in Further
Education Colleges, he states that graded lesson observations have emerged as part of a
culture of ‘new managerialism’ (2012:3) as a means of quality assurance and preparation for
Ofsted inspections. O’Leary suggests that ‘by attaching a grade to the subjective judgement
of the observer, people are seduced into believing that such judgements have greater
objectivity and authority than they can, in reality, claim to have’ (ibid:8). Furthermore, it can
be suggested that the criteria used to form these judgements are themselves flawed.
Teachers have not had the opportunity to define ‘standards’ or to create their own framework
to assess teacher performance. There has been comparatively little research regarding the
role of observation in the FE sector in comparison to the schools’ sector, as ‘observation has
a longer history in the schools’ sector’ (O’Leary, 2013:11). Similarities, however, do exist as
the dominant model of lesson observation in both sectors relies on ‘a simplified rating scale
to grade professional competence and performance’ (ibid).
7
Similarly, Wood comments on the ‘predominance of dataveillance’, the use of data and data
management to characterize students and teachers. He suggests that ‘data is characterized
as truth, and teacher work is increasingly bound to its production, embeddedness and
scrutiny.’ (2014: 2). This claim is reiterated by Rogers and Gunter who find that ‘education
policy that frames effectiveness through improved exam results simply as a means of
improving the future social capital of a society or the local competitiveness of a school can
exert distorting pressures on the virtues cultivated and modelled within schools’ (Rogers and
Gunter, 2012:6). The criteria for which a school is defined as a success or a failure is one
that is created by the state. As such, as Perryman believes, according to the discourse of
Ofsted, ‘there is no room for schools to ‘do their own thing’ in terms of improvement. If a
school is to be judged as effective, it must demonstrate that it has met pre-determined
criteria which are set to judge a school, irrespective of the socio-economic environment’
(Perryman, 2012:7).
However, there is evidence to suggest this is a pivotal moment in terms of current thinking
on the subject of graded lesson observations. In 2014, the think tank ‘Policy Exchange’
published a paper entitled ‘Watching The Watchmen’, finding that ‘significant changes
should to be made to the way in which Ofsted conducts school inspections to make it as
effective as it both should be and needs to be in future if educational standards are to
increase.’ (2014:6). The report suggests that lesson observations, in their current form, are
‘neither valid nor reliable’ and that the abolition of grading individual lessons does not go far
enough, and that as long as Ofsted inspectors are observing lessons, teachers will ‘always
fall prey to confirmation bias and the whims of individual inspectors’ (ibid:8). However, as
free market exponents, Policy Exchange may have their own agenda behind the publication
of their report. In response to ‘Watching The Watchmen’, Michael Cladingbowl, Ofsted’s
Director, released a statement in which he commented on his concern over the ‘ineffective
and unnecessary observation’ carried out in schools today (June 2014). Cladingbowl asserts
‘(teachers) know what works for them...they should be able to exercise their craft without
undue intervention’. A pilot of Ofsted observations without judgements began in June 2014.
The paper ‘Watching The Watchmen’ concludes that ‘the practice of lesson observations is
symptomatic of many of the issues related to the balance of power between inspectors and
schools, and recommends – as part of a wider reform to the structure of school inspections –
the total abolition of all routine lesson observations by Ofsted in the course of their standard
inspections.’ (2014:8).
In the current climate shaped by neo-liberal and neo-conservative trends, of performativity,
accountability and new managerialism, should teachers find ways of subverting state
educational narratives to reclaim their professionalism? O’Leary’s refers to the use of ‘lesson
8
study’ as one possible alternative to graded lesson observation. O’Leary presents this model
as having ‘the potential to provide additional insights into the way in which classroom
observation might be harnessed as a tool for enhancing teacher awareness and
understanding of pedagogic skills and knowledge’ (2014:136-141). In use in Japan since the
1870s, lesson study is growing in popularity in Western countries as a means of improving
teaching techniques and student progress, in addition to ‘redressing the imbalance in the
agency of the teacher’ (ibid: 139). It involves a group of teachers collaboratively planning,
teaching, observing and analysing learning and teaching in ‘research lessons’. They then
record their findings. Over a cycle of research lessons, teachers may innovate or refine a
pedagogical approach that will improve students’ learning and which will be shared with
others. According to Cheng, this type of collaborative action research approach to
observation aims to ‘improve the effectiveness of student learning by enhancing the
professional competence of teachers through joint construction of pedagogical content
knowledge by teachers to help students to learn specific objects of learning’. (Cheng,
2003:1). In April 2014, six lesson study projects received funds from the London Schools
Excellence Fund, highlighting current pedagogical interest in this professional learning
process.
Daniels suggests that ‘many teachers have been victims of an observation in which the
observation was something done to them, rather than with them’ (Daniels, 2012:36).
Alternative methods of teacher–centred development to improving teaching have a long
history. Hopkins reminds us that the origins of teacher research can be traced back to ‘the
Schools Council’s Humanities Curriculum Project (1967-1972) with its emphasis on ‘an
experimental curriculum and the reconceptualisation of curriculum development as
curriculum research’ (Hopkins, 2008:1). Following the project’s influence on teaching in
British schools, Stenhouse, who directed the HCP, helped to popularise the concept of
‘teacher as researcher’ in his text, ‘An Introduction To Curriculum Research and
Development’. (Stenhouse, 1975). Additionally, The Collaborative Action Research Network
was founded in 1976 with the aim of ‘encouraging and supporting action research projects,
and contributions to the theory and methodology of action research’.
(www.esri.mmu.ac.uk/carnnew). As Hopkins asserts, ‘we live in an educational system that
tends to limit individual initiative by encouraging conformity and control’. He suggests that
undertaking research is a way that teachers ‘can take increased responsibility for their
actions’. (ibid). Stenhouse (1975:69) describes the ideal role of good teachers as necessarily
‘autonomous in professional judgement…they (do) know that ideas and people are not of
much real use until they are digested to the point where they are subject to the teacher’s
own judgement. In short, it is the task of all educationalists outside the classroom to serve
9
the teachers; for only teachers are in the position to create good teaching.’ (ibid:37)
Therefore, for Stenhouse, the issue of power is also paramount; he perceives the link
between research and the art of teaching as a method of returning teachers’ self-worth.
There is evidence to suggest that the teaching profession’s interest in evidence based and
practice based approaches to improving teaching has not abated. The ‘Teacher
Development Trust’, launched in 2012, cites embedding ‘evidence-based effective
approaches to teaching’ as the main aim of their charity; conferences for educators, such as
ResearchED 2013, focus on interest in evidence-based education, and high profile scientists
such as Dr Ben Goldacre have reignited debate about the purpose of and necessity for
educational research (Goldacre, 2013).
Kotelawala finds that ‘the key advantage of lesson study as a form of professional development for teachers is that it brings teacher learning into the context of the classroom, where the full complexities of teaching and learning can be addressed. (Kotelawala, 2012:3). Kotelwala also suggests that ‘the structure of
lesson study provides an opportunity for teachers to reflect on their teaching and to benefit
from the observations of others.’ (ibid: 4).The structure of lesson study therefore prioritizes
development over surveillance. The underlying value system of our current education
system favours quantitative, measurable data. The element of measuring effectiveness in
lesson study may appease managers who require a demonstrable impact on student
progress and attainment, while ensuring teachers remain at the centre of the planning,
teaching and evaluation process. Dudley’s 2007 project ‘Would Lesson Study Work in the
UK and if so would it do so in a way which would add value to the range of professional
development approaches already in use?’ finds that lesson study is a ‘popular, powerful and
replicable process for innovating, developing and transferring pedagogic practices’
(www.tlrp.org). Furthermore, Dudley suggests that lesson study focuses the ‘participant
teachers’ attention on the effectiveness of the lesson – and not on the effectiveness of the
teacher’. Thus, teachers can abandon, in Ball’s words describes, ‘the new vocabulary of
performance’ (Ball, 2007:4), and instead focus on teacher learning through ‘collaborative,
classroom based, practice-focused enquiry.’
However, evidence based learning has its detractors. In his 2010 paper, Biesta reminds us
that ‘while some caution about what can be expected from scientific evidence, others
continue to promote research that emulates ‘‘the medical model’’ as the solution to many if
not all problems in the field of education. (Biesta, 2010:10). Goldacre’s government
commissioned report ‘Building Evidence into Education’ (2013) is an example of this,
proposing Randomised Control Trials as a means of testing educational interventions. Biesta
suggests that the act of teaching is a complex process, a ‘teleological practice—a practice
10
framed by a telos: an aim or purpose—which implies that decisions about educational
actions and arrangements always have to be taken with an eye on the desirability of what
such actions and arrangements are supposed to bring about’ (ibid). The notion of power is
still central here; Biesta states his concerns about ‘the expectations policy makers hold
about what evidence can and should do in relation to professional practices such as
education’ (ibid:3), warning us against the ‘magic bullet notion of causality’, particularly at the
expense of teachers’ professional judgement. Furedi echoes Biesta’s concerns, suggesting
that, much as in the same way only quantitative data is valued as ‘fact’, governments
‘embrace science as the unique source of truth.’ Furedi believes that the conflation of
teaching with intervention pathologises children, leading to the assumption that they will
need some form of intervention before they can progress. Furedi’s view on educational
research is that it can ‘provide critically important ideas about teaching and learning…the
experience of the teaching profession can be distilled, communicated and sometimes
integrated into the work of the classroom’. Furedi similarly calls for teachers to have an
opportunity to exercise their professional judgement, and to be able to ‘experiment in
education as part of a teacher’s everyday life’.(Furedi, 2013).
Furthermore, there is currently a chasm between teacher practitioners and researchers, and
few teachers are encouraged to be literate in terms of reading and understanding research.
Hopkins agrees with this assertion, stating ‘teachers quite rightly (in most cases) regard
educational research as something irrelevant to their lives and see little interaction between
the world of the educational researcher and the world of the teacher.’ (Hopkins, 2008:40). He
explains that ‘most researchers, when they enter classrooms, bring with them perspectives
derived from academic disciplines. Their view of how knowledge evolves and how it is
determined are firmly established by their formal training… (this) is consequently at odds
with that of teachers. The teacher derives their knowledge of teaching from continual
participation in situational decision making and the classroom culture in which they and their
pupils live out their daily lives.’ (ibid: 41) Teachers may be familiar with large scale research
such as that summarised by the Sutton Trust toolkit and Hattie’s ‘Visible Learning’, but
contextual factors may reduce the effectiveness of these ideas. Furthermore, policy makers
and school leaders may reduce research to superficial findings. One example of this is ‘The
Telegraph’ reporting in 2011 that teaching assistants ‘have no effect’ on improving learning,
whereas the Sutton Trust report finds that teaching assistants can be helpful when utilized
effectively. There are also personal barriers to research use in schools; teachers may feel
overwhelmed by time constraints or insecure about their ability to engage with research.
In using lesson study as an alternative form of lesson observation, this research aims to
explore whether these factors are reduced by ensuring teachers have a role in decision
11
making, that the enquiry is relevant to them, and importantly, their choice. Hopkins suggests
that ‘the claim of teaching to be a profession lies in the ability and opportunity for teachers to
exercise their judgement over the critical tasks involved in their role, namely curriculum and
teaching.’ (Hopkins, 2008:39). As Perryman, Ball et al remind us, since the 1988 Education
Reform Act, there has been a shift in accountability from teacher professionalism,
characterized by accountability of teachers to themselves, their colleagues and their
students (self-regulation), to accountability to agencies such as the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA) and OfSTED.’ (Perryman et al, 2011:5). An observation
programme such as lesson study could encourage ownership and autonomy by devolving
the ownership of the process to teachers, potentially counteracting the current movement of
global educational reform as one of ‘targets, accountability, competition and choice,
leadership, entrepreneurism, performance related pay and privatisation (that) articulate new
ways of thinking about what we do, what we value and what our purposes are’ (Ball,
2008:43). Therefore, the issue inherent in this study is one of power, and a declaration that
teachers should be pivotal in the development of effective pedagogy, as well as an
investigation into whether evidence based and practice based approaches to improving
teaching do indeed have any impact on teaching and learning.
The evidence based and practice based approach to improving teaching explored in this
research focusses on the possibility of improving student resilience. Duckworth et al explore
the question of why some individuals accomplish more than others of equal intelligence.
They suggest that ‘one quality is shared by the most prominent leaders in every field: grit’.
(Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews and Kelly, 2007:1087). The authors define grit as
‘perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Grit entails working strenuously toward
challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity, and plateaus
in progress’ (ibid: 1088). Through the use of self-report questionnaires, Duckworth et al find
that ‘achievement is the product of talent and effort’ (ibid: 1099). The concept of ‘grit’ has
been integrated into the American KIPP schools’ teacher training programme, with the hope
that ‘grit’ can be successfully taught in schools. McFarlin et al, however, counteract these
findings by suggesting that ‘gritty’ people can exhibit ‘nonproductive persistance’, leading to
‘a costly or inefficient success that could have easily been surpassed by alternative courses
of action’ (McFarlin, Baumeister and Blascovich, 1984:152). They find that, in certain cases,
resilience does not necessarily lead to success, proposing that ‘responding to failure simply
by increasing effort may often be less than the optimal response’ (ibid: 153).
The attributes of grit outlined by Duckworth et al are identical to those espoused in Levin’s
American ‘Knowledge is Power’ Programme. Similarly, Dweck’s theories of growth-mindset
and fixed-mindset have received widespread recognition in the English education system:
12
English politicians may want schools to emulate the KIPP schools’ development of
‘character’ intervention. Dweck identifies a key attributional variable that affects how
students respond to the challenges and obstacles they face when learning in schools, finding
that some students frame the experience of school in terms of learning goals and see ability
as something which can be increased with effort and time. Other students possess a ‘fixed’
mindset, seeing school in terms of performance goals and ability as static and inflexible.
Yeagar and Dweck suggest that students’ mindsets can be changed and that doing so can
promote resilience. They define ‘resilient’ as ‘any behavioural, attributional or emotional
response to an academic or social challenge that is positive and beneficial for development’
(Yeagar and Dweck, 2012:303). Yeagar and Dweck suggest that there can be an
assumption that students who are not learning or engaging have not been given the correct
resource or skills. They propose that ‘sometimes the forces in a system are adequate to
support learning, but students have mindsets that prevent them from fully taking advantage
of these sources’ (ibid: 310). They claim that a ‘well-timed and psychologically precise
intervention…can lead to long-term effects on students’ achievements’. Furthermore, Yeagar
and Dweck comment on the impact of adult use of praise on students’ mindset. They argue
that to promote resilience, students should be ‘praised for their effort, their strategies, their
focus or their persistence’. They find that ‘focusing more on process rather than ability can
put students in a mindset that helps them respond to challenges resiliently’. (ibid: 311).
There is, however, evidence that the research literature surrounding the subject of ‘mindset’
is in danger of being reductively misrepresented. Dweck comments that growth mindset is
often misrepresented as ‘praising any old effort and telling kids they can learn’ (Creasey,
2015). Instead, Creasey suggests that ‘Dweck is advocating general compliments but
targeted praise. Essential to that is a realism about what can be achieved’ (ibid).
Additionally, Yeager and Walton identify potential issues surrounding social-psychological
interventions targeting students’ thoughts, feelings and beliefs in and about school, claiming
that ‘social-psychological interventions hold significant promise for promoting broad and
lasting change in education, but they are not silver bullets’ (Yeagar and Walton, 2011: 268).
Nevertheless, the authors conclude that ‘psychological interventions have a demonstrated
potential to address fundamental problems, including low student achievement…at low cost
at over significant periods of time’ (ibid: 294).
13
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN
This chapter outlines the questions investigated during the research process. Through
discussing the researcher’s ontological stance, the theoretical framework underpinning the
approach adopted is explored, linked to some of the relevant literature. An explanation of the
research methodology employed in the design of the research and data strategies is given.
Ethical issues are considered and the process of implementing the research methods will be
discussed.
The research questions to be explored are:
What is the history and purpose of the Ofsted model of educational evaluation?
What is the history and purpose of evidence based and practice based approaches
to improving teaching?
What are the positional perspectives of these differing approaches?
Does an evidence based and practice based approach to improving teaching have
any impact on teaching and learning?
As commentators on the process of social research generally concede, any instance of
social inquiry is based on the dual fundamental principles of epistemology and ontology. The
research focus, a study of the impact of two models of classroom observation on teaching
and learning, suggests the methodology is open-ended and developmental, with, as McNiff
suggests ‘the aim to improve learning with social intent’. (McNiff, 2013:30). The interpretive
tradition is focused on how people interact with each other and their environment. People’s
values are part of their ontological perspectives. As a paradigm, this research reflects the
principle that reality is constructed through definitions of a particular situation; it is a process
of inquiring about problems and taking action to solve them. Action research is change
research, seeking to improve practice, the understanding of practice by its practitioners, and
the situation in which practice is located (Carr and Kemiss, 1986:165). As Cohen explains,
Mertens argues that a transformative paradigm enters into every stage of the research
process, as it concerns an interrogation of power: ‘The ontology, politics and interests shape
multiple beliefs and values’. (Cohen, 2011: 33). There is a tension between government
control over teachers’ work, and teachers’ desire to improve their teaching to best suit the
14
needs of their students. Cohen reminds us that the nature of these research questions may
‘privilege some views of reality’. In terms of epistemology, ‘partnerships are formed are
based on equality of power and esteem’ (ibid: 35). Teachers who feel they have more
knowledge of what improve their practice than government defined definitions of this may
have an emancipatory interest in the research questions, and have an agenda for altering
current lesson observation practice. This can, however, be viewed as unrealistic. As Cohen
continues, ‘giving action researchers a small degree of power to research their own
situations has little effect on the real locus of power and decision making, which often lies
outside the control of the action researchers’. Ball suggests we can re-envision educational
studies itself as ‘a disciplinary technology, part of the exercise of disciplinary power.
Management, effectiveness and appraisal work together to locate individuals…in a
hierarchical institution’. (Ball, 1995:262). Ball asserts that epistemological development
functions politically, and reminds us of the problem of assuming a social scientist has ‘clean
hands and a clean conscience…they are moral free agents, unencumbered by everyday
ideological limitations’. …warns that some action research ‘reinforces a view of aristocrats
and subservients’ (ibid: 42) through the official researcher adopting an asymmetrical
relationship of power. The design of the lesson study model should help to offset this
criticism.
In order to investigate the effectiveness of the Ofsted approach to improving teaching in
comparison with an evidence based and practice based approach. The research strategy
consists of a web-based questionnaire. This has been developed to gain three positional
perspectives: a) those of teachers b) those of line managers c) those of students. Bell refers
to the popularity of web-based questionnaires, commenting that as a consequence of the
use of the online questionnaire and survey tool Survey Monkey, there were ‘1.5 million
surveys completed online in 2014, and over 16 million users worldwide’ (Bell, 2014: 130).
The opinions of teachers, line managers and students are surveyed here through the use of
Google Docs, as this provides a straightforward method of embedding email, and there are a
number of ways to visualize the data collected. Cohen also suggests there are several
advantages to using a web-based questionnaire. These include they tend to be ‘easy for the
participants to complete and for results to be collated, researcher effects are reduced and
greater authenticity of responses due to volunteer participation’. (Cohen, 2011:277)
However, internet based surveys may also be open to non-response and volunteer bias, and
respondents may wish to be anonymous. (See Appendix A).
The questionnaire designs were of paramount importance. The teacher questionnaire is
designed to encourage teachers to reflect on their motivation to improve their teaching, and
on the specific aspects of their practice that they most want to improve on. Additionally, the
15
questionnaire asks them to reflect on the approaches they most like to use in order to
improve, and asks teachers if these approaches are most effective, by triangulating their
preferences with their student outcomes. The questionnaire also asks teachers their opinion
of graded lesson observations, in terms of their reliability and their impact on teachers’
practice. The questionnaire, therefore, aims to explore teachers’ perspectives of the two
models of classroom observation explored in this study; comparing state-defined notions of
teacher effectiveness with classroom observation as a reflective tool for professional
learning. The line manager questionnaire replicates the teacher questionnaire, but also asks
line managers about the experiences of the teachers that they line manage. This is important
as they partially control the ‘field of judgement’ in this workplace, as line managers conduct
graded lesson observations as part of the school’s performance management policy.
(O’Leary, 2014: 106). Students are also asked their opinion on the most effective ways that
teachers can improve their practice, to ascertain their perspectives on ways that teachers
can improve their teaching.
Questions include rating scales to ascertain teacher perceptions of the impact of current
graded observation practice on teacher learning. According to Cohen, rating scales should
combine the opportunity for a ‘flexible response with the ability to determine frequencies,
correlations and other forms of quantitative analysis’ (Cohen, 2011: 387). The questionnaire
also includes open ended questions, including a prompt to elicit further detail from
respondents. A pilot was necessary to ensure the questionnaire design was sound, and to
ensure clarity of design and presentation. A high rate of response is necessary to reduce the
possibility of a non-representative sample, therefore email invitations to complete the
questionnaire were sent to all teaching staff in the researcher’s current workplace, as well as
year group cohorts to gather a wide enough range of student responses.
When writing the questionnaires, it was very important to avoid leading or presuming
questions or emotive language, particularly as at the time of writing the questionnaire, the
workplace was in ‘special measures’. Although all teaching staff in this workplace were
invited to complete the questionnaire, as Bell suggests, ‘it will be difficult for an individual
researcher working on a small-scale project to achieve a true random sample’ (Bell,
2010:150). Those who responded to the questionnaire were those who were available, or
perhaps those who felt strongly about the topic of lesson evaluation, which may mean the
responses are not as widely representative as if all members of staff had responded; this is
therefore a convenience sample. Students who responded may have felt obliged to do so,
despite the fact that all members of staff and all students were reminded that the
questionnaire was anonymised.
16
The next stage of the research strategy is composed of the lesson study, using standardised
proforma as outlined on www.lessonstudy.co.uk. (See Appendix B). This consists of a cycle
of ‘research lessons’ that are jointly planned, taught, observed and analysed by a lesson
study group. As outlined in his lesson study handbook, Dudley suggests using a protocol to
create common expectations among lesson study group members. Three students are
identified as the focus area of the research lesson. During the first lesson, observers will
take notes to capture the case study students’ responses at different points in the lesson.
Students are then briefly interviewed to gain their perspectives. The lesson study group will
finally meet to assess to progress made, then formally share the outcomes of the lesson
study. (Dudley: 2014)
FIGURE 1: The lesson study cycle (Dudley, 2014)
Lesson study can be seen as a form of action research, in that it is ‘critical self-reflective
practice’ and refers to people ‘becoming aware of and making public their process of
learning with others’. (McNiff, 2013:25). The cycle of action research, as with lesson study,
begins with ‘a research question and ends by saying you have engaged with the research
question’ (ibid: 91). McNiff suggests the presentation of the knowledge found during action
research needs to ‘demonstrate methodical rigour’, be ‘judged in relation to criteria you
consider important’, and to ‘communicate what you are doing so people will appreciate what
you are saying’. (ibid: 140).
17
FIGURE 2: The action research cycle (McNiff, 2002)
The standardised lesson study proforma used intends to contextualise the claim of
knowledge found.
The lesson study process suggests an initial meeting of the lesson study group to determine
the aspect of teaching that needs to be improved. This lesson study group consists of
volunteers interested in experimenting with a professional learning approach, and keen to
develop collaborative enquiry. This includes an experienced teacher with a middle
leadership role, a teacher with seven years’ experience, also in a leadership role, and a
teacher at the beginning of her career. This should be beneficial to all parties; Dudley
suggests that lesson study ‘helps experienced as well as inexperienced teachers to learn…
through its processes of joint planning, joint observation and joint analysis’. (Dudley, 2014).
Prior to the initial meeting, all parties signed a group protocol to help create common
expectations amongst the group members. In part, the intention of this is to remind members
that they are equal as learners irrespective of position in the workplace. This should be
easier to achieve as group members are working in different learning areas, and do not line
manage each other. There should therefore be no conflict between the collaborative process
of lesson study and observation used for quality assurance purposes.
The initial meeting consisted of development of parameters based on the needs of the
students attending the school. This workplace has recently introduced extended ‘double’
lessons, and the group felt that it would be worthwhile to attempt to develop strategies for
less motivated students to increase their resilience during these two hour lessons, as it was
perceived from the class teacher’s professional knowledge of the students that this could be
18
a potential barrier to their learning. Hart and Heaver’s systematic consultative review of
resilience-based programs for schools found a wide variation in the conceptualisation of
resilience. Hart and Heaver summarise these definitions as ‘understanding where to start,
and what to do at any given time’. (Hart and Heaver, 2013:12). Yeagar and Dweck define
resilience as ‘whether students respond positively to challenges’ (Yeagar and Dweck, 2012:
302). In this context, student resilience over a two hour lesson will be explored.
The group then decided on a class that would benefit from the research, by considering
students who had previously given up on a task when struggling with schoolwork: the lesson
study handbook advises groups to identify three pupils who are not learning or engaging as
well as teachers would hope. The interest in this research design arises from a desire to
improve student outcomes through studying their resilience; this knowledge has the potential
to benefit the students and the class teacher as well as the researcher. At this stage, the
class teacher felt it would be more beneficial to record the students working through the
medium of video, as this would be less disruptive to their learning; some of the students
have a tendency to ‘freeze’ or refrain from contributions when unfamiliar adults are in the
room. Bell (2010:192) comments that ‘solo observers are always in danger of accusations of
bias or misinterpretation’. Working in a group should help to negate this bias. However, as
the group decided on the focus, it could be argued that there is already a level of bias
inherent in the study. The use of the lesson study observation schedules enabled the group
to record their observations in an objective a way as possible.
Ethical considerations were present at each stage of the research process. As Cohen
reminds us: ‘A major ethical dilemma is that which requires researchers to strike a balance
between the demands placed on them as professional scientists in their pursuit of truth, and
their subjects’ rights and values potentially threatened by the research’ (Cohen, 2011:75). It
was therefore necessary to gain permission from the students and the parents of the
students who are being recorded as part of this research, as agreement to participate is
essential. Cohen states that ‘informed consent…is a cornerstone of ethical behaviour, as it
respects the right of individuals to exert control over their lives and to take decisions for
themselves’ (ibid: 78). This is of particular relevance as ‘much educational research involves
children who cannot be regarded as being on equal terms with the researcher’ (ibid). (See
Appendices C and D).
Parents and students were also offered assurances of confidentiality and anonymity. Cohen
defines anonymity as ‘information provided by participants should in no way reveal their
identity’ (ibid: 91).Therefore, this research does not use the names of the participants or any
other personal means of identification, referring to the students in the lesson study as Case
19
Pupil A, B or C. A further ethical consideration exists in the stage of access and acceptance.
Cohen recommends ‘amicable relations with the class teacher in particular should be
fostered as expeditiously as possible’ to mitigate the researcher’s potential for intrusion’
(ibid: 82). As an ‘inside’ researcher, issues regarding access were lessened, although Bell
recounts the complexities that arise as of an ‘inside’ researcher. Although this position can
have its advantages, ‘an intimate knowledge of the context of the research and of the micro-
politics of the institution’, in addition to the fact that colleagues may ‘welcome the opportunity
to air problems and have their situation analysed by someone who understood the practical
day-to-day realities of their task’, there are also disadvantages to this position, as ‘close
contact with the institution and colleagues makes objectivity difficult to attain’ (Bell, 53:
2010). Silverman reminds us that ‘all research is contaminated to some extent by the values
of the researcher. Only through those values do certain problems get identified and studied
in particular ways’ (Silverman, 2000:200).
Using video collaboratively to investigate problems of practice can be a useful tool in
capturing student behaviour; inevitably this is difficult for the teacher to examine during a
lesson. Van Es maintains that the collaborative nature of sharing experience and knowledge
‘has proven beneficial to teachers and students alike’ and points to a range of research
identifying ‘the need for social and institutional support to help teachers change their
instruction’. (Van Es, 2012:103-116).
Dudley finds lesson study is most successful with ‘a group of teachers – three works well –
who are likely to enjoy the challenge of starting up a new professional learning approach in
the school’ (Dudley, 2014). This lesson study triad will then meet to observe student
behaviour captured during the lesson, and how this matches or differs from the initial
predictions. The class teacher has used the workplace’s ‘resilience’ grid previously as a tool
for student self-reflection and assessment. The process will be repeated when appropriate
interventions have been discussed and planned. (See Appendix E).
The results of the lesson study will be shared with the teaching staff. It is important to
recognise that one example of lesson study will not be sufficient to ‘sweep away the world
which currently exists’ McNiff, 2013:93). McNiff also reminds us that ‘all research is political’
(2013:127): the ownership of lesson evaluation may make members of staff uncomfortable
as it is so far removed from the status quo. However, McNiff asserts that ‘you need to share
your knowledge, so that others can make judgements about what you are doing and can
learn from and with you’ (2013: 146). Furthermore, the lesson study handbook suggests that
‘articulating and explaining practice and making it visible to others helps those learning from
20
their peers to improve their practice, and improves the performance of the person doing the
explaining or coaching’. (Dudley, 2014: 17)
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
This study set out to investigate the effectiveness of the Ofsted approach to lesson
evaluation in comparison with an evidence based and practice based approach in terms of
three positional perspectives. In order to investigate this, teaching staff, line-managers and
students completed a web-based questionnaire. This chapter attempts to summarise some
of the key findings of this investigation.
Thirty teachers responded to the survey asking for their perspectives on approaches to
lesson evaluation. These responses were from a total of forty-three teaching staff,
suggesting that the sample that participated is likely to be largely representative of the cohort
being researched. A contributory factor to the high response rate many have been the
opportunity to have a voice on what can be seen as a contentious issue, particularly as, at
the time of writing, the school was under close scrutiny from a range of external bodies. In
terms of the line manager questionnaire, eight staff responded (from a total of thirty-
two).Therefore, it is less likely therefore that this sample is representative. It may be that line
managers feel that, as part of the performance management procedure, lesson evaluation is
a necessary part of the process of accountability. It may also be that line managers felt less
able to respond to what could be seen as a contentious questionnaire, despite the anonymity
provided by it.
Line managers had been asked their opinions regarding how the teachers they line
managed felt about improving their teaching, and their preferred approaches to this. It is a
fault of the questionnaire design that the researcher had not considered it would be difficult
for line managers to answer these questions, they commented that this is ‘difficult to assess
on behalf of someone else’ and ‘this is quite difficult to assess accurately unless we discuss
it with them’. These answers are therefore not analysed. Despite conducting a pilot
questionnaire, a question on the preferred ways for teachers and line managers to identify
and act on areas for developing their practice replicated the findings of a question asking
teachers and line managers about their preferred approaches when seeking to improve their
practice. The findings of this question have therefore also not been reported.
21
There were 22 responses to the student questionnaire from Year 11 to 13 students, the
response rate being approximately 60%. It would be interesting to see if younger students
produced similar responses; responses were restricted to older students due to access to
computers at the time of data collection. A wider sample may be more representative of
differing student views. Students who participated were keen to express their views,
responding with detailed comments when asked open-ended questions.
When asked about the factors that motivated teachers to improve their teaching, teachers
stated that they were motivated mostly by the needs of students, but also by raising
attainment:
Needs of students 30 100%
Raising attainment 27 90%
Performance management guidance 2 6.7%
To become a better teacher 25 83.3%
Contribution to school improvement 4 13.3%
Other 1 3.3%
FIGURE 3: Factors that motivate teachers to improve their teaching
Teachers exemplified their responses with comments such as ‘for me, it is all about helping
the students to improve’, and ‘everything that we do as teachers should be for the students
in order to guide them to fulfil their full potential’. Interestingly, some teachers chose this
opportunity to highlight the detrimental impact that they feel the use of data has on the
learning process, and the lack of correlation between raising attainment for the sake of the
22
students and ‘data’ per se: ‘it’s NOT data that motivates me!’. Ball uses Boyle’s 2001
newspaper article on the subject of the increasingly dominant role of numbers and statistics
in our society to illustrate the impact of this element of education reform: ‘We take our
collective pulse 24 hours a day with our use of statistics. We understand life that way,
though somehow the more figures we use, the more the great truths see to slip through our
fingers’. (Ball, 2003: 215). Teachers seem to be commenting on the superficiality of
concentrating on the production and application data rather than on what they perceive to be
genuine improvements in student learning.
Line managers also felt that meeting the needs of students and raising attainment were key
factors in motivating them to improve their teaching:
Needs of students 7 87.5%
Raise attainment 8 100%
Performance management guidance 0 0%
To become a better teacher 8 100%
Contribution to school improvement 0 0%
Other 1 12.5%
FIGURE 4: Factors that motivate line managers to improve their teaching
Additionally, line managers understood their staff have similar motivations: ‘people tend to
choose teaching as a career because they care about the well-being of people…I think
teachers, regardless of line management responsibility, are student-centric’. There is also an
understanding of the pressure of external measures, ‘recent moves to make staff more
accountable have put pressure on everyone to improve lessons and outcomes’. There
seems to be a tension expressed by some staff here about the tension they see between the
23
nurturing aspect of the teaching role, and the need to produce, and be seen to produce,
‘impressive’ student outcomes. This is interesting as student attainment is cited as a key
aspect in terms of motivation; again, this could point to a contradiction seen by teachers in
the production of data for the purposes of accountability and more authentic examples of
student learning. This is explained by Ball as the technology of ‘performativity’, which he
suggests can be seen as ‘the struggle over the teacher’s soul’: Ball claims that this ‘changes
what it means to be a teacher’. (Ball, 2003:218).
Members of staff would most value spending time to work on meeting the needs of specific
groups of learners, different approaches to learning, raising student attainment and keeping
up to date with developments in their field:
Improvement of subject knowledge 5 16.7%
Different approaches to teaching and learning 19
63.3%
Keeping up to date with developments in your specialist field 14
46.7%
Meeting the needs of specific groups of learners 24
80%
How to raise attainment 15
50%
FIGURE 5: Aspects of their teaching teachers would like to work on
The responses from line managers were similar, although they tended to feel improving their
subject knowledge was not of as great a priority.
24
Improvement of subject knowledge 0 0%
Different approaches to teaching and learning 6 75%
Keeping up to date with developments in your specialist field 5 62.5%
Meeting the needs of specific groups of learners 6 75%
How to raise attainment 3 37.5%
Other 0 0%
FIGURE 6: Aspects of their teaching line managers would like to work on
A lack of time was cited as a key obstacle to professional development here, with frustration
expressed about powerlessness and lack of control: ‘time is spent on generic things’. One
line manager felt that this sense of powerlessness was due to the school’s context, that the
process of being placed in special measures had ‘dented the confidence of staff’, suggesting
perhaps that this process had led to a type of ennui: ‘the whole school is lacking its old zest’.
As Perryman suggests, ‘the discourse of Ofsted involves standards, quality, efficiency, value
for money and performance. In order to be successful, schools need to accept that this
discourse is the way forward, especially if they are in danger of failing’ (Perryman,
2009:616). The process of ‘normalisation’, therefore, has perhaps damaged the idiosyncratic
nature of the school, and potentially the attitudes of the teachers working in it.
Teachers were asked to reflect on their preferred approaches to improving their practice;
informal peer support and self-reflection were cited as the most popular approaches here. It
could be argued that this represents a desire for teachers to take ownership over their own
learning and as a desire for autonomy, particularly in comparison to the unpopularity of
internally and externally graded lesson observations.
25
Self-reflection 22 73.3%
Informal peer support 26 86.7%
Applying strategies from evidence-based research 11 36.7%
Independent research such as using books or the internet 3 10%
Externally run CPD courses 18 60%
Evidence-based approaches e.g.applying Hattie's research on effect sizes 0 0%
Internal quality assurance 5 16.7%
Externally graded lesson observations 1 3.3%
Other 0 0%
FIGURE 7: Preferred methods teachers use to improve their practice
Similarly, teachers felt these approaches had the greatest impact on their students’
outcomes, although this may be based on empirical rather than quantitative data.
Line managers also preferred to use self-reflection and informal peer support when seeking
to improve their practice, (and these stated that these approaches also have most impact on
student outcomes), although applying strategies from evidence-based research is a more
popular approach with this group than with classroom teachers. It could be argued that these
approaches are most popular because they are seen to embody a more egalitarian
philosophy of professional learning that is far removed from the process of surveillance and
particularly of grading. This can be seen as a response to the growing importance of
observation under the coalition government. As O’Leary reminds us, ‘in schools and colleges
Ofsted has been responsible for raising the stakes (of observation) higher still’ (O’Leary,
26
2014:25). It is perhaps inevitable that teachers would prefer to aim for improvement through
self-reflection and peer support in this political context.
Self-reflection 7 87.5%
Informal peer support 6 75%
Applying strategies from evidence-based research 5 62.5%
Independent research (books, internet) 4 50%
Externally run CPD courses 1 12.5%
Internal quality assurance 0 0%
Externally graded lesson observations 0 0%
Other 0 0%
FIGURE 8: Preferred methods line managers use to improve their practice
When asked their opinions on the subject of graded lesson observation, a third of teachers
felt they should no longer be used as a form of assessment. 18% of respondents, however,
felt they were a necessary part of staff appraisal (further exploration of staff perceptions of
‘necessary’ would be enlightening here), and 16% of respondents felt that graded lesson
observations had helped them to improve as a classroom practitioner. Optional comments
were the most prolific on this question. Perhaps teachers wanted to explain a need to
separate verbal feedback for their lessons, which they seem to regard as developmental and
a healthy part of a professional dialogue, with the lesson grade itself, which tends to be seen
as damaging and representative of measures of accountability and control: ‘I think the grade
can distract from the feedback’; ‘an observation is needed but it shouldn’t be an
27
assessment’; ‘a discussion should take place…(about) what went well and the areas for
improvement’; ‘without the grading, the advice on areas to improve could be seen as much
more guidance than criticism’. Personality, experience and the subject specialism of the
observer were cited as key drivers for points of contention: ‘I value them if I value the person
giving them!’; ‘Someone who understands my subject should carry out the majority of my
lesson observations’; ‘I think observations can vary depending on who observes you’.
Comments on the validity of graded lesson observations tended to produce the most
emotive responses: ‘I have had loads of consistently outstanding grades then the odd 3
grade’; ‘there needs to be consistency’; ‘the ever changing external observations make it
difficult to know what grades actually mean’; ‘(they) have been a major factor of unnecessary
staff stress’. O’Leary similarly asserts that ‘labels of this kind (i.e. lessons graded according
to a scale of 1-4) have a definitive quality to them that seems ill-suited to judgements that
are essentially based on snapshots of performance’ (O’Leary, 2014:23). Essentially, some
teachers seem to mistrust the judgements they are given, and feel they do not help them to
develop professionally.
Are essential for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning 4 13.3%
Are essential for improving the quality of teaching and learning 3 10%
Are essential for the CPD of staff 3 10%
Are the most effective method of assessing staff performance 1 3.3%
Are a reliable indicator of staff performance 3 10%
Have raised standards of teaching and learning in my workplace 2 6.7%
Have helped me improve as a classroom practitioner 8 26.7%
28
Are the fairest way of assessing the performance of staff 1 3.3%
Are a necessary part of staff appraisal 9 30%
Should no longer be used as a form of assessment 15
50%
FIGURE 9: Teachers’ opinions of graded lesson observations
A third of line managers also felt that graded lesson observations should no longer be used
as a form of assessment. Although 15% of respondents felt graded lesson observations are
essential for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning, and 23% that they are a
necessary part of staff appraisal, comments from line managers revealed concerns about
the potentially punitive consequences of graded lesson observations; ‘grading increases
pressure and causes unnecessary stress’; ‘when they are shared they become a stick to
beat people with’; ‘in terms of benefit versus stress, it is not necessary given the amount of
data that is externally validated’. Concerns over the functionality of graded lesson
observations are raised: ‘they should only form part of a triangulated approach’; ‘it depends
how they are used and shared’; ‘I am not convinced graded lessons improve teaching and
learning’. Here, line managers are referring to ‘new managerialist practices, embodied in
systems of accountability and performativity’ (O’Leary, 2014:23). They may be raising
concerns about the validity and purpose of graded lesson observations.
Are essential for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning 2 25%
Are essential for improving the quality of teaching and learning 0 0%
29
Are essential for the CPD of staff 0 0%
Are the most effective method of assessing staff performance 0 0%
Are a reliable indicator of staff performance 0 0%
Have raised standards of teaching and learning in my workplace 2 25%
Have helped me improve as a classroom practitioner 1 12.5%
Are the fairest way of assessing the performance of staff 1 12.5%
Are a necessary part of staff appraisal 3 37.5%
Should no longer be used as a form of assessment. 4 50%
FIGURE 10: Line managers’ opinions of graded lesson observations
Finally, teachers and line managers were asked for additional comments on the subject of
lesson evaluation. The punitive nature and discordant impact of graded lesson observations
is revealed as a theme evident throughout these comments: ‘they are now a means of
grading staff into those that should be allowed to keep their job and those who should be
forced out’; ‘…with the grades they have become a cause of fear and have had a divisive
effect on staff’; ‘it makes you feel like you’re not one of the achieving gang’. Furthermore,
members of staff comment on the consequences of graded lesson observations for the
person, not just the professional: ‘they have a negative, demoralising effect’; ‘I lost all
confidence in my abilities, lost any passion that I did have and wanted to leave teaching’.
Members of staff revealed their understanding of the performative nature of lesson
evaluation: ‘you realise it’s a box ticking exercise that some people can pull off’; ‘(it) is not a
true reflection of what goes on’; ‘it is not a true reflection of their normal practice’; ‘good
practice doesn’t come in one format’. Ball comments on the ‘highly individualized’ response
teachers have towards the struggle over the control of ‘the field of judgment and its values’
that the current education reform movement creates. Ball argues teachers find their ‘values
challenged or replaced by the terrors of performativity’ (Ball, 2004:.216). Perhaps, as one
line manager tentatively suggests, ‘trust is the key. (Love is the answer – only joking!)’.
Similarly, student responses to their questionnaire show that they think teachers should
improve their teaching by discussing effective strategies with other teachers and watching
each other teach: 59% of respondents preferred this approach. The second most popular
option, applying strategies from evidence-based research, was the preferred approach from
50% of respondents, and rated more highly than by teachers, although teachers themselves
had cited a lack of time as a reason for this not being a more popular option.
Students, in a similar way to teachers, describe a sense of powerlessness over their own
learning, and explain that they want to have more of a voice in the decision making about
30
their learning: ‘teachers should ask the students’; ‘allow students to have an input’; ‘there
should be a degree of choice in a lesson to empower the students to learn effectively’.
Rogers and Gunter suggest that ‘in the core purpose of learning, student voice is mute’.
They assert that ‘school leaders have to grapple with the implications of how ‘honesty might
best be achieved in the relations between young people and their teachers’. Similarly, this
could be seen to apply to the students participating in this questionnaire (Rogers and
Gunter, 2012:144-5).
Thinking back and reflecting on their lessons themselves 6 27.3%
Discussing effective strategies with other teachers and watching each other teach 13 59.1%
Applying strategies from evidence-based research 11 50%
Independent research (books, internet) 6 27.3%
Going on a course 5 22.7%
Internal graded observations by head of department 4 18.2%
Externally graded lesson observations (such as Ofsted) 4 18.2%
Other 9 40.9%
FIGURE 11: Student responses to teachers’ improvement of their practice
Students conflated knowing if a teacher had improved on aspects of their teaching with their
own engagement: ‘the lessons become more enjoyable’; ‘it’s when people feel like they’re
learning more or enjoying the lesson’; ‘better lessons, more engaging, less guarded’;
‘students would appear more involved with what they were doing’; ‘they make sure every
student is involved’; ‘I’m performing better in lessons’. The desire for students to be listened
31
to emerges again here as a common theme in responses: ‘teachers communicate with their
pupils’; ‘they take on the points we have made in class’. The relationship between teacher
and student also seems to be a key aspect of a successful lesson in the eyes of students:
‘better relationship with the teacher’; ‘they are more confident on the lesson and their
relationship with the teacher improves’; ‘better relationships with the students which
encourages the students to work’. Rogers and Gunter suggest that ‘there are teachers in
schools whose moral agency demonstrates the capacity for a much richer and virtuous form
of dialogue …within the learning process’ (Rogers and Gunter, 2012:145). The development
of consistency in these rich learning encounters would merit further exploration. Some
students preferred to triangulate their evidence of an improving teacher: ‘you can tell when
you look through our books’; ‘something as simple as our grades improving’.
Despite 59% of student responses suggesting teachers should use peer support to improve
their teaching, 32% of students felt that lessons improved most when an external observer is
observing the lesson. This may be because the time of data collection, the school was in a
‘special measures’ category and the students were working under close scrutiny from a
range of external bodies. This could be why most students felt lessons were best when no-
one was observing the lesson (‘it is hard to concentrate on your work if you have a head or
Ofsted watching over you’).
Another teacher is observing the lesson? 0 0%
A head of department or a member of the leadership team is observing the lesson? 1 4.5%
An external observer is observing the lesson (e.g. Ofsted)? 7 31.8%
No-one is observing the lesson 8 36.4%
Other 6 27.3%
FIGURE 12: Student responses to how they know if a teacher has improved
32
In response to being asked which aspects of their teaching students would most like
teachers to work on, 86% of students wanted teachers to work on different approaches to
teaching and learning. From the comments given expanding on this question, students seem
to define this again as a desire for input into the lesson, and a need for the recognition of all
students in the class: ‘allow students to plan part of the lesson’; ‘make sure every student
gets involved’; ‘make the topic appeal to the whole class’; ‘listen to what the students want to
do as well’; ‘have an appropriate vote on some changes maybe every two weeks’; ‘they can
engage with the students more’.
Improvement of subject knowledge 5 22.7%
Different approaches to teaching and learning 19 86.4%
Keeping up to date with developments in teaching 7 31.8%
Meeting the needs of specific groups of learners 13 59.1%
How to raise attainment 5 22.7%
Other 3 13.6%
FIGURE 13: Student responses to aspects of teaching they would like improved
Rogers and Gunter prompt us to ask us questions about the ways power operates in
schools, ‘not least through how young people experience and witness how they are sorted
and re-sorted through internal and external league tables’. Their research points to the
‘inconsistent and problematic’ nature of positive pedagogic experiences, and suggest that
‘personalisation through targets and effectiveness measures often renders them invisible
and mute (Rogers and Gunter, 2012:146). The impact of this may be worsened for students
whose community has been placed in ‘special measures’.
Following the next stage of the research design, as outlined in the ‘Lesson Study Handbook’,
an initial meeting of the lesson study group determined that our focus would be on the
33
improvement of student resilience over a two hour lesson, and that a foundation learning
class would potentially benefit most greatly from planned interventions with this learning
goal. The lesson is also co-taught by a higher-level teaching assistant. The triad then
planned a lesson together; the class are currently studying ‘work skills’: the first lesson in the
lesson study cycle required them to complete paperwork they will encounter when
completing a job application, such as a CV with personal details and a personal statement.
The second part of the lesson took place in a computer room to continue these activities.
Three case study students were identified: each typified a group of learners in the class.
Case pupil A is a previously higher attaining student, who struggles with independent
learning tasks; case pupil B struggles to complete a range of tasks set, requiring high levels
of adult intervention to do so; case pupil C is a previously lower attaining student who
requires high levels of adult intervention in order to complete a task. Case pupils B and C
are both on the school’s SEN register in an attempt to address their cognition and learning
difficulties; both their ‘student passports’ note that they struggle to concentrate and are easily
distracted. The triad predicted the response these students would have to the learning
activities at key points in the lesson. The lesson planned by the triad was recorded by video
as outlined in the research design, and following the lesson, student perspectives were
gathered during a brief interview (see Appendix F).
Although identified by the triad as an important goal for enquiry, the concept of resilience is
in itself a nebulous one. This workplace uses a graded assessment grid to measure the level
of resilience that a student displays, and reports this to parents, in addition to using the grid
as a learning tool to be shared with students. Education Secretary Nicky Morgan and her
counterpart Tristram Hunt have both announced plans for introducing interventions designed
to increase students’ levels of resilience; in 2015, the DfE invited bids for projects showing
how ‘character’ can be built in schools, defining this as ‘perseverance, resilience and grit,
confidence and optimism, motivation, drive and ambition’ (DfE, 2015).
The view of resilience that politicians are referring to is that teaching resilience will help
students who have experienced adversity in their lives. In her article ‘Ordinary Magic’,
Masten rejects this view, claiming that resilience arises from ‘normative functions of the
adaptational system’ (Masten, 2001: 227). This raises the question: can resilience be taught,
or does it simply emerge naturally? It could be suggested that it would be more beneficial for
students to focus on overcoming more minor, yet still personally significant problems that
they may encounter throughout the school day. Martin and Marsh (2009: 355) refer to this
concept as ‘academic buoyancy’, which instead assumes the overcoming of more minor
negative outcomes, rather than the overcoming of major adversity. Like resilience, buoyancy
is a dynamic process; students may display a positive self-concept in one subject but not in
34
another. Hence, issuing students with a score measuring their resilience can raise
complexities.
Watching the video of research lesson 1 as a triad was illuminating. We had predicted that
case pupil A would initially show reluctance to the task by resting his head on the table or
complaining about the task. We predicted his resilience would improve during the task
completed in the computer room, but this level of resilience would have declined again by
the end of the lesson. Although case pupil A did respond to the task negatively initially, he
retained his resilience towards completing the work throughout the lesson. Case pupil A’s
post-lesson interview shows he felt positively about the lesson; when asked what he would
change about the lesson, his response was ‘nothing, it was a great way of teaching’.
Perhaps this student is displaying the positive self-concept outlined by Martin and Marsh; of
the students in this class, case pupil A is one of the previously higher-attaining students,
therefore may have developed more resilience as he is more used to successfully
completing tasks in this subject. Furthermore, it is of interest that case pupil A performed the
tasks more successfully than the triad predicted. The reasons for this would merit further
exploration; perhaps our judgement of case pupil A had been biased by the learning
behaviours displayed by other members of the class? We had predicted that case pupil B
would be easily distracted and may not complete the initial task set. Throughout the lesson,
this pupil was observed to be distracted by the camera, and showed little resilience in
maintaining his focus on the tasks he had been set. His post-lesson interview shows his
frustration with the amount of writing in the lesson, and his lack of engagement with the topic
covered, ‘I thought it was boring – no fun in it. Too much writing – would have liked more
visual things like pictures.’ We had predicted that case pupil C would avoid completion of the
task without direct intervention, and may not complete the initial task. Following timely
intervention from the class teacher, the pupil engaged with the task, and remained resilient
until the end of the lesson, with support from both teachers present. Case pupil C’s post-
lesson interview shows he is pleased with the standard of work he produced, commenting
that he ‘actually worked!’.
However, students’ responses may be a consequence of exposure to recent explicit
teaching of the concept of ‘growth mindset’ within this workplace; the students may simply
have learnt the socially desirable responses to these questions, particularly as the students
are familiar with the concept of resilience through the ‘resilience grid’ used to grade them.
There is therefore the danger that student responses will give the appearance of changing
attitudes, without facilitating genuine change. Potentially, this is evident in case pupil C’s
post-lesson interview as he comments, ‘I can work for longer (learnt last week)’. This may be
35
a comment on the discussion on resilience the class had during a previous lesson. One
possible quantifiable means of counteracting this is to measure the student’s ‘time on task’ in
lessons. The qualitative findings of the research are therefore triangulated by the quantitative
data below:
Case Pupil A Case Pupil B Case Pupil C
Research lesson 1: % of time on task
62% 23% 45%
TABLE i: Percentage on time on task in lesson
Martin and Marsh have focussed their work on the predictors of academic buoyancy, and
have identified ‘a broad array of factors that contribute to students’ capacity to deal
effectively with academic adversity and set back’ (Martin and Marsh 2009: 360). They group
these broadly into three factors: psychological factors such as self-efficacy, control, sense of
purpose and motivation, school and engagement factors such as attendance and class
participation, educational aspirations and values placed on school, enjoyment of school and
participation in extra-curricular activities, relationships with teachers and their
responsiveness, effective teacher feedback and a challenging curriculum; finally, family and
peer factors such as family support and peer commitment to education.
Debate regarding this research formed part of our post-lesson discussion (see Appendix G):
members of the triad observed that relationships with teachers seemed to be a common
theme in enabling these students to show more resilience towards a task they were set, as
positive teacher-student interactions with both teachers were central to ensuring tasks were
completed. There was also an interesting correlation between engagement and enjoyment:
when the students completed more work, they commented that they enjoyed the lessons
more. In terms of the planned intervention for these students however, the triad decided
during our planning of the next lesson that we would record the students receiving teacher
feedback, to try and ascertain if this would impact on their levels of resilience; our lesson
study triad felt that effective teacher feedback was most the manipulable of Martin and
Marsh’s predictors of academic buoyancy, and therefore the most amenable to intervention.
As Martin and Marsh explain, ‘individuals who achieve success despite significant
disadvantages are said to be resilient. Individuals who experience success despite relatively
minor disadvantages are said to be buoyant…we do not know what characteristics of the
individual or the circumstances allowed them to succeed (Martin and Marsh, 2009:364).
36
Additionally, they conclude that little research has been completed on academic resilience,
and less into academic buoyancy. Further research would be necessary to ascertain the
most effective interventions to develop students’ academic buoyancy. Furthermore, the
majority of teachers are familiar with Hattie and Timperley’s conceptual analysis of feedback,
and their demonstration of how feedback can be used to enhance teachers’ effectiveness in
the classroom, in addition to its impact on student achievement. Awareness of this research
may also have led the triad to choose teacher feedback as a tool for intervention.
Following observation of research lesson 2, case pupil A responded well to verbal feedback,
listening attentively to instructions as to how to improve the quality of his work. As the
student had recently been absent for several lessons, the feedback was delivered on an
individual basis, through a combination of written and verbal comments. The student
proceeded to make improvements to his work throughout the lesson, although his teacher
felt that his independence during the task had in fact led to the student attaining a lower level
for his work than expected. As he attained a level 2 for his work, the teacher then planned
further feedback to raise the level of attainment for the work produced. In his post-lesson
interview, case pupil A commented that he had found the feedback ‘helped me improve’, but
‘some other people distracted me’. It is possible that although case pupil A seems to display
resilience when working, this may obscure his need for support when completing written
tasks, as he may not understand the tasks as clearly as he seems to. Alternatively, case
pupil A may simply need further feedback to attain a higher level; his class teacher remains
confident that this is the case.
The lesson study triad observed that for case pupil B, written feedback did not have the
greatest impact on resilience. When given written feedback for work completed, the student
displayed the initial behaviours present in research lesson 1; these included talking out of
turn, disturbing peers, and daydreaming. However, the student was observed to focus more
closely on the activity to complete following receiving verbal feedback, and working with the
teacher on an individual basis. Additionally, the student cited that ‘his teacher kept him
motivated’ in the post-lesson interview. The intervention was less successful for case pupil
C, who was observed to be distracted and daydreaming when given written feedback, but
remained so during verbal feedback, and was observed to be only listening superficially. The
student’s post-lesson interview showed he was aware of his lack of engagement in the task,
stating that he ‘should have worked harder’. The reasons he gave were that he should ‘eat
food’ and ‘get less distracted’, perhaps pointing to external factors for his lack of resilience in
this lesson. Both students received a level 1 for this piece of work, which is in line with
teacher predictions.
37
Case Pupil A Case Pupil B Case Pupil C
Research lesson 2: % of time on task
65% 34% 43%
TABLE ii: Percentage on time on task in research lesson 2
For case pupils B and C, lessons where they displayed most resilience were the ones in
which they responded well to verbal feedback; and for all students, relationships between
teacher and pupil were paramount to success. The post-lesson discussion revealed that,
although the teacher’s perception was that the students had not displayed resilience
throughout the lesson, the greatest need for teacher intervention and support was in fact at
the beginning of the lesson, at the point where the learning activities were beginning to be
completed. After the students overcame an initial reluctance to begin the tasks set, they
tended to remain on task for a longer duration of time than the triad had predicted.
In ‘What makes great teaching’, Coe suggests that addressing motivation in isolation has
little impact on student progress, and suggests that teachers should ‘start getting students to
succeed and their motivation and confidence should increase’. (suttontrust.com). This can
be seen in the findings of the lesson study, where students cite they enjoyed the lesson
more when they accomplished more of the learning activities. The current trend to address
‘growth mindset’ in schools through motivational posters and assemblies may inadvertently
be misleading for students: whilst an absence of effort guarantees failure, ‘more effort’ is not
necessarily a guarantee of success. This may be of particular relevance for these learners. Although the triad anticipated that students’ response to feedback had the potential to
impact most on student resilience, evidence from both the video and the students’ post-
lesson discussion showed that, for these students, feedback is more effective when
delivered verbally, and furthermore, when it is delivered on a one-to-one basis. This is
inextricably linked with the students’ perceptions of their relationships with their teacher, as
the triad discussed following observation of research lesson 1. These students remain
resilient when ‘the teacher helps’ and ‘keeps them motivated’. However, sometimes these
positive influences on student learning can be diminished by external influences and
38
distractions; students are conscious of this although not always able to control them; ‘if you
don’t mess around you will get work done’, ‘I worked harder!’. Further study would need to
be conducted to ascertain if there is an intervention that would have a more consistent
impact on the resilience of these learners, particularly those who are previously lower-
attaining. For example, it would be illuminating to explore the correlation of student
engagement and enjoyment further, although the pressures of delivering a curriculum for an
external examination would place restrictions on this. It would also be interesting to explore
ways of increasing these students’ independence and self-efficacy, as currently resilience
and motivation is rarely present without adult intervention, particularly as a new learning
activity is beginning.
The triad felt a stronger sense of ownership and autonomy over the enquiry than if we had
taken part in a lesson observation based on Ofsted criteria. The process of lesson study
meets the criteria for successful lesson evaluation identified by teachers in the teacher
questionnaire for this study; it is a collaborative process that relies on teacher
professionalism, and offers respectful challenge and support from peers. Furthermore, the
process of lesson study seems closer to exploring ways to improve student learning and to
meet the needs of specific groups of learners more genuinely, rather than proving proxies for
learning based solely on Ofsted criteria. A further benefit to lesson study can be seen
following the outcomes of the student questionnaire. Students were cited as wanting their
voices to be heard as part of the learning process. The triad’s close attention to the students’
post lesson interviews put the students at the forefront of the planning and reflection
process, thereby ensuring the students have joint ownership of the learning process. However, the structure of the lesson study cycle is far more time-consuming as an
evaluative process. For this model to become embedded in this workplace, time would need
to be allocated to ensure collaboration is successful. Additionally, in some contexts, it may
be necessary to provide direct and quantitative forms of evaluation of learning to prove
specific groups of students are benefitting from interventions.
Hopkins reminds us that the classroom research process has as its goal ‘professional
development and the enhancement of classroom performance’, (Hopkins, 2008:145).
Therefore, findings of this type of micro-enquiry might be disseminated to the profession in
order that teachers who are implementing other research ideas can learn from this and
contextualise their findings, in addition to the strategic benefits to the whole school. Findings
of the research will therefore be shared and discussed within the workplace, initially with the
membership of the leadership team with responsibility for teaching and learning, and then
disseminated to teaching staff. The research will also be shared with a wider teaching
community via a pilot website, praxis-education.com. This is a recently launched
39
professional development platform for teachers, with the aim of guiding teachers through the
process of carrying out small-scale research inquiries into aspects of their practice. These
are published to a profile page and a publicly searchable database. The aim of the platform
is to enable teachers to have access to a database of ideas that have been implemented,
evaluated and written by teachers, and for teachers. Hopkins explains that this is an
approach that ‘empowers individuals and increases feelings of efficacy’, which can lead to ‘a
genuinely collaborative and critical research community that is committed to informed action’
(Hopkins, 2008: 151).
However, Yeagar and Walton find that social-psychological interventions are ‘powerful tools
rooted in theory, but they are context dependent and reliant on the nature of the educational
environment’ (Yeagar and Walton, 2011: 268). They warn that ‘scaling social-psychological
interventions raises important theoretical, practical, and ethical questions’ (ibid: 274). This is
particularly relevant with a small based study.
40
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Findings of this study of the impact of two models of classroom observation on teaching and
learning are that a systematic approach to using and sharing research, and the culture of
practice based approaches is one of equality, faithful observation, openness to feedback,
reciprocal vulnerability and multiple sources of evidence: an antithesis, therefore, of the
Ofsted quality-assurance approach to lesson observation, which teachers feel has little
impact on their practice. The process of lesson study seems closer to exploring ways to
improve student learning and to meet the needs of specific groups of learners more
genuinely, rather than proving proxies for learning based solely on Ofsted criteria.
Additionally, a further benefit to using this model of observation is that students have joint
ownership of the learning process.
A summary of the findings: the research questions answered
What is the history and purpose of the Ofsted model of educational evaluation?
At the outset of this study, it was common practice for teachers to have their lessons graded
according to the Ofsted criteria. There is evidence to suggest that the popularity of this
practice is waning. The validity of graded lesson observations has been challenged in Coe’s
research, the Sutton Trust report ‘Testing Teachers’, and the Policy Exchange report,
‘Watching the Watchmen’. Teachers’ frustrations with the need to ‘play the game’ during
lesson observations, and to teach lessons according to the pedagogical preferences they
believe are held by lesson observers have been documented by a range of voices in The
Guardian’s ‘Secret Teacher’ column. In June 2014, Mike Cladingbowl, National Director for
schools, announced that he wanted to inspect without grading teaching in each individual
lesson, and to instead give an overall grade for teaching over time (Ofsted: 2014). However,
in reality, Ofsted reports are still citing lessons that have been assigned particular grades.
The practice may be equally as hard to eradicate in schools who are trying to prove they are
delivering ‘what Ofsted wants’. It could be suggested that excessive Whitehall interference in
education leads to schools becoming compliant, rather than providing students with
opportunities for genuine learning. Currently, it is Ofsted that defines ‘good practice’ in
41
schools. This conflation of professional accountability with professional development means
that neither purpose is served effectively.
What is the history and purpose of evidence based and practice based approaches to
improving teaching?
Despite working within strict accountability frameworks, can teachers create a professional
culture where discussion, debate and critical analysis of practice is embedded? Philippa
Cordingley, Chief Executive of CUREE, has outlined the key features distinguishing
‘exceptional’ schools from those that are ‘very good’. Exceptional schools invest
systematically in professional learning; they have an explicit model of pedagogy and they
focus on collaborative learning. Continuing professional development (CPD) is underpinned
by theory and research. Cordingley finds that effective CPD involves teachers exploring
evidence at all levels of input (Bell and Cordingley, 2014). However, the current interest in
evidence-based practice may not be enough to impact fully on the profession. Teachers
need a shared purpose for research, in addition to being given the time, freedom and
training to engage with it. There is a huge volume of small scale research undertaken, yet
there is a lack of synthesis of it.
What are the positional perspectives of these differing approaches?
Teachers and line managers commented on the restrictions placed on their work by
externally imposed accountability measures. They expressed frustration that time was spent
on tasks generated by these, and that they didn’t have time to dedicate to conducting or
even reading research. Graded lesson observations were seen as less effective than self-
reflection or informal peer support as a way of improving practice. Similarly, students felt that
teachers learnt best from each other, or from evidence-based research, although the impact
of external observers on the quality of lessons was seen as more positive by students than
teachers and line managers. This could be a comment on the context of the workplace at the
time the data was gathered.
Does an evidence based and practice based approach to improving teaching have any
impact on teaching and learning?
Teachers occupy a unique position to comment on an individual’s learning; feedback given
to students is often more nuanced than assessing students’ learning based on levels or
grade descriptors. As such, teachers are the best agents to provide an objective assessment
about student learning: the wide range of data teachers collect should be used to drive a
42
process of enquiry. However, developing evidence-informed practice is a challenge for
teachers: research findings are often inaccessible for educators, and are not necessarily
focused on the knowledge teachers need to improve their students’ outcomes. Educational
research practice has been influenced by Stenhouse’s 1975 text, ‘An introduction to
curriculum research and development’. Stenhouse saw research as a way of informing
policy and practice, envisioning that teachers’ case studies would be synthesised. Although
small scale studies are worthwhile to conduct, they therefore do not contribute to an overall
knowledge base. However, as Dylan Wiliam reminds us, ‘educational research can only tell
us what was, not what might be’. Wiliam also argues that because everything works
somewhere and nothing works everywhere, ‘the right question is, under what conditions
does this work?’. Thus, ‘all teachers should be seeking to improve their practice through a
process of disciplined inquiry’. (www.dylanwiliam.org)
Although the findings of the lesson study approach in terms of ways to increase students’
resilience are far from conclusive, it is nevertheless a systematic approach to using and
sharing research. The culture of lesson study is one of equality, faithful observation,
openness to feedback, reciprocal vulnerability and multiple sources of evidence: an
antithesis, therefore, of the Ofsted quality-assurance approach to lesson observation.
Strengths and limitations of the research
The strength of action research in the classroom is the ‘sustained, explicit process of
enquiry’. This is important as ‘enquiry can inform not just the practice of teachers, but their
understanding of that practice and give them a range of tools or reflection and self-
evaluation’. (Baumfield, 2008: 4) However, the process of conducting action research does
raise certain tensions. Research tasks need to be manageable alongside school
commitments; the rhythm and demands of the school year, such as the pressures of
preparing students for external exams, needs to be taken into account. The potential
audience for sharing the research needs to be carefully considered, as well as the
complexities of the classroom, and the need for pragmatism in matching the research
question with the evidence that is practical to collect. Furthermore, action research should
not be seen as a linear process; instead, it is likely to produce ‘unexpected findings,
problems and new questions emerge out of the process of enquiry’ (ibid: 63).
Baumfield warns that teachers’ reflection of their practice many become fragmented due to
‘short-term, narrowly focused, outside agendas’. Teachers may benefit from a broader
perspective on their work, to re-connecting with their own core values and purpose’ (ibid).
Particularly, the collaborative nature of lesson study and engaging with colleagues as co-
enquirers has the potential to contribute to a culture of mutual support. However, this
43
process may be less manageable if this process lacks formal recognition from the school’s
leadership team. Ideally, time and support will be given for teachers to conduct research until
‘research is a mainstream activity, which permeates CPD, staff meetings, curriculum and key
stage planning’. (ibid:77). A community of enquirers learning from each other can then be
created. The use of the lesson study proforma provides a well-researched and documented
structure for this type of action research, and helps teachers to see student learning in
sharper detail, and in the supportive context of a professional community. It could be
suggested that it is particularly important for a school such as this, which has been under
such close external scrutiny, to have the opportunity to use lesson observation as a means
of professional development, rather than merely for the purposes of inspection.
Improvements to the research design could be to increase the number of respondents to the
questionnaire, specifically of line managers, and also to increase the range of students who
responded. Furthermore, it would have been beneficial to complete a third research lesson,
although this became impossible as one member of the triad needed to withdraw from the
process, and ethically, her needs are paramount. Additionally, the research raises several
questions that would require further exploration. As McNiff reminds us, the nature of action
research is that the other issues often arise and emerge from reflection and study: ‘There is
no end, and that is the nature of developmental practices, and part of the joy of doing action
research. It resists closure. Each ending is a new beginning. Each event carries its own
potentials for new creative forms.’ (http://jeanmcniff.com)
Implications of the research
Raising standards in education is a laudable aim. As Dylan Wiliam states: ‘every teacher
needs to improve, not because they are not good enough, but because they can be even
better’ (www.dylanwiliamorg). However, for ‘rapid improvement’ to take place, a homogeny
of practice is required to prove to those in power that teachers are fitting into the same
mould. Teaching therefore becomes reductive, no more than a tick-list, and effectiveness is
judged in merely numerical terms. Perryman refers to this concept as ‘normalisation’: ‘those
who are subjects of power internalise expected behaviours and learn these behaviours
through acceptance of discourse’ (Perryman, 2009: 614). It could therefore be suggested the
teaching profession has lost its autonomy; teachers have become personified versions of
Skinner’s 1950’s ‘teaching machine’.
Arguably, ‘quality’ education can take a myriad of forms. It can happen at unexpected
moments, and can be exemplified by every child at every school and in every teacher. The
Sutton Trust’s January 2015 report, ‘Improving professional development for teachers’ finds
that ‘when we show trust, the vast majority of children and adults learn, develop and grow’
44
(The Sutton Trust, 2015:10). The report suggests that ‘the overriding focus in our current
school system is on identifying and dealing with weak schools and weak teachers’ (ibid).
Findings are that in our current ‘tick-box’ culture, fear is prevalent and risk-taking
discouraged (ibid). Their policy recommendation is that teachers’ professional autonomy
must be increased; teachers should ‘be innovative in improving standards – trust them’
(ibid). The Sutton Trust suggests a more intelligent accountability system needs to underpin
this change of policy, we need to ensure that we have a system of measuring success that
‘genuinely reflects the achievements of schools without any perverse consequences’ (ibid:
12). Therein lies the hope that the future of teacher development lies in professional
learning, teacher collaboration and a trust-driven accountability system. Only then can we
work towards building a ‘world-class’ education system that we can be proud to be a part of.
Word count: 16468
45
References
Books
Baumfield, V. (2008) Action Research in the Classroom Los Angeles; London: SAGE
Bell, J. (2010) Doing Your Research Project: a guide for first-time researchers in education,
health and social science Maidenhead, Berkshire ; New York: McGraw-Hill Open University
Press
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S (1986) Becoming Critical: Education Knowledge and Action
Research London, New York: Routledge
Crosby, P (1985) Quality without Tears McGraw-Hill U.S.
Cohen, L. (2011) Research Methods in Education. London, New York: Routledge
Delamont, S. (2012) Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education Cheltenham: Edward
Edgar
Demming, W (2000) Out of the Crisis London: Mit Press
Foucault, M (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison England: Penguin
Hopkins,D. (2008) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research Maidenhead: Open University
Press
Ishikawa, K. (1976) Guide to Quality Control Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organisation
Mahony, P and Hextall I (2000) Reconstructing Teaching Standards, Performance and
Accountability London: Routledge
46
McNiff, J. (2013) Action Research: Principles and Practice Abingdon: Routledge
McNiff, J. and Whitehead J (2003) All You Need to Know About Action Research. London:
Sage
O’Leary, M. (2014). Classroom observation: a guide to the effective observation of teaching
and learning. London: Routledge
Poulson, L. (2004) Learning to read critically in teaching and learning London: SAGE
Silverman, D (2000) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook London: SAGE
Stenhouse, L (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development London:
Heinemann
Wragg, E.C. (1999). An introduction to classroom observation. 2nd ed. London: Routledge
Articles
Apple, M (2011) Democratic Education in Neoliberal and Neoconservative times
International Studies in Sociology of Education 21:1 p.21-31
Ball, S. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity Education Policy 18:2 p.
215-228
Ball, S (1995) Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies
British Journal of Educational Studies 43:3 p. 255-271
Bell, M and Cordingley P (2014) Characteristics of High Performing Schools Teach First
Research Report
BERA (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research London: British Educational
Research Association
47
Biesta, G (2010) Why 'What Works' Still Won't Work: From Evidence-Based Education to
Value-Based Education Studies in Philosophy and Education 29 (5):491-503
Boocock, A (2013) Observation of teaching and learning: teacher development or
micropolitics and neo-Fordism Journal of Further and Higher Education 37:4, 482-503
Chong, W.H. and Kong, C.A. (2012) Teacher Collaborative Learning and Teacher Self-
Efficacy: The Case of Lesson Study The Journal of Experimental Education 80, 263-283
Coe, R. Cesare, A. Higgins, S. and Major, L.E. (2014) What makes great teaching? The
Sutton Trust www.suttontrust.com
Coffield, F. (2009) Rolling out 'good', 'best' and 'excellent' practice. What next? Perfect
practice? British Educational Research Journal 35:3 p. 371-390
Connor, C. (2013) Commentary on Two Observation Systems: Moving Towards A Shared
Understanding of Effective Learning School Psychology Quarterly 28:4 p. 342-346
Cope, P. Bruce, A. McNally, J. Wilson, G. (2003) Grading the Practice of Teaching: an
unholy union of incompatibles Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28:6
Creasey, S (2015, 10th April) Classroom practice: Are posters a strategy worth sticking to? The TES Magazine
Danielson, C. (2012) Observing Classroom Practice Educational Leadership: November
2012
Department for Education DfE (2010) The Importance of Teaching. Schools White Paper.
London: DfE
Department for Education DfE (2015) Character education: apply for 2015 grant funding
www.gov.uk
Duckworth A, Peterson C, Matthews M, Kelly D (2007) Grit: Perseverance and Passion for
Long-Term Goals Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92:6 p1087-1101
Dudley, P. (2014) Lesson Study: A Handbook. www.lessonstudy.co.uk
Dweck C, Yeagar, D (2012) Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe That
Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed Educational Psychologist 47:4 p302-314
48
Elliott, J. (2012) A Science of Teaching through Lesson Study International Journal for
Lesson and Learning Studies 1:2 p.108-125
Furedi F, (2013) Keep The Scourge of Scientism Out Of Schools www.frankfuredi.com
Goldacre, B (2013) Building Evidence into Education www.gov.uk
Goldhorn, J. (2013) Classroom Walkthrough Practices: Lessons Learned from 10,000
Observations National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal 30:
Hart, A and Heaver, B (2013) Evaluating resilience-based programs for schools using a
systematic consultative review Journal of Child and Youth Development 1:1 p.27-53
Kotelawala, U (2012) Lesson Study in a Methods Course: Connecting Teacher Education to
the Field The Teacher Educator 47-67:89
Lewis, C. Perry, R. Foster, D. Hurd, J. Fisher, L. (2011) Lesson Study: Beyond Coaching
Educational Leadership October 2013
Lewis, C. Perry, R. Hurd, J (2004) A Deeper Look at Lesson Study Educational Leadership
February 2004
Lewis, J. (2013) Teacher Learning in Lesson Study The Mathematics Enthusiast 10: 3
p.583-620
Lieberman, J (2009) Reinventing teacher professional norms and identities: the role of
lesson study and learning communities. Professional Development in Education 35:3 p. 83-
99
Martin, A and Marsh, H (2009) Academic resilience and academic buoyancy:
multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates and cognate
constructs Oxford Review of Education 35:3 p.353-370
Masten, A (2001) Ordinary Magic American Psychologist 56:3 p.227-238
McFarlin D, Bauminster R, Blascovich J (2006) On knowing when to quit: Task failure, self-
esteem, advice and non-productive persistence Journal of Personality 52;2 p138-155
49
Mihaly, K. McCraffey, D. O’Staiger, D. Lockwood, J. (2013) A Composite Estimator of
Effective Teaching RAND Corporation: Arlington, Pittsburgh, Hanover
Murphy, R (2013) Testing teachers: What works best for teacher evaluation and appraisal
The Sutton Trust
Myers, J. (2013) Creating reflective practitioners with preservice lesson study International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 8(1) 1-9
Office for Standards in Education (2012) ‘Ofsted announces changes to inspections of schools, further education and skills, and initial teacher education’ www.ofsted.gov.uk
Office for Standards in Education (2014) Why I want to try inspecting without grading teaching in each individual lesson’ www.webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk
O’Leary, M. (2013). Surveillance, performativity and normalised practice: the use and impact
of graded lesson observations in Further Education colleges. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 37(5) pp.694 -714.
O’Leary, M. (2013). Developing a National Framework for the Effective Use of Lesson Observation in Further Education. Project Report for UCU.
Ozga, J Baxter, J, Clarke, J. Grek, S and Lawn M (2013) The Politics of Educational
Change: Governing and School Inspection in England and Scotland. Swiss Journal of Sociology (vol 39/issue2).
Perryman, J. (2006) Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: disciplinary
mechanisms and life under special measures Journal of Education Policy 21:2, 147-161
Perryman, J. (2009) Inspection and the fabrication of professional and performative
processes Journal of Education Policy 24:5, 611-631
Pring, R. (2012) Trusting Teachers: Learning From A Bit Of History Education Review 23:2
6-13
Rogers S. and Gunter H (2012) Crouching target, hidden child Management in Education,
26:140
50
Simons, D. J. & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness
for dynamic events. Perception. 28, pp.1059 – 1074.
Strong, M. Gargani, J, Hacifazlioglu (2011) Do we know a successful teacher when we see
one? Experiments in the identification of effective teachers Journal of Teacher Education 62 (4) p. 367-382
Van Es, E (2012) Using Video to Collaborate around Problems of Practice Teacher
Education Quarterly 39(2) p.103-116
Waldegrave and Simons (2014) Watching the Watchmen: The Future of School Inspections
in England Available from: www.policyexchange.org.uk
Wood, P (2014) Teacher Professionalism: Subverting the Society of Control FORUM: for
promoting 3-19 comprehensive education 56:2 p223-234
Websites
http://www.cem.org/blog/414/.
www.curee-paccts.com
www.civitas.org.uk
www.dylanwiliam.org
www.education.gov.uk
www.esri.mmu.ac.uk/carnnew
headguruteacher.com
www.huntingenglish.com
www.jeanmcniff.com
http://leadinglearner.me/
www.learningspy.co.uk
51
http://lessonstudy.co.uk/
www.12manage.com
pragmaticreform.wordpress.com
www.suttontrust.com
www.tdtrust.org
www.tlrp.org
52
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Questionnaires
Teacher Questionnaire
Which factors motivate you to improve your teaching?Needs of students
Raising attainment
Performance management guidance
To become a better teacher
Contribution to school improvement
Other
Please add a comment if you want to:
Given the opportunity, which aspects of your teaching would you most like to work on? Improvement of subject knowledge
Different approaches to teaching and learning
Keeping up to date with developments in your specialist field
Meeting the needs of specific groups of learners
How to raise attainment
Other
Please add a comment if you want to:
Which of the following approaches do you prefer when seeking to improve your practice? Self-reflection
Informal peer support
Applying strategies from evidence-based research
Independent research such as using books or the internet
Externally run CPD courses
Evidence-based approaches e.g.applying Hattie's research on effect sizes
1
Internal quality assurance
Externally graded lesson observations
Other
Please add a comment if you want to:
Of the approaches listed above, which have had the greatest impact on your student outcomes?Self-reflection
Informal peer support
Applying strategies from evidence-based research
Independent research (books, internet)
Externally run CPD courses
Evidence-based approaches
Internal quality assurance
Externally graded lesson observations
Other
Please add a comment if you want to:
I believe that graded lesson observations… Are essential for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning
Are essential for improving the quality of teaching and learning
Are essential for the CPD of staff
Are the most effective method of assessing staff performance
Are a reliable indicator of staff performance
Have raised standards of teaching and learning in my workplace
Have helped me improve as a classroom practitioner
Are the fairest way of assessing the performance of staff
Are a necessary part of staff appraisal
Should no longer be used as a form of assessment
Please add a comment if you want to:
Which of the following would you value most when identifying and acting on areas for development of your practice?
2
Collegiate working atmosphere
Time for self-reflection
Performance management objectives linked to individual and school aims
Formal CPD by an external provider
Ways to develop practice shared internally
Other
Please add a comment if you want to:
Please add any further comments you have on lesson evaluation:
Line Manager Questionnaire
Which factors motivate you to improve your teaching?
Needs of students
Raise attainment
Performance management guidance
To become a better teacher
Contribution to school improvement
Other
Which factors motivate the teachers you line manage to improve their teaching?
Please comment further on the previous two questions if you want to:
Given the opportunity, which aspects of your teaching would you most wish to work on?
Improvement of subject knowledge
3
Different approaches to teaching and learning
Keeping up to date with developments in your specialist field
Meeting the needs of specific groups of learners
How to raise attainment
Other
Which aspects of their teaching would you most like those you line manage to work on?
Improvement of subject knowledge
Different approaches to teaching and learning
Keeping up to date with developments in your specialist field
Meeting the needs of specific groups of learners
How to raise attainment
Other
Please comment further on the previous two questions if you want to:
Which of the following approaches do you prefer when seeking to improve your practice?
Self-reflection
Informal peer support
Applying strategies from evidence-based research
Independent research (books, internet)
Externally run CPD courses
Internal quality assurance
Externally graded lesson observations
Other
4
Which of the following approaches do those you line manage seek?
Self-reflection
Informal peer support
Applying strategies from evidence-based research
Independent research (books, internet)
Externally run CPD courses
Internal quality assurance
Externally graded lesson observations
Other
Please comment further on the previous two questions if you want to:
Of the approaches listed above, which have had the greatest impact on student outcomes?Self-reflection
Informal peer support
Applying strategies from evidence-based research
Independent research (books, internet)
Externally run CPD courses
Internal quality assurance
Externally graded lesson observations
Other
Please comment further if you want to:
I believe that graded lesson observations…
5
Please comment further if you want to:
Which of the following would you value most when identifying and acting on areas for development of your own practice?
Collegiate working atmosphere
Time for self-reflection
Performance management objectives linked to individual and school aims
Formal CPD by an external provider
Useful information shared internally
Other
Which of the following would you value most when identifying and acting on areas for development of those you line manage?
Collegiate working atmosphere
Time for self-reflection
Performance management objectives linked to individual and school aims
Formal CPD by an external provider
Useful information shared internally
6
Are essential for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning
Are essential for improving the quality of teaching and learning
Are essential for the CPD of staff
Are the most effective method of assessing staff performance
Are a reliable indicator of staff performance
Have raised standards of teaching and learning in my workplace
Have helped me improve as a classroom practitioner
Are the fairest way of assessing the performance of staff
Are a necessary part of staff appraisal
Should no longer be used as a form of assessment.
Please comment further on the previous two questions if you want to:
Please add any further comments you have on lesson evaluation:
Student questionnaire
How should teachers improve their teaching?Thinking back and reflecting on their lessons themselves
Discussing effective strategies with other teachers and watching each other teach
Applying strategies from evidence-based research
Independent research (books, internet)
Going on a course
Internal graded observations by head of department
Externally graded lesson observations (such as Ofsted)
Other
Please comment further if you want to:
As a student, how do you know if a teacher has improved on aspects of their teaching?
Does a lesson improve most when...
another teacher is observing the lesson?
A head of department or a member of the leadership team is observing the lesson?
An external observer is observing the lesson (e.g. Ofsted)?
No-one is observing the lesson
Other
Which aspects of their teaching would you most like teachers to work on?
Improvement of subject knowledge
Different approaches to teaching and learning
Keeping up to date with developments in teaching
Meeting the needs of specific groups of learners
How to raise attainment
Other
7
Please add any further comments you have on how teachers can improve aspects of their teaching.
APPENDIX B: Lesson Study proforma (see attached PDF)
APPENDIX C: Letter of consent
Dear Parent/Carer/Guardian,
As part of my Masters level degree in Education, I am researching the ways the tasks we set in lessons impact on students’ resilience. I would like to invite your child to take part in a research study. The study is voluntary and your child will only be included if you provide your permission. The purpose of this study is to explore the ways the tasks we set in lessons impact on student’s resilience.
All data will be kept private and secret. We will keep data in a locked office and only the research team will have access to the data. We will keep data for five years after the study has finished. After five years, we will destroy the data. This research will be undertaken as part of your child’s studies, and the tasks set in lessons will be familiar to your child. It will be necessary to record lessons to analyse students’ performance after the lessons.
By taking part in this study, you may help teachers and students develop their skills. There are no known risks associated with taking part in this study.
8
If you would like to participate in this study, please read and sign the informed consent form and return it with the envelope provided.
If you have any further questions, please contact Mrs J Smith at Wyedean School.
With thanks,
Mrs J Smith
Appendix D: General consent
Participant Identification Number:
CONSENT FORM
Name of Researcher: Mrs J Smith
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet dated for the above study. I have had the opportunity to consider the information, ask questions and have had these answered satisfactorily.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving any reason.
9
3. I understand that any information given by me may be used in future reports, articles or presentations by the research team.
4. I understand that my name will not appear in any reports, articles or presentations.
5. I agree to take part in the above study.
________________________ ________________ ________________
Name of Participant Date Signature
Mrs J Smith
_________________________ ________________ ________________
Researcher Date Signature
When completed, please return in the envelope provided (if applicable). One copy will be given to the participant and the original to be kept in
the file of the research team at: Wyedean School
10
APPENDIX E: Workplace resilience grid
11
12
Skills for SuccessReliant Learner
1
Supported Learner
2
Improving Learner
3
Independent Learner
4
Value Stick
er
Skill
Area
Making Progress
RARELY USES setbacks to make progress. GIVES UP EASILY on challenging tasks
CAN USE setbacks/mistakes to make progress. SOMETIMES GIVES UP when facing difficult challenge
REGULARLY USES setbacks/mistakes to make progress. RARELY GIVES UP when facing difficult challenges
CONSISTENTLY USES setbacks/mistakes to make progress. WON’T GIVE UP when facing difficult challenges
Goals and Targets
LACKS SELF-MOTIVATION and RELUCTANT to set and use goals and targets
WITH PROMPTING, will use effective personal goals / targets
USUALLY driven towards and using effective personal goals / targets
ALWAYS driven towards and using effective personal goals / targets
Focus and Time M
anagement
EASILY DISTRACTED and LOSES FOCUS. FAILS TO MEET DEADLINES
IGNORES SOME distractions but CAN LOSE FOCUS at times. MEETS SOME DEADLINES
IGNORES MOST distractions and focuses on the task at hand. MEETS MOST DEADLINES
COMPLETELY IGNORES distractions and focuses on the task at hand ALWAYS MEETS DEADLINES
Seeking Advice
OVER RELIANT ON TEACHER SUPPORT and intervention in learning tasks
RELIANT ON TEACHER PROMPTING and direction in most tasks
SOME TEACHER PROMPTING at times and acts upon advice given
Knows when to ACT INDEPENDENTLY and when to seek advice
Independent Learning, Risks and Hom
ework
COMPLETES the BARE MINIMUM. RARELY SEEKS additional work
ONLY does what is EXPECTED. WHEN ENCOURAGED, SEEKS additional work
NORMALLY prepared to take risks. SOMETIMES SEEKS additional work to support learning
WILLING to take risks. ACTIVELY SEEKS additional work to support learning
APPENDIX F: Post lesson interview
Post lesson interview
1. What did you enjoy most about the lesson?
2. What did you learn? (What can you do now that you could not do before? What can you do better? What can you do better? How is it better?)
3. What aspect of the teaching worked best for you?
4. If the same lesson is being taught to another group, what would you change? Why would you change that aspect?
APPENDIX G: Post lesson discussion
Post Lesson Discussion record
Case Pupil A Case Pupil B Case Pupil C
What progress did each pupil make?
13
Was this enough?
What about others in the group of learners they typify?
How did the technique being developed help or hinder? (Maybe a bit of both)
What surprises were there?
14