St Margaret’s Church of England Primary School, …...St Margaret’s Church of England Primary...
Transcript of St Margaret’s Church of England Primary School, …...St Margaret’s Church of England Primary...
Action Research
St Margaret’s Church of England Primary
School, Withern
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 2
Welcome to St Margaret’s CE Primary School,
Withern
St Margaret’s Church of England Primary Schools is
situated in rural Lincolnshire only a few miles from the
coast, between the market towns of Alford and Louth. It
offers a commitment to high achievement within a
community of care, underpinned by Christian values. The
school works closely with a number of partner primary
schools.
Our vision at St Margaret’s is to raise the achievement and
life chances of our pupils and to serve our community by
providing access to a range of activities, first-class
resources, a creative outdoor learning environment and
opportunities to access the landscape of Lincolnshire and
beyond. As a Church of England school, we encourage
development of our students’ moral and spiritual well-
being as much as their academic success.
We are inclusive of all faiths, as well as none, and support
unity between different religions, cultures and beliefs. All
our students are individuals and all are valued for their
uniqueness and the skills and aptitudes they bring to the
school. A key strength of St Margaret’s is the very high
quality relationships that exist between members of the
school community – the school has a strong set of values
shared by all.
Our specialisms in Science, Technology, including film
making and the use of digital media, Outdoor Learning and
Maths support our pupils to develop confidence,
understanding and skills in these areas and beyond into
the broader curriculum.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 3
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 4
Contents
Introduction by James Siddle, Headteacher, St Margaret’s CE Primary
School
Page 5
1 | Utilizing Digital Technology to Improve Effective Feedback
Page 7
2 | Verbal and visual-digital feedback on creative writing improves
progress rates compared to written feedback in rural primary schools – a
preliminary study
Page 12
3 | Peer feedback, via blogging on a weekly short writing project,
improves rates of progress for pupils in upper Key Stage 2 in two rural
primary schools – a preliminary study
Page 17
4 | Investigating the use and effectiveness of Joint Practice Development
in Continuing Professional Development.- Sheila Speirs
Page 23
5 | Professional Learning Communities: linking CPD to daily practice:
Michael Pain & James Siddle
Page 31
6 | Developing Automaticity in Mathematics
2014-15 St Margaret’s, Stickney and New Leake Primary Schools
An Introduction by Robin Scott Durham University
Page 35
Research Question: Could developing a daily, short programme in
number work improve pupils’ outcomes in number over the course
of a year?
Page 38
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 5
Introduction
We are excited to share our first edition of
Action Research at St Margaret’s Church of
England Primary School, Withern. This is a
significant contributor to the school’s
improvement journey. What makes this
publication even more special is that we
have a number of colleagues sharing their
improvement journeys as well as lots of
feedback from our pupils. This highlights
our improvement as a whole community.
The teaching and learning journey at St
Margaret’s CE Primary School has been
characterised by a shift to a more
collaborative, reflective and creative culture
combined with a rigorous analytical
approach to establishing what does and
what does not work for the best outcomes
for our pupils. This has enabled and
empowered staff to re-focus on student
learning and their role as facilitator of that
learning. Our work on research engagement
has been one strand of this journey. It has
provided an excellent opportunity for
teachers to use research as a vehicle for
improving their practice and as a tool for
reflection and self-evaluation.
Our research programme has focused on
the key area of improving the quality of
teaching and learning. Within this area,
teachers have explored automaticity in
mathematics and effective feedback,
especially through digital technology. One
particular highlight in 2014-15 was the
school conducting and completing the write
up of ‘the world’s first school-led
randomised control trial’.
We shared our work via the Kyra Teaching
School Alliance’s website and I was
fortunate to present our work, alongside
Tony McAleavy, Research and Development
Director for CfBT Education Trust, at the
Inspiring Leadership Conference in
Birmingham in June. We were also
contacted by the Education Endowment
Foundation (EEF) who conducted a recorded
interview with staff regarding school-led
action research. More recently the DfE have
been in touch with school in an effort to
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 6
highlight our work as a case study school. I
would like to take this opportunity to thank
Professor Steve Higgins from Durham
University who has contributed
significantly to our developments in action
research.
James Siddle, Headteacher
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 7
Utilizing Digital Technology to Improve Effective
Feedback 2013-15
First Year of the Project 2013-14
Twenty-one schools were involved on a research engaged project focussing on
effective feedback through digital technology. A range of different interventions
were piloted during this period by groups of schools working in collaborative
partnerships of up to six schools – some more closely than others. Initial data
analysis was done by Durham University and showed a significant variation in
impact (see figure 4)
Table 1: Effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals based on gain
scores: using gain scores to calculate the effect sizes the intervention had
a positive overall effect, although it was not statistically significant.
CI lower
(from) g
CI upper
(to)
Months
gain
Overall -0.08 0.11 0.29 2
Reading -0.20 0.12 0.43 2
Writing -0.34 -0.01 0.32 0
Maths -0.14 0.17 0.48 2-3
FSM -0.33 0.08 0.50 1
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 8
Figure 1: Imbalance in initial assessment scores from school to school:
This was not a randomised trial or matched experiment, and pupils
involved in the project scored significantly lower than those in the
comparison group did in first assessment data test across all the schools
involved in the study1
.
1 We didn’t have Autumn assessment data from School A
School A School B School C
School D School E School F SchoolG
School H School J School 1 School K
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 9
Figure 2: First and last assessments from school to school: Pupils who
performed well in pre-test also performed well in post-test. In other
words, there is a positive linear relationship between the two tests, and
initial assessment is a powerful predictor of subsequent performance.
Figure 3: Effect sizes based on gain scores from school to school:
indicates some variation in impact by schools.
SchoolA
A
SchoolB
BA
SchoolC
A
School I School h
SchoolG
A
SchoolG
A
SchoolF
A
SchoolE
A
School D
A
School J School K
SchoolA
A
SchoolB
A
SchoolC
A
School D SchoolE
A
SchoolF
A
SchoolG
A
School h
SchoolG
A
School I School J School K
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 10
Figure 4: Gain score by school: some variation here (NB The boxes are
wider if there are more pupils in the schools they represent).
Summary of findings
Overall a positive impact in reading and mathematics (though not
statistically significant), indicating target pupils made on average
an additional two to three months progress.
In terms of narrowing the gap, FSM pupils appear to benefit by
about an additional one month’s progress.
There was variation in impact at school level, suggesting that
professional collaboration, development and support may be an
important issue in developing or extending the initiative.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 11
Developing Specific Interventions
Strong collaborative work between a small number of partnerships
working closely together provided further data around certain
interventions such as visual-verbal digital feedback which suggested an
effect on closing the gap and raising attainment.
Our own data analysis suggested we focused on specific ‘interventions’
that had been developed over the year which showed the most promise.
In particular we decided to focus our efforts in 2014-15 on:
Using digital feedback to and from pupils
Developing e-portfolios for meta-cognition and self-regulation
We were thus encouraged to focus the second year on specific interventions and
also to change the way schools were working together.
Second Year of the Project 2014-15
We introduced a Professional Learning Community model to try to encourage a
more uniform approach to implementation of interventions across schools. In
addition, ten schools (eleven classes), involving Key Stage 2 pupils, undertook
an RCT, funded by the National College, to try and understand the impact on
different groups of pupils.
The following schools contributed whole class data to the RCT:
St Margaret’s CE Primary School, Withern
Lacey Gardens Junior School, Louth
East Wold Primary School, Legbourne
Holy Trinity Primary School, Tattershall
Langtoft Primary School, near Peterborough
North Cockerington Primary School near louth
Kirkby on Bain Primary School
Spilsby Primary School
Stickney CE Primary School
Tetford Primary School
In addition Deeping St James Primary School provided data for a small number
of Key Stage 2 pupils
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 12
Verbal and visual-digital feedback on creative writing improves
progress rates compared to written feedback in rural primary schools
– a preliminary study
Introduction
Research evidence suggests that effective feedback has a significant impact on
pupil progress. Our work over the last 18 months across 34 schools has
indicated that delivering effective feedback practices can be challenging and
specific approaches are required to improve pupil outcomes. Trials across
collaborative partnerships of schools have indicated a positive correlation
regarding the impact of digital feedback on outcomes in writing. Evidence
suggests greater pupil engagement with feedback and improved outcomes in
response to the feedback. Our research also suggests the impact of digital
feedback may be greatest on lower attaining and free school meal (FSM)
children.
This is an important area to explore using a randomised controlled trial design
because the initial small scale experimental trial we have undertaken on digital
feedback suggests these techniques can have a positive effect on pupils’ writing
outcomes, but variation between schools indicates the approach needs further
refinement. It is an approach (using digital technology) that is poorly studied at
a time when many schools are investing significantly in new digital technology.
Even for schools without tablet technology verbal and visual feedback can be
given via video. Research suggests that marking times may also be reduced
using this form of feedback.
Research Design
A between-subject design was used with a pre and post-test. To address the
aims of the research the independent variable of intervention type was
operationalised by creating two conditions:
IV 1 (Control condition) – written feedback
IV 1 (Intervention condition) – digital feedback
Pre-test Post-test
Random allocation
12 Key
Stage 2
Classes
from 11
schools
Control
Intervention
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 13
Method: Participants
Eleven classes from ten rural school primary schools participated in the study.
Pupils were able to be randomly allocated to a control and intervention group in
each class. In total, 231 Key Stage 2 pupils (120 boys and 111 girls) took part in
the study (113 in control and 118 in the intervention). The total of FSM pupils
was 42 or 18.18% which is below the national average (NA) of 26.6%. The total of
SEND pupils was 40 pupils or 17.3% which is slightly above NA which is 16.6%.
Procedure
The randomly allocated groups were both given a writing prompt, success
criteria rubric and a standard video input delivered together with a short film as
a writing stimulus. The pupils then had ten minutes planning time and 40
minutes writing time. The control group then received written feedback; the
intervention group feedback digitally. Each group then had the same amount of
‘fix it’ time the following day. Pupils made corrections in the same format
(written form); pupils also recorded ‘what I have learnt’ statements, either in
written form or digitally (depending whether they were control or intervention).
All pupils were then given another piece of creative writing (using the same
genre) the following day. The procedure was repeated and rubrics/models used.
The work was then marked against the two success criteria points given at the
feedback stage and the gain scores recorded.
Materials
A rubric using success criteria for all pupils to use at the start of the trial; a
model for use by all pupils was used; A standardised way of delivering written
feedback was introduced and models of giving digital feedback via an ipad
shared with class teachers to standardise this approach (through video); A
format given to pupils regarding how to correct their work following feedback.
Results
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 14
Disadvantaged Pupils (FSM) (n=43; Intervention (I) =21 Control (C)
=22)
Gain scores were not normally distributed. A Mann-Whitney U test was applied.
This showed an impact on progress for the intervention (verbal and visual
feedback) compared to the control (written feedback) r = 0.308 and d=0.63 (p =
0.03 (one tailed)); this indicates +8 months gain - if r is converted to d and
the EEF convention is applied. If the results are interpreted as a percentage of
non-overlap this figure is 39.6%.
SEND Pupils (n=40; I =20 C =20)
Again, a Mann-Whitney U test was applied to gain scores. This showed a
significant impact on progress for pupils who experienced the intervention r =
0.37 and d=0.78 (p = 0.013 (one tailed)); +9 months gain. If the results are
interpreted as a percentage of non-overlap this figure is 46.6%.
All Pupils (n=231; I =118 C =113; Boys n= 120; I=58 C=62)
Finally, a Mann-Whitney U test assessed the data for all pupils. This again
showed that the intervention impacted on progress, but with a smaller effect
size r = 0.186 and d= 0.38 (p = 0.004 (one tailed)); +5 months gain. If the
results are interpreted as a percentage of non-overlap this figure is 26.2%.
However, the results for all boys were slightly higher r = 0.218 and d= 0.44 (p =
0.012 (one tailed)) indicating a greater positive impact for boys with +5 months
gain. If the results are interpreted as a percentage of non-overlap this figure is
29.7%.
Fig 1. Groups of Pupils and their Gains if r is converted to d and the
EEF convention is applied.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 15
Conclusions:
The gains, although needing further research (due to small sub-group
samples), match current research evidence around the impact of digital
technology on closing the gap in attainment , which suggest digital
technology may produce gains of +4 months;
(https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/index.php/toolkit/toolki
t-a-z/digital-technology/);
The data suggests that the intervention produces the greatest gains for
disadvantaged and SEND pupils and may be an effective intervention for
closing the gap;
Surveyed perceptions of digital feedback indicates pupils , in general, feel
they make better progress in their written work following digital feedback
and this backs up the findings of this RCT.
Pupil perceptions of written vs digital feedback (n=153)
I think my work gets better following written feedback from my teacher:
Really true
Somewhat true
Somewhat untrue
Totally untrue
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 16
I think my work gets better following digital feedback via an ipad from my
teacher:
Suggestions for Future Research:
Our earlier research suggests the gains may be even more substantial in
maths and it would be productive to research the effect in different
subject areas;
The results for SEND and FSM pupils show promise but the trial would
require replication with greater numbers to produce a more secure
indication of impact;
The research suggests that boys may make greater gains using this
intervention and further research could help clarify if and why this is the
case;
The effect of the intervention was greatest on SEND pupils. However, our data
does not take into account the needs of these pupils; it would be useful to
identify the effect on different groups of SEND.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 17
Peer feedback, via blogging on a weekly short writing project,
improves rates of progress for pupils in upper Key Stage 2 in two
rural primary schools – a preliminary study
Introduction
Research evidence suggests that effective feedback has a significant impact on
pupil progress. According to the Education Endowment Foundation, feedback
studies can show ‘very high effects on learning’ However, feedback has a large
range of effects and, indeed, can show a negative impact on learning.
Procedure
For our study we tracked two groups of Year 5 children in autumn term 2012
and again through autumn term 2013 in two classes. The Class Teacher
remained the same over the two years and we excluded from the data any pupils
who were not in attendance in Autumn term 2012.
A short writing intervention was introduced in September of 2013. This
involved all the children working on the same piece of short writing each week.
Typically this was taken from the 100 word challenge (https://100wc.net/). Each
week the children’s writing would be published on a school blog and peer
feedback was given by a partner in the partner school. The pupils were given a
feedback rubric to hep structure the feedback. This rubric was based on the
idea of two stars and a wish.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 18
Figure 1. Overview of digital technology use to try and improve outcomes
in writing.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 19
Case Study:
The following extract illustrates one example of blogging and peer
feedback impacting at a micro-level on one pupil’s work. Pupil A was in
Year 6 at St Margaret’s and left at Level 6 in writing at the end of Key
Stage 2. Pupils B and C were Year 5 pupils at Stickney CE Primary.
Extracts taken from the St Margaret’s CE Primary School Class 3 Blog:
• Waterfall by Pupil A
• 2 Replies
I stood silently upon the old stone bridge, which overlooked the waterfall on the
far side. The white tipped water gushed over the smooth limestone, forming
ripples that flowed into the river. Many rocks adorned the sandy river bed, with
some larger ones poking up above the surface. Under the bridge it went,
eventually joining up with the deep, wide sea…
A shiver ran down my spine. No matter how beautiful the scenery was out there,
in the mountains, weather is never kind. I thought about heading home but then
remembered why I had come, to escape…
This entry was posted on 21/03/2013 by Pupil A at 11.58am.
• 2 thoughts on “Waterfall by imogen”
• Pupil B 21/03/2013 at 12:38
• Hello I’m lillia from stickney
• Star……
Wonderful description it creates a vivid picture in your mind
Good use of short and long sentences
• Wish…..
To use a range of sentence openers
• Pupil C 21/03/2013 at 12:01
• We loved the ending with a cliff hanger as well amazing!! Wow words were
fab you have described the setting wonderfully .WISH. ..try adding a
smiley
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 20
What happened next? The following extract is from the feedforward
session following the peer feedback:
Dark settled all around. I couldn’t stay there; not for long anyway, every
man in the city knew that if you slept high in the wilderness of the
mountains, you would surely freeze to death. Shelter was a must. In the
near distance I spotted a group of brightly covered tents-they looked
empty. The dusty path rubbed against my bare feet, wearing them to a
shread (or so it felt). I was tired and hungry, but I knew that at least there
was always the waterfall- not to mention the river. Not that I’m any good
at fishing, usually it’s a man’s job. But now I’m all alone.
My long, dark hair wisped all around me, like a horse’s mane in the
wind. I struggled against the brute force of the howling gale, straining not
to be whipped off the narrow path and thrown into the dark, stormy sea.
At last I reached my destination, warm shelter for the night, or so I
thought. During the time it had taken me to scramble down the ragged
slope the entire group of tents had been ripped apart by the raging storm.
What was I to do now? But then I saw the secret opening in the rocks…
Comments from Professor Steven Higgins from Durham
University on Peer Feedback using blogs between Withern and
Stickney Primary Schools.
• I'd be interested to know more about how this is helping the children's
learning at the micro level. There are a number of factors in play. One is
that the audience the children are writing and working for has widened. It
is not just the teacher, it is their peers and their peers in other classes at
that, that they now see themselves as working 'for' or perhaps 'to'.
• At this level I think the actual quality and specificity of feedback perhaps
matters less, as the impact of learning for this wider audience is altering
the way the children think about what they are doing. This is not just
motivational, but alters the way they think about the tasks and the
feedback they expect to receive.
• I guess one thing I'd want to focus on is the 'feedforward', what is it at a
specific level that helps the children to improve and do something better
next time? The research suggests that specificity is important here, but I
think we have learned from AfL that specificity can also be a bit mind-
numbing!
Results
We compared two classes taught by the same class teachers over
two years. During the study the pupils moved from Year 5 to Year
6. In Year 6 we introduced visual-verbal digital feedback. We
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 21
compared progress over successive autumn terms. In school A the
intervention was timetabled three days and week and in School B it
was timetabled 5 days a week.
Conclusions:
The data suggests that the intervention produces the greatest gains for
disadvantaged pupils and may be an effective intervention for closing the
gap;
The use of peer feedback and self-regulation for setting and monitoring
targets along with the digital feedback may warrant further study.
School A – Three Days
Writing: One morning a week
Feedback: Teacher – immediate
Peer –
digital/structured/modelled
One morning (peer partner and
sometimes from another school)
Improvement: One morning
School B – Five Days
Writing: Three mornings a week
Feedback: Teacher – immediate
Peer –
digital/structured/modelled
One morning (peer partner and
sometimes from another
school)
Improvement: One morning
APS Autumn 2012
All pupils 1.19
FSM 0.77
APS Autumn 2013
All Pupils 2.25
FSM 2.88
APS Autumn 2012
1.30
FSM 1.0
APS Autumn 2013
All Pupils 3.64
FSM 3.0
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 22
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 23
Investigating the use and effectiveness of Joint Practice
Development in Continuing Professional Development.
Introduction
Sheila Speirs from Lacey Gardens Junior School was part of a Professional Learning
Community led by St Margaret’s CE Primary School, Withern in 2014-15. During the
year she surveyed participants of the PLC (as well from her own school’s partnership)
to compile an overview of teachers’ perceptions of this form of collaborative CPD.
This formed part of her Master’s degree.
Compilation of responses
1. Having now been involved in a JPD program, how would you rate its
effectiveness against more traditional styles of CPD?
On a scale of 0 – 10, where 0 = ‘no effect whatsoever’ and 10 = ‘firm influence on
ensuing practice’, please rate the overall effectiveness of each:
Outside agent 6 8 8 5 6 5 5
5
Ave: 6
In-house training 7 7 8 5 8 6 5
5
Ave: 6.4
JPD 8 8 8 9 10 9 9
9
Ave: 8.8
JPD comes out as having the greatest influence on ensuing practice.
2. Which of the following factors do you feel played a part in your JPD
experience? Please tick relevant ones and rate them on a scale of -5 to 5
where 0 = ‘no impact whatsoever’, -5 = ‘significant negative impact’, 5 =
‘significant positive impact’.
Trust x x x x 50% 3 to 4 5 2 5 Ave: 4
Imbalance of group x 12.5% 0 Ave: 0
Being observed x x x x 50% 3 4 2 3 Ave: 3
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 24
Extra time involved x x x x x x x
x
100% 3 3 0 3-1 0 2
5
Ave: 1.9
Extra workload x x x x x x 75% 3 3 -1 5-2 2 Ave: 1.7
Unfinished project x 12.5% 0 Ave: 0
Support by other
staff
x x x x x x 75% 3 4 4 3 4 5 Ave: 3.8
Support by
headteacher
x x x x x x x 88% 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 Ave: 3.7
Co-operation of class x x x x x x x 88% 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 Ave: 4
Other: x
Support by Governors x 12.5% 4 Ave: 4
Regularity and
structure of
JPD meeting
x 12.5% 4 Ave: 4
All respondents cited 'Extra time involved' as playing a part in their JPD
experience, the average shows a small positive impact.
A significant number of respondents (88%) cited both support of the head
teacher and co-operation of the class as playing a significantly positive part.
75% cited 'Extra workload' and support by other staff as playing a part: the extra
workload had a small positive effect, but the support of other staff had a
notably positive impact.
50% of respondents cited Trust and Being observed as playing a part in their JPD
experience, both with a notable positive impact.
Imbalance of the group and unfinished project was seen to carry no impact
whatsoever.
One respondent added a significant impact Governor support and regularity and
structure of JPD meetings.
3. What JPD activities were you involved in? Please X all relevant.
Collaborative discussion x x x x x x x x 100%
Collaborative planning x x x x 50%
Lesson planning x x 25%
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 25
Staff Meeting training x x x x x x x 88%
Cascaded/Shared practice x x x x x x x x 100%
Other:
All respondents were involved in both collaborative discussion and
cascaded/shared practice. Most were involved in Staff meeting training sessions.
Only half were involved in collaborative planning and only a quarter were
involved in JPD lesson planning.
4. What have you found to be the advantages of this method of developing
your professional practice?
Q2T1 - The ability to meet and speak with other teachers and share practice.
Being able to further develop small partnerships has been of particular
importance and I have felt been the most beneficial aspect of the JPD.
Q2T2 - Sharing ideas with others, others trialling practice and then feeding back
on areas that they found tricky/had a negative impact. New and innovative
practices that you maybe would not have experienced on a 'normal' CPD training
course.
Q2T3 - Confidence in planning and sharing ideas has helped to develop practice.
Q2T4 - Regularity of meetings
The monthly meetings (both the PLC made up of different schools and the PLC
meeting within our own collaborative partnership) have made me see this as a
journey of improving professional practice, an on-going challenge that is
embedded into regular classroom practice, rather than a one-off CPD opportunity
which is not followed up.
Structure of meetings (familiarity) – The information we receive (reading) and
ideas usually follow a theme (ie mixed ability grouping), so I feel we have the
opportunity to digest and implement small changes over time.
Sense of community and sharing.
Meetings begin with the opportunity to talk with others and share good practice,
listen to one another and feel a sense of support and interest. In recent weeks,
less confident (or quieter) members of the JPD PLC have shared their ideas and
experiences and it is lovely to feel that balance.
Q2T5 - Major benefit has been shared good practice and development of tried
methods to create a positive change for increased progress.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 26
Q2T6 - The main advantage is having professional discussions with teachers from
other schools about improving practice, in a non-judgemental way. After every
meeting, I have come away with ideas to try in my classroom which have had a
positive impact on assessment and learning.
Q2T7 - Working with like-minded people. Ability to discuss the ups and downs of
people's practice. Opportunity to hear what may work in your own practice.
Relevant research and supportive group. The subjects chosen are suggested as
moving pupils forward most rapidly according to Teacher Toolkit so rooted in
research. They should work and less likely to fail.
Q2T8 - Ability to share practice on a regular basis. Collection of ideas. Putting
other people's ideas into practice immediately. Discussions as to how new ideas
could work in our classrooms.
Conclusions: Sharing ideas of good practice freely and openly at regular,
structured meetings.
5. What have you found to be the disadvantages of this method?
Q2T1 - Whilst not really a disadvantage, the fact that you come away from
meeting with lots of ideas but then you realise you don't have time to implement
them!
Q2T2 - As I was in the first wave of this JPD, many of the members of my
particular group were unable/ unwilling to take on the workload and adapt their
teaching in order to trial some of the ideas from the meetings. Either the
technology got in the way of the practice or other things took priority. Therefore,
in some parts of my research, I had to adapt to working independently. However,
as other partnership groups also fell apart later on in the year, other partnerships
formed of people who had similar ideas and areas to trial, so I became part of a
new partnership to work collaboratively and this was extremely successful.
Q2T3 - Time out of the classroom for collaborative planning and lesson study in
other classes. Time spent preparing for lessons and observations which have
created additional workload.
Q2T4 - We haven't had the opportunity to get to each other’s schools and see
things in practice. On a training course you often feel you are being
directed/advised to do something a certain way – with the JPD it is focused on
discussion, sometimes a direct: 'Everyone try this' would be nice! Maybe everyone
would have more to share and offer then? Perhaps another disadvantage is
knowing how to cascade information (or knowing 'what' information and how to
condense it!) for the rest of the school.
Q2T5 - Increase in workload, whilst setting up/ establishing new routines,
methods and digital equipment.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 27
Q2T6 - Small disadvantage of having time out of class, but the positives really
outweigh this!
Q2T7 - Perhaps it is extra work and nothing is reduced to allow focus on this. But
self-improvement and pupil experience are too important to pass up the
opportunity.
Q2T8 - Lots of time out of class.
Conclusions: Time out of class. Increased workload. Lack of time to implement
fully and get into each others' classes.BUT overall worthwhile.
6. What is your overall opinion about this style of CPD?
Q2T1 - A very good style which I have found to be very beneficial. However I
would add that it is the quality of the subject matter which makes it all the
more worthwhile rather than the style of JPD.
Q2T2 - I think it is a fantastic opportunity for teachers to meet, listen to new
innovative research and practice and have an opportunity to go away and adapt
this to their own particular needs. Not all things discussed will work in
individual schools and classrooms, and this is a really open way to deal with the
issues and discuss any problems to try to find a way for it to work.
Q2T3 - It works well and makes the staff involved feel comfortable and
supported – it engages them to have a go and trial new strategies within their
own classes.
Q2T4 - It is interesting, continuous and supportive. I feel we are sharing a great
deal of learning and experiences on a scale that is like no other form of CPD
(from my short experience!)
Q2T5 - I prefer this type of CPD, because it allows you to share and discuss with
colleagues. Also it is possible to try new things in a safe and encouraging
environment.
Q2T6 - It has been brilliant! As we have regular meetings, it allows enough time
to go away and try new ideas but also keeping the ideas fresh in my mind.
Sometimes with courses, I find initially I am bombarded with wonderful ideas to
try, and then quickly forget them, whereas with the current JPD structure, it
allows to concentrate on a few things each time that have really built up across
the year.
Q2T7 - Love it. Not isolated and support available.
Q2T8 - Very effective.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 28
Conclusions: ALL Very Positive – no negative comments
7. Do you feel it could replace much of the traditional style off-site training
programs?
Q2T1 -It could, however, referring back to Q6, it can only replace other training
programmes if the quality of training is high enough to warrant doing it in the
first place.
Q2T2 -Yes
Q2T3 -In some areas I do, however I do feel there are still benefits of off-site
training especially training in specialist areas led by experts in the field.
Q2T4 -Yes – if people show commitment, interest and a shared sense of focus.
Q2T5 - Yes – if it is carefully managed and usefully directed.
Q2T6 -Yes
Q2T7 -Yes, but not a quick fix. Time needs to be invested.
Q2T8 - Yes
Conclusions: Yes – with committed participants, carefully managed and
usefully directed augmented by expert training in specialist fields. No negative
comments.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 29
Children’s Perceptions of the 100 word challenge short writing intervention
developed at St Margaret’s CE primary School, Withern
Now that we have been doing the 100wc for 6 months, I would like to ask you some
questions regarding what you think of it:
Please rate each statement on a scale of 1 – 5 where:
0 = 'not at all' 1 = 'a little bit' 2 = 'it was OK' 3 = 'quite a lot' 4 = 'definitely'
0 1 2 3 4
I enjoy doing the 100wc 1 1 111
1
11
11
11
1
8% 8
%
30
%
54
%
Doing the 100wc has really helped me to improve my
writing
Although I am still trying to remember to put a comma
after the words said in speech.
Yes, it helps me to fit more descriptive words in a small
amount of sentences.
1 1 111
11
11
11
11
8
%
8
%
38
%
46
%
I have found it helpful to have a peer read it through for
me
It helps me improve my writing and also lets me know
what other people’s writing is like.
11 111
11
11
11
11
15
%
38
%
46
%
I find it helpful to read through other peers work for
them
If I put something in my writing that they don’t, they
could magpie the idea and improve their own.
11 111
1
11
11
11
1
15
%
30
%
54
%
I find feedback comments from other schools helpful 11 11 111
1
11
11
1
15
%
15
%
30
%
38
%
It makes me think about good writing skills when I leave
feedback
1 1 111
111
11
11
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 30
What I put in comments that I maybe don’t do in my own
writing, reminds me on what I should improve on.
1
8
%
8
%
54
%
30
%
I mind when my teacher has to go away for an afternoon
to discuss with other teachers
I think it is important that all of your teachers know
what you can do.
11
11
11
11
11
11 1
46
%
30
%
15
%
8%
I think it is important for teachers to learn from and with
each other
11 11 1 11
11
11
11
15
%
15
%
8% 62
%
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 31
Professional Learning Communities: linking CPD to daily practice:
Michael Pain & James Siddle
Introduction
Over the past three years St Margaret’s has worked in collaboration with many
schools across the county and beyond. Through Joint Practice Development and
action research we have formed partnerships through several professional
learning communities (PLC). Here we outline, in partnership with Kyra Teaching
School Alliance, the characteristics of the PLCs we have developed.
“Teaching is not something one learns to do, once and for all, and then practises,
problem free, for a lifetime, anymore than one knows how to have friends, and
follows a static set of directions called ‘friendships’, through each encounter.
Teaching depends on growth and development and is practised in dynamic
situations that are never twice the same. Wonderful teachers young and old, will
tell of fascinating insights, new understandings, unique encounters with
youngsters, the intellectual puzzle and the ethical dilemmas that provide a daily
challenge. Teachers, above all, must stay alive to this.”
William Ayers, To Teach
The continuous professional development of staff is essential to the success of
our schools and our children’s learning. National research, impactful practice in
other schools, and shared professional inquiry, are all essential for achieving a
deep culture of professional learning and improvement. The question is – how
can we make the most of these sources to achieve effective professional
development within schools and partnerships?
For some time now it has been argued that simply ‘going on a course’ and
listening to others’ accounts of ‘best practice’ has a limited impact on changing
our professional behaviours and ways of working. Indeed, Professor David
Hargreaves in his work on ‘self-improving’ school systems, has said that the
most powerful form of professional development is that of Joint Practice
Development because it is ongoing, involves regular peer dialogue and feedback
– including the use of experienced coaches and mentors, and integrates the
learning process with daily activities and practice in schools.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 32
What is Joint Practice Development?
The emergent model is less about attending conferences and courses and more
about school-based, peer-to-peer activities in which development is fused with
routine practice. Professional development becomes a continuous, pervasive
process that builds craft knowledge, rather than an occasional activity that is
sharply distinguished in time and space from routine classroom work.
Joint practice development (JPD) is a term that captures the essential features of
this form of professional development:
— It is a joint activity, in which two or more people interact and
influence one another, in contrast to the non-interactive, unilateral
character of much conventional ‘sharing good practice’.
— It is an activity that focuses on teachers’ professional practice, ie
what they do, not merely what they know.
— It is a development of the practice, not simply a transfer of it from
one person or place to another, and so a form of school improvement.”
Prof. David Hargreaves & National College; A self-improving system: towards
maturity. 2012
The Professional Learning Community model
Schools within Kyra have been developing the PLC model for some time now.
For example, St Margaret’s in Withern have capitalised on strong partnerships
and collaboratives between local schools and have developed ongoing
professional learning communities that have seen teachers collectively sharing
and developing practice on an ongoing basis - with positive results.
So what does this look like in practice? In the case of Withern’s groups,
colleagues have used the Education Endowment Fund’s evidence on effective
feedback for learning as a starting point. The research shows how effective
feedback can contribute to improved learning experiences for pupils – an issue
that all those involved in the community wished to explore further. The
sessions involve opportunities for the group to review and discuss the relevant
research, to compare how they have applied their learning in their own settings
(often within their sub networks) and what the affect of this has been, and to
build on the sharing of information by action planning for further development
and testing of their practices.
The sessions usually take place every four weeks and last no less than 75
minutes each. The standard format of the sessions – which is evidence-based
and draws on the work of leading thinkers such Dylan William - is usually as
follows:
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 33
Introduction (by the ‘Community lead’ – usually someone with particular
expertise or with a deep interest in the area of focus) 5 minutes
Collective Discussion – individuals summarise what they have done
/implemented since the last session, including what has been trialed and
tested through their action plan (developed at the previous session);
A Research Activity – Group discussion of a relevant research paper or
article. This may take the format of a ‘book club’ based on reading
recommended at the last session;
Planning action plans – Group and individuals plan their next steps for
further refining their particular practice. This may include planning work
for sub-partnerships or groups. This session may also include planning of
lesson observations and further action research. In James’ words
“everyone should leave the room with a self-improving agenda, the
outcome of which will be shared with the group at the next session – if
not before.”
The PLCs have developed a number of key lessons for developing successful
and sustained Professional Learning Communities:
- Ensure the PLC is accessible to all. The format allows for all starting
points as the discussion is always based on a sound research base and
includes elements of individual planning which can then be implemented
at a local or individual school level;
- Start with a robust and sound evidence base upon which to build
discussion and trial new practices. In James’ group, they have started
with the EEF toolkit, which is based on research and analysis contributed
by thousands of schools and subject to academic
- Ensure groups are led by someone with the necessary enthusiasm,
commitment and expertise to sustain them. We believe SLEs should play
a key role in developing this approach to CPD based on their areas of
knowledge and expertise.
- Tap into existing partnerships and networks at first before expanding
the group. This will ensure a culture of trust and openness is achievable
from an early stage. Professional capital – i.e. sharing knowledge and best
practice to the benefit of all schools and children – is an essential basis.
- Draw upon and align with Randomised Control Trial projects where
possible. This provides a framework for trialing various approaches and
hypotheses with a clearer understanding how different variables
contribute to improvements in children’s learning. The principles of RCTs
should underpin these communities wherever possible.
- Keep regulation of the community to a minimum. Whilst it is important
to work with evidence-based formats and methodologies, the members of
the group should feel a strong degree of ownership and be able to access
the community from a range of starting points.
- Ensure that the culture of openness extends to data and the need to
measure impact. This leads to better understanding and evidence around
what works and – crucially – what doesn’t!
- Finally, promote your findings widely with other schools and
practitioners. This will lead to even greater opportunities to share ideas
and evidence, to the benefit of more children.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 34
Further reading:
Scaling Up Formative Assessment by Dylan William :
http://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Papers.html
Towards a self-improving system: towards maturity by David Hargreaves &
National College for School Leadership: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/15804/1/a-self-
improving-school-system-towards-maturity.pdf
Creating a strong culture of professionalism by Michael Pain:
http://www.forumeducation.org/article-on-high-performing-systems-a-culture-
of-professionalism/
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 35
Developing Automaticity in Mathematics
2014-15 St Margaret’s, Stickney and New Leake Primary Schools
Introduction and Background written for St Margaret’s by Dr Robin
Scott, Durham University
Introduction
In primary schools there is a growing relevance in automaticity as young pupils
memorise - hardwire - the arithmetical number facts into their long-term
memories. This is best achieved in the context of the two separate, but
connected, processes of:
Learning the basic arithmetic processes of adding, subtracting,
multiplying and dividing and knowing when to apply them.
Memorising – hardwiring – number facts into their long-term memories,
as considered later.
Attempting to ‘bolt-on’ automaticity in isolation runs the risk of reverting to
rote learning. An effective context for achieving automaticity will be
suggested.
Background
‘Automaticity’ is a word that is not widely known in schools or education, even
though it holds the key to becoming fluent with number. It is now defined as:
The instant and accurate recall without any conscious mental effort of
previously learned number facts.
Automaticity achieves “finger-clicking” speeds of recall – less than one second!
The 3Rs of “Reading, Riting and Rithmetic” used to be the basic pillars of the
hitherto simpler curricula of education that allowed sufficient time to achieve
automaticity using rote learning: it was effective in spite of its limitations.
More generally, the subsuming of arithmetic into mathematics was unfortunate
because arithmetic is the foundation of mathematics and probably brought
about the greatest adverse effect on numeracy. It is likely that it encouraged
the ‘maths-is-a-hard-subject’ becoming part of the national epistemologies in
the developed countries of the world.
Furthermore, up to 90% of the adult population only needs arithmetic and it
would be a great gain if it became secure at it by the time it leaves school. The
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 36
over 10% who become proficient at mathematics select themselves by the age of
ten years old through their self-evident number aptitudes.
Literacy and Numeracy
These are the terms that replaced the 3Rs. A simple comparison of the two
subjects shows that numeracy/arithmetic should be the easier one to teach and
learn. Reasons include:
There are only ten symbols for number compared with 26 letters of the
alphabet.
There are only ten arithmetic number operators compared with over 20
grammatical marks for writing.
The basic processes of arithmetic are precise, logical and invariable in
contrast with the grammars of reading and writing.
There are only 693 basic number facts (words) that need to be learned
consisting of:
(i) Adding up to 10: 66
(ii) Subtracting within 10: 66
(iii) Adding 11 to 20: 165
(iv) Subtracting within 11 and 20: 165
(v) Multiplication tables up to 10: 121
(vi) Division tables up to 10: 110
These make up the number ‘vocabulary’ compared with a minimum of
2,000 words (with their spellings) for a basic word vocabulary.
The number language is almost universal in contrast with the
multiplicity of written and spoken languages.
The Stages of Learning Arithmetic
There are three stages associated with learning arithmetic being:
Procedural through which young pupils develop their numerosities that
link:
(i) Quantities
(ii) Symbols
(iii) Words.
These are achieved initially through counting, finger counting, counting-
on, counting-back and similar activities that allow pupils to develop the
basic concepts of number and to become “number ready” (cf. Appendix).
Strategic through which pupils start to learn number facts and use
strategies that allow them to calculate or derive them in the first place.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 37
Automatic through which pupils develop automaticity or the instant and
accurate recall without any conscious mental effort of previously learned
number facts.
(Based on Crawford 2003 pp.9/10)
Some points are now made about these stages.
Procedural
The emphasis here should be on a socialising exposure to number for
young pupils through playing number games and activities rather than
instruction-based methods. (This should continue in the other two
stages.)
Formal number teaching and learning should only start when pupils are
number ready. It is independent of pupils’ ages or their classes.
Strategic
Pupils should only be introduced to number strategies when they are
number ready.
The use of suitable dedicated number manipulatives help in creating
pupils’ robust internal models of the arithmetic processes.
It cannot be assumed that pupils are not developing such models because
they cannot articulate what they are.
Automatic
This is the make-or-break stage and the context for acquiring
automaticity.
Pupils should now be ready to hardwire their number facts, having
developed their robust internal models of number Their new number
facts are likely to have make sense to the pupils.
This differentiates memorisation (of understood facts) from rote learning.
Current practice for teaching and learning number emphasises only the first two
stages, but strategies are not a substitute for automaticity. Number fluency
only comes through integrating memorised number facts with the number
understandings established during the Procedural and Strategic stages.
The point behind integrating is that, for example, pupils should only start to
memorise their number facts for adding up to 10 after they have learned how to
add, as opposed to counting-on; they are not the same processes. Likewise, they
should only learn their 11 to 20 number facts after they have understand
bridging 10 or memorising their multiplication tables once they know what
multiplication means. The same principle applies to all the other arithmetical
processes.
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 38
This explains why memorising number facts in isolation is a reversion to rote
learning. In contrast, using such an integrated context enables automaticity to
be achieved and leads to number fluency and, in turn, mastery.
St Margaret’s CE Primary School Project in Automatcity
Research Question: Could developing a daily, short programme in
number work improve pupils’ outcomes in number over the course of
a year?
Participants
All year groups at St Margaret’s were involved in the project and the Year 3
Class from Stickney CE primary school and the Year 3 / 4 class from New Leake
Primary school.
Procedure and Materials
All pupils at St Margaret’s were assessed in the autumn, spring and summer
terms using the Basic Number Screening test from Hodder. During the year
discrete, near daily, 15 minute number sessions backed up contextualised work
in normal classroom practice. The 15 minute sessions revolved around a circuit
of activities completed in mixed ability groups during the week.
The programme involved: timed multiplication and division sessions using DSi
mental maths programmes; counting sessions with class teachers and teaching
assistants; mental maths sessions taken by class teachers to contextualise and
revisit number work; paired peer review using ‘missing number triangles’ and
online timed multiplication tests at the start and at the end of each week to
monitor progress.
In addition, all lower Key Stage 2 classes took part in ‘wow’ days, once a term,
which were rotated around the three schools. These ‘wow days’ combined fun
PE activities and number facts
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 39
Results
Key Stage 1 and Lower Key Stage 2: Basic Number Screening Tests
Conclusions
Mean progress over ten months was 23 months in both Class 1 and Class 2. The
range was between 5+ (for children working below the level of the screening test
in September) and 38 months progress. This was not a randomised control trial
and thus a number of factors will have influenced the results. However, the data
would suggest the daily practising of number facts may have contributed to the
outstanding progress for lower Key Stage 2 pupils at St Margaret’s in Number.
September
Raw Score
Number
Age
December
Raw Score
Number
Age
June
Raw
Score
Number Age
Average
(excluding
from number
age columns
those below
5.0 in
September)
9.7 7.9 13.4 9.0 15.6 9.8
September Mean
Number Age
June Mean
Number Age
Mean Progress /10
Months
Average (excluding
from number age
columns those
below 5.0 in
September)
5.3 7.2 23 months
Action Research St Margaret’s CE Primary School Page 40
Action Research
St Margaret’s Church of England Primary
School, Withern
St. Margaret's C of E
Primary School
Withern Main Road,
Withern, Nr. Alford,
Lincolnshire
LN13 0NB
01507 450375