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’