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