what’s happening across the country. england 23 february 2016 becca knowles national stem...
Post on 20-Jan-2018
216 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
What’s happening across the country. England
23 February 2016 Becca KnowlesNational STEM Learning Centre and Network
How did our last academic year of CPD delivery go?
2. LOOKING OUTWARDS
What do people say that they
want?
3. LOOKING INWARDS
What else could we
offer?
What else do we need to deliver to keep our network
upskilled?
What might schools need?
1. LOOKING BACK
Should we continue it?
Can we deliver that?
Can we develop
courses on these things
by next year?
Appropriateness checks
Scheduling checks
The high level needs analysis and planning processes
Looking back…SecondaryTop 5 themes of 2014/15:
• New GCSE CPD with Awarding Organisation • Linear Assessment – especially bespoke courses • CPD promoting stretch and challenge and pupil progress• Practical endorsements in A level • Science leadership CPD
Primary
•Working Scientifically •Assessment and Progression•Developing Subject Leaders •Support for SCITT trainees
Looking outwards…New GCSE specifications will crystalize the agenda for CPD and resources but key areas are likely to include:• Enquiry and practical work• Maths content• Literacy and extended writing• Considering what science looks like as a 5 year
curriculum.• Grading systems in curriculum change – what does
top grade look like? What do low attainers do?
Looking outwards…Likely DfE priorities looking forward:• New Curriculum• Assessment• Primary subject knowledge • Practical work
Looking inwards...Impact reported by participants in 2014-15
Self
Colleagues
OVERALL IMPACT
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
61%
30%
17%
14%
27%
35%
47%
57%
47%59%
2%15%
19%
25%
13%
1%8%
6%
14%1%
high medium low zero
National STEM Learning Centre Oct 2014 – August 2015 (n=665) NETWORK (SW and NW regions): Nov 2014- Oct 2015 (N=694)
SelfPupils
ColleaguesSchool
OVERALL
53%
26%
25%
20%
45%
42%
51%
55%
51%
51%
4%14%
14%
20%
3%
1%
9%
6%
10%
High Medium Low
• NSLC and the two sampled Network regions showed largely similar rates of impact
• There is a substantial variation in the rate of impact reported by different regions. E.g. in Sept 2015 reported impact on pupils was in the range of 71.3 - 89.6%, and the reported wider impact varied from 65.7 to 86.8 %
Lessons from Primary Science CPD
Important collect feedback and act upon it to improve CPD and impact (formative evaluation)
Always link learning to practice, providing hands-on resources Make sure teachers have a very good understanding of Learning
Outcomes Have a few ‘runs’ of CPD before conducting a summative
evaluation
Building of impact from CPD is a gradual process and the time of impact measurement makes a huge difference.
Impact on STUDENTS by CPD focus
Leadership
Subject KnowledgeTechnicians, TAs and
supportOVERALL
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
21%
38%
25%
30%
57%
45%
47%
49%
20%
12%
18%
16%
3%
5%
10%
6%
high medium low zero
NSLC: Participants' impact report (form P1) 1 Jan - 20 May 2015 (N=322)
Curriculum development
Subject Leadership
Train the trainer'
Overall
30%31%
26%15%14%
33%26%
51%
51%
61%
46%
29%
50%
51%
10%13%10%
21%43%
17%14%
11%5%4%
19%14%
9%
High Medium Low
Network CPD - impact data for SW and NW regions, Nov 2014 - Oct 2015 (n=694)
• Pedagogical Content Knowledge CPD show the highest rate of ‘high’ impact on students
• CPD activities aimed at supporting learning through Technicians and TAs have the highest number of ‘zero’ impact reports
• Very low impact reported by train the trainer CPD (due to bad timing of the impact report or b/se of no expectations/support for the impact ?)
Different routes of CPD impact on classroom practice
Source: Bennet et al (2013) Modes of Professional Development: An evaluation of the impact of different course modes operated across the National Network of Science Learning Centres
We should not expect to see the same rate of impact from CPD activities with different focus and different target audiences
Embedding sustainable changes to classroom practice needs time and support from CPD leaders and other school leaders
Importantly,• Impact planning and evaluation planning have to be
part of CPD• Teachers need training and support to learn how to do
it e.g. help with Action Planning to set up a timeline for actions, success criteria and evidence collection; include action research and reflective practices
• Impact evaluation needs to be linked to school/department and personal development
CPD needs stated by course participants
Leaders: effective use of CPD (reflective practice and evaluation)Reflections on the overall sessions. Perhaps looking at each action plan from the other 3 sessions and mapping out our progress and where we are now plus next steps
Secondary teachers: practical activity• Even more practicals with suspense
and surprise for chemistry.• More sharing of what each currently
does in their school. Good to see real life examples. Hints in where to find the best research etc.
Primary teachers: support with new curriculum and assessment• Formative assessment• Maybe more on how to assess the
children.• More assessment
Technicians: Specifications for new curriculum and networkingOnce the new A levels have been running it would be good to attend a course that can advise technicians on any teething problems that have been ironed out.
Helping schools become effective users of
subject-specific CPD through CPD and
resources ⃰
Based on the evaluation research by Isos Partnership (‘super-user’ study) https://www.sciencelearningcentres.org.uk/impact-and-research/research/research-reports/
Types of CPD users (school-level)
Strategic user
Planned user
Semi-planned
user
Ad hoc user
Strong strategic planning that goes beyond the individual and is strongly driven by school / departmental needs
Strong support and routine processes for participants to implement, share and embed CPD learning
Clear strategy and processes for baselining and tracking most types of impact
Well-planned CPD, but largely driven by individual staff needs through a well-run performance management system
Some support to participants to implement and share, mostly semi-formal sharing
Some strategy and processes for tracking impact, some understanding of how this is done
Loosely-planned CPD – slightly hit-and-miss in the way appraisal used to generate CPD choices, heavily influenced by “what is in the brochure”
Little support to participants, entirely informal sharing
No specific and explicit processes for tracking the impact of CPD, little understanding of how to track impact of CPD
Ad hoc planning – no clear rationale or links to annual planning processes
No process for sharing and no explicit support
No strategy, not clear how to track most types of impact
EmbeddingPlanning Evaluating
Recommendations for participants, leaders, providers
Recommendations for The Science Learning Network
Planning: ensure the communication of the CPD offer includes very clear learning outcomes
Embedding: reinforce a stronger framework for supporting CPD participants’ capacity for knowledge transfer and sharing of good practice when back in school
Recommendations for The Science Learning NetworkEvaluating: develop more consistent use of the impact toolkit and support for teachers with evidence collection
Sustaining: foster a continuous approach to CPD;
• facilitate subject-specific collaboration local science networks, clusters or partnerships
• encourage the development of leadership skills
• support the Science Learning Partnerships as local sustainability ‘engines’
top related