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

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/index.php/toolkit/toolkit-a-z/digital-technology/

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/index.php/toolkit/toolkit-a-z/digital-technology/


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.


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.

https://100wc.net/


Figure 1. Overview of digital technology use to try and improve outcomes

in writing.


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

http://withernclass3.primaryblogger.co.uk/uncategorized/waterfall-by-imogen/


http://withernclass3.primaryblogger.co.uk/author/imogen3/




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


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


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


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%


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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

%


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.


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:


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.


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/

http://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Papers.html

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/15804/1/a-self-improving-school-system-towards-maturity.pdf

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/15804/1/a-self-improving-school-system-towards-maturity.pdf

http://www.forumeducation.org/article-on-high-performing-systems-a-culture-of-professionalism/

http://www.forumeducation.org/article-on-high-performing-systems-a-culture-of-professionalism/


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


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.


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.


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


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 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

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

St Margaret’s Church of England Primary School, …...St Margaret’s Church of England Primary...

Documents

Transcript of St Margaret’s Church of England Primary School, …...St Margaret’s Church of England Primary...