Hayes Park Primary School London Borough of Hillingdon NCETM small grants research project London...

Hayes Park Primary SchoolLondon Borough of Hillingdon

NCETM small grantsresearch projectLondon region

Research proposition• Can coaching contribute to the effective

embedding on CPD in teacher’s classroom practice?

Time scale• Three terms – Spring, Summer, Autumn 2007

Focus• Mathematics CPD –introducing the PNS

Renewed Framework with a focus on assessment for learning

Hayes Park Primary School

Using this PowerPoint

• The first part of this PowerPoint presentation will take you through a summary of the project and show the research findings and conclusion. All the slides in the summary are denoted by a in the bottom left corner

• To explore specific areas of the project in more detail, please see the sections in the Appendix



Context• Hayes Park is a highly successful school classed as

outstanding in all aspects by the OFSTED Report carried out on 20th June 2007 (www.ofsted.gov.uk)

• Coaching has been established in the school over the last five years and is part of their standard practice

• Dr Neil Suggett, the head teacher, is the project sponsor

• Deborah Barlow, the deputy head, leads on assessment and curriculum

• The maths subject leader, Susie Singh, was on maternity leave when the project began, came back for the middle part and then left the school to take up a new post in September 2007


ContextAlison Jones ( Y5 and AST) took the role whilst Susie was on maternity leave and now shares it with Caroline Marshall (Y6 and AST), who has taken on the main maths responsibility.

Jennie Pennant, the Professional Development Manager at BEAM, has acted as an external consultant for the project and carried out a number of the activities: devising the questionnaire, classroom sweeps, delivering some of the INSET, undertaking some interviews, analysing data and co-writing the report.

Initials will now be used to refer to people involved in activities.

Methodology

• teachers and TAs to be divided into two groups by year group

• half (Years 1, 3 and 5) to receive coaching• three sessions as a year group of

teachers and TAs• three additional sessions individually for

teachers and as a year group for TAs• the other half (Years 2, 4 and 6) will

receive no coaching


Coaching

Features• sessions run by the coaches from the

school• the sessions were 45 minutes long• the GROW model for coaching was used• the participants were familiar with the

coaching approach, as it is regularly used in the school


Spring 2007

Summer 2007

Autumn 2007

Questionnaire

Classroom sweep

INSET – half day

Coaching sessions

Review and discussion

Coaching sessions

Review and discussion

Coaching sessions

Interviews

Review research and compile report


Classroom sweep

INSET - twilight

INSET - twilight

Interviews

Questionnaire

Summary ofTimeline

INSETs - one whole day and four twilight sessions over the year

These focussed on introducing aspects of the Renewed Framework, looking at strategies for prior learning and other aspects of the assessment for learning agenda.

They were run by Jennie from BEAM and Alison and Susie, the MSLs from Hayes Park Primary School.


Data collection

• questionnaires, with an assessment for learning focus – prior to the research project and then again in the final term

• teacher and TA interviews • classroom sweeps before and after with a

focus on the questionnaire • teacher and TA feedback from various

training and feedback sessions• year group leader interviews


Questionnaire

The questionnaire was devised for this project and the classroom sweeps were also based on the questionnaire.

Teachers filled it in at the beginning and end of the project. BEAM analysed it and compared the findings to the classroom sweep findings and other evidence.



FindingsClassroom sweeps suggested that many initiatives were whole school and longer and more focussed observations would be needed to detect differences in progress between the cohorts.

Interviews pointed to the fact that coaching offered the following advantages:

• dedicated time• opportunity for reflection• a whole year group focus• a coach to move you forward and keep

you on task• an agreed strategy to go away and trial

and report back on


FindingsQuestionnaires indicated the following:

• both the participant groups and the non- participant group reported progress over the time of the project

• the participant group reported more progress, in the majority of areas

• the non-participant group had less room for making progress as their initial scores were higher than the participant group

Conclusion

The findings suggest that the coaching may have contributed to the embedding of the CPD.

There were, however, a range of other factors in play as well including:

• whole school initiatives• the content of the coaching was not

insulated from the other teachers• the sharing ethos of the school

Further investigation is needed into the interplay of the coaching with these other factors.


Appendix


Coaching

Questionnaires

Classroomsweeps

Interviews

•Click a button to go tothe relevant section

•You can return to thispage by clicking

in the bottom left corner

Return toappendix

‘Coaching is unlocking a person’s potential to maximise their own performance. It is helping them learn rather than teaching them’ John Whitmore


Coaching

Page 1 of 4

Return toappendix

How does Whitmore’s coaching approach work?• the process is non directive• the coachee drives the agenda • the coaching session is goal-centred and leads

to action• coaching focuses on the present/future• coaching helps people take responsibility for

action and is an investment in their growth What is the basic structure to the coaching session?G oal (for this session and the whole project)R eality (the coachee’s view of the current reality)O ptions (the possible courses of action)W ill (the level of commitment to action)


Coaching

Page 2 of 4

Return toappendix

Coaching

Example of Goal• ‘developing manageable/effective review

sessions’

Example of Will from two different groups • ‘numeracy table, games, sandpit for when task

is finished’• ‘reviewing the way we assess’


Coaching

Page 3 of 4

Return toappendix


Coaching references

• Whitmore J (2002) Coaching for Performance, Nicholas Brealey Publishing

• Smith A & Thomas W (2004) Coaching Solutions: Practical Ways to Improve Performance in Education Network Educational Press

• Powell G, Chambers M & Baxter G (2001) Pathways to Coaching, TLO

• Creasy J & Patterson P (2005) Leading Coaching in Schools, NCSL Research Publications

Coaching

Page 4 of 4

Return toappendix

Questionnaires

Page 1 of 9


Return toappendix

Questionnaire – sections A and B

Questionnaire – sections C, D and E

Return toappendix

Questionnaires

Page 2 of 9


Questionnaires

Page 3 of 9


January vs September 2007: Average Scores for all Aspects (Participants)

Questionnaire

Return toappendix

Questionnaires

Page 4 of 9


January vs September 2007: Average Scores for all Aspects (Non-participants)

Questionnaire

Return toappendix

Questionnaires

Page 5 of 9


Questionnaire

January vs September 2007: Comparison of Increase in Average Scores for all Aspects (Participants and Non-participants)

Return toappendix

Findings:• both the participant group and the non-

participant group reported progress over the time of the project

• the participant group reported more progress, in the majority of areas except for B2 - learning styles and B3 - modelling maths talk, where the gains reported by the non-participant group were slightly higher than those of the participant group

• the non-participant group had less room for reporting progress as their initial scores were higher than the participant group


Return toappendix

Questionnaires

Page 6 of 9

Questionnaire

Greatest progress was recorded in the following areas by both participants and non-participants:

• A2 the nature of verbal feedback• B5 children assess and articulate what they

can and cannot do• C2 assessing prior learning


Questionnaire

These reflected areas that had been whole school foci during the project and also some aspects of these had been taken as a coaching goal by the participant group

Return toappendix

Questionnaires

Page 7 of 9

In two areas the participant group reported more progress than the non-participant group:

•A3 marking of written work•C3 planning adjusted daily

In three areas neither group reported much progress:

•B1 sharing the learning focus - see WALT in classroom sweep section•D1 creating a safe classroom for taking risks•E4 children have strategies to assess their

progressThese were areas that were already well established in the classroom.


Questionnaire

Return toappendix

Questionnaires

Page 8 of 9

Both groups reported little progress with:• D2 measure successful learning by not only

getting the right answer• D3 fostering qualities such as

perseverance.

These were areas that had not been specifically addressed during the duration of the project.


Return toappendix

Questionnaires

Page 9 of 9

Questionnaire

Classroom sweeps


These were carried out by Jennie from BEAM in the Spring and the Autumn across both the coached and un-coached groups.

Jennie used the questionnaire foci on assessment for the observations and spent approximately 15 minutes in each classroom.

Return toappendix

Classroom sweeps

Page 1 of 7

Classroom sweep Autumn 2007

JP observed in the Y1 classroom that children were encouraged to use these fans to show the teacher how they felt about their learning. These had been introduced over the period of the project.

Links to B5 onquestionnaire:“children canassess andarticulate whatthey can andcannot do”


Return toappendix

Classroom sweeps

Page 2 of 7


WALT (What we Are Learning Today) was present in every classroom in the Spring sweep. In all classrooms the children were now reading it out, discussing language in it and ensuring they all understood it. This was the result of a cross school focus on the language of maths.


Return toappendix

Classroom sweeps

Page 3 of 7

Classroom sweeps

Page 4 of 7

Classroom sweepAutumn 2007


These are two examples of laminated cards that children were annotating, to show their understanding of data handling. This was part of the strategy the teacher used to assess their prior learning.

Year 5 coached cohort

Draw the bar chart using the information in the table

Spot the mistakes in these bar charts

Return toappendix



• Links to C4 on questionnaire: “My lesson plan is adjusted during the lesson according to the children’s responses”

Well it could be buy one get one free

Two cartons of milk and a chocolate bar cost £1.30. If the choc bar cost 40p how much did each carton of milk cost?

• An excellent example of this was seen in a Year 6 lesson.

So would that be better value?

The teacher responded to the child’s suggestion with an open ended problem solving question for the class to investigate

Return toappendix

Classroom sweeps

Page 5 of 7



This children’s self-assessment strategy was observed in both a coached and an un-coached year group. Children placed their name in one of the three columns that they felt best described their progress with the learning objective.

Links to E4 on questionnaire:“children have strategies to help them assess their progress”

Return toappendix

Classroom sweeps

Page 6 of 7



The brevity of the visits meant it was difficult to assess differences in practice between the coached and un-coached cohorts.

For example, all classes were using the Renewed Framework and working on prior learning and assessment. However, DB thought that the coaching had contributed to the way that coached teachers had embedded the changes.

Return toappendix

Classroom sweeps

Page 7 of 7


Debs Barlow, Deputy Head and responsible for the curriculum

Interview - Autumn 2007

• raised the profile of assessment for learning in maths across the school

• lot of progress on assessing prior learning – now need to focus on how to use that information in lessons

• A4L rippling out from maths to pervade whole curriculum

• teachers indicated several advantages of coaching: dedicated time, specific focus, commitment to action and feedback on progress.

Return toappendix

Interviews

Page 1 of 3

• Susie taught in Year 1 – a coached year group• she felt that the coaching had created a pro-

active atmosphere• ‘if people disagree they can express it in a

non-judgemental way’• ‘coaching has provided opportunities to iron

out problems’• ‘coaching made us very clear’• ‘coaching has deepened thinking’• she wondered if the coaching might have had

more of impact in a less confident school


Susie left the school in July 2007 due to a geographical move

Susie Singh, Maths Subject Leader

Return toappendix

Interviews

Page 2 of 3

Interview - July 2007


Autumn 2007Alison reiterated much of the above and felt that another benefit of the coaching was the opportunity to look at range of options if the year group was stuck.

Interview - April 2007

April 2007Alison worked in the Year 5 team – a coached year group. She felt that the benefits of coaching were:

• dedicated time to discuss issues• opportunity for reflection on practice• having the coach to keep everyone focussed.

A challenge was knowing what goal to choose. Alison felt that PPA time would not have provided the same benefits as it tends to get used on pressing tasks.

Alison Jones, Shadow Maths Subject Leader

Return toappendix

Interviews

Page 3 of 3

Hayes Park Primary School London Borough of Hillingdon NCETM small grants research project London...

Documents

Transcript of Hayes Park Primary School London Borough of Hillingdon NCETM small grants research project London...