Evidence-based teaching: advancing capability and capacity for enquiry in schoolsCase study

April 2017

Megan Dixon Aspirer Teaching Alliance

ContentsIntroduction 3

Study Design 6

The Pilot Study 6

Collecting the Evidence 7

Ethical Considerations 8

Exploring the data 9

How can the interaction and relationships be effectively developed? 9

How are teachers encouraged to engage with the research evidence? 12

Stages in Establishing Trust 13

What counts as good evidence? 15

Becoming responsive to the evidence 15

Lessons from the study 17

Building Awareness 17

Becoming responsive to each other 17

Becoming responsive to the evidence 18

Further questions 18

References 19

Appendix 1 22

Appendix 2 23

2

Introduction “If teachers are to change, they need to participate in a professional learning community

that is focused on becoming responsive to students” Timperley (2008, p19)

This study was led by a Teaching School Alliance (TSA) of 21 schools in the North West of the United Kingdom. Since being designated in April 2014, the Alliance has constantly sought to adopt effective strategies to support all members of the community in effective professional learning. Innovative, evidence based responses and adaptive expertise are encouraged in order to respond to the needs of all children, in particular those from disadvantaged communities. Research and innovation to inform and contribute to deep, sustained professional learning is highly valued and supported.

In a desire to identify effective approaches which enable staff to engage with transformational professional learning (Brookfield, 1995) that is both evidence based and evidence informed, this study aimed to explore the feasibility and possible impact of establishing small Communities of Practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991) across the TSA. It was hoped that the study could lead to the development of a model that could effectively support teachers to engage critically with research evidence within a supportive group, giving them the time and space to explore, observe and challenge their practices through the lens of educational research.

How might communities of practices support teachers to become critically engaged with research?In their meta-analysis “Developing Great Teaching”, Cordingley et al, 2015 highlight the importance of supporting teachers to grasp a rationale underpinning the teaching strategies in balance with opportunities to refine and develop teaching practices. This balance, described as the development of critical reflection-in-action (Schon, 1987) or tacit, technical and critical reflection (Winch, 2013) presents challenges for both the practitioners involved, and the schools in which they work. Both Loughran (2000) and Boud and Walker (1998, cited in Finlay, 2008) attest to the dangers of teacher reflection becoming, bland, self-justifying and colluding with existing practice. More recently, Cordingley et al (2015) highlight the challenge of the Joint Practice Development model as simply becoming a forum for the “recycling of existing practice” (p10). Furthermore, Brookfield (1990) suggested that questioning the deeply held rationales on which teachers react and respond to the daily challenges of the classroom can be “psychologically explosive” (p178) and cautions for the facilitators of transformational learners (Meirzow, 1991) to ensure that they work tentatively, ensuring the teachers are in control of the learning process.

Biesta et al (2015) suggest that teacher agency defined as “not something that people can have – as a property, capacity or competence – but is something that people do.” (p626), plays an important role in developing critical reflection . The ecological approach (Priestley et al, 2015, Biesta et al, 2015) describes agency as something that can be achieved through the interplay of individual capacity and the social and material

conditions that lead to action. Teacher agency, they suggest, involves developing a viewpoint of what might be possible, challenging past patterns of thought and behaviour. By adding a layer of decision making where the possibilities of action are considered and evaluated, future possible trajectories of action can evolve. From these two perspectives, a key message for those involved in developing evidence based practice in schools is that sustained, transformative professional learning involves both heart and mind.

With this in mind, the development of Communities of Practice (Lave and Wenger,1991) presents a possible direction through which both the hearts and minds of teachers could be engaged. A community of practice (CoP) is defined as a group of people who share a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. Wenger (1998) suggests that a successful CoP consists of three key elements; a domain of knowledge, a community of people and a shared practice (Wenger, 1998). With regard to developing the capacity of teachers to engage in and with evidence to inform their teaching, these three domains represent three areas of challenge.

The first challenge, the domain of knowledge, is represented by the research evidence base used within the group and the collective tacit knowledge in action of the members. Nutley et al (2012) note that what counts as high quality evidence should depend on what is being asked and for what purpose. For any participant within a group, good evidence will be evidence that contributes to their understandings. Coe et al, (2014) suggest that effective evidence for teachers will consist of research that supports the enhancing and deepening of pedagogical content knowledge. But what counts as good evidence from a teacher’s point of view?

The second challenge is represented by the community. In this study, the community was represented by teachers from different situations who shared a common interest and a shared responsibility to support each other. Sharples (2013) notes that “research use is emerging as a largely social practice, with interaction and relationships being key factors in determining how evidence get used and applied in practical settings” (p18). The key elements of sustained reflective dialogue including describing, exploring, supporting, evaluating, questioning, analysing, theorising, challenging, and extending (Finlay, 2008) can be fostered and supported within a community of people. But how can the interaction and relationships be effectively developed?

The final element of shared practice requires the community of practice to have a shared focus for observation and reflection. Coe et al (2014) note that “successful teacher observations are primarily used as a formative process – framed as a developmental tool creating reflective and self-directed teacher learners” (p4). Using the shared observation of teaching could provide an opportunity to share, support and challenge teacher practice and beliefs, rather than the recycling of the same ideas. However, since the use of

4

classroom observation has been the principle tool for teacher accountability for many years, the sharing of teaching and learning is an professionally ambiguous and unsettling activity for many teachers. In addition, there is a need to move away from the perception of teacher professional development as a transmission model where an expert delivers new and essential learning, towards a process of teacher change (Wiliam and Leahy, 2014). The challenge for the teachers is to work out how to transform the research into real contexts, whilst ensuring it benefits the pupils.

In order to accommodate these conflicting and challenging domains, Wiliam and Leahy (2014) suggest a session framework which ensures all the members of the group understand the roles they are expected to play and supports the development of critical reflection. Furthermore, Caudle et al (2014) suggest Communities of Practice encourage the development of agentic1 teacher leaders. By allowing teachers to grapple with relevant issues from the inside-out rather than depending on outside-in expert knowledge, this democratisation of experience leads to the empowering the members of the community to become leaders. As leaders they begin to exemplify Cooper’s (2010) five common characteristics of effective facilitators of research use; the understanding of research methodology, a broad overview of the literature, a track record within academia and practice, sound interpersonal skills and an ability to translate complex information into meaningful materials for users.

In conclusion, for this study, Communities of Practice were theorised to become a space where teachers who shared a common interest could meet and be encouraged to develop “enquiry habits of mind” (p57, Stoll, (2015), in Brown (2015) and develop as agentic leaders of learning (Caudle et al, 2014). As the participants share teaching and learning sessions with each other, the research evidence would act as a lens to direct and channel their observations on the learning process and provide an opportunity for them to critically reflect upon the practices they use. The study sought to consider whether by challenging and examining their espoused theories of practice (Schon, 1987; Larrivee, 2000) in the light of research evidence and the communal formative lesson observation, teachers could be challenged to change and develop their practice? Could a community of practice including the observation of teaching provide an opportunity to develop the three strands of thought needed for teacher agency and the democratisation of teacher professional learning?

1 Agentic - Social cognition theory perspective in which people are producers as well as products of social systems.

5

Study Design This study was designed in two phases;

1. Phase 1 – How might a Community of Practice work as an approach to developing the capability, capacity and agency of teachers? A pilot study

This phase focused on the establishment of a group of 6-12 self-selected participants from within the teaching school alliance to meet as a Special Interest Group (SIG) for six sessions across the year. The pilot group would provide an opportunity for an initial evaluation of how Communities of Practice might work in school. Phase one was designed to provide an opportunity to consider the practical, situational and unforeseen challenges of working in this way and consider whether they could be an effective tool to support the development of evidence based practice.

2. Phase 2 –Developing the model wider. During this phase, 3 (possibly more) other SLEs from across the TSA would lead Special Interest Groups (SIGs) for groups of teachers in an area of their own interest or expertise. They would develop their groups, contributing to the study and helping to evaluate the effectiveness of the groups in supporting teachers to engage with the evidence.

This report examines the data collected from the first phase of the study and explores the possible implications of adopting SIGs to develop the capacity and capability of teachers to use evidence based teaching approaches to develop the effectiveness of their practice.

The Pilot Study The dates for six two hour sessions were identified and teachers from across the TSA were invited to attend. The initial pilot had literacy learning, in particular the teaching of reading through guided reading as the content domain (Wenger and Lave,1988). Before the first session, teacher participants were invited, by email, to suggest some topics they would be interested in exploring and with this in mind the first session was planned. The sessions followed a similar structure based on Teacher Learning Communities (Wiliams, 2001), although this structure was refined over time. The session structure is outlined in Appendix 1.

A number of possible barriers to the success of the SIG were identified through the research literature before the group started. Firstly (and most importantly), it would be essential to establish an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect amongst the participants. The development of a communal language for dialogue and discussion

6

within the group would allow the development of a reflective criticality amongst the participants, leading to constructive challenge with positive outcomes. I was aware of the possibility that the participants may collectively perceive one member of the group to be an expert with answers rather than using the research evidence and the observation and discussion as the professional learning opportunity. Finally, the practicalities of time and cost for colleagues to be involved in the initiative had to be considered.

Collecting the EvidenceTo support my reflections on the effectiveness of the SIG, I adopted a multi-layered qualitative approach to data collection, reflecting the participants involved and the cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. Data was collected at the beginning of the pilot, (using a brief email questionnaire), at each SIG session and through a short focus group at the end of the pilot. During each SIG session the teachers participants contributed a rich vein of qualitative data in the form of their oral contributions within each session, lesson observations and any other lesson plans or resources they shared. Any emails or other correspondence about the sessions, further contributed to the thick description (Gillham, 2000) and reflection. Further qualitative data was collected by the researcher in the form of an online research diary, collecting and reflecting any thoughts and reflections about the process, participant observations (collected in the form of field notes taken during each session), detailed planning documents and session records. A record of all research papers explored during the study was kept, including any comments and reflections made by the participants of the group.

During each cycle of data collection, three key questions provided a critical framework through which the data could be explored to highlight change over time;

1. How can the interaction and relationships be effectively developed? What is needed to ensure this model of professional development is effective and what could be the possible solutions to any barriers identified?

2. How are teachers encouraged to engage with the research evidence and how might this support them to develop their practice? How might a CoP be used to support effective professional dialogue encouraging teachers to engage in research evidence and begin to investigate how that might translate into their daily practice?

3. What counts as good evidence from a teacher’s point of view? How might a CoP develop teacher skills in becoming critically responsive to the evidence?

Ethical ConsiderationsAs Cohen et al (2000) suggest, an inequality of power in the relationships of the participants within the group could distort the validity of observations and data collected. Nevertheless the opportunity to be methodologically eclectic and use a variety of

7

instruments for data collection (Cohen et al, 2000) both empowers and strengthens the validity of any conclusions. All ethical considerations were of primary importance. At each level and at each stage, everyone involved was fully informed of every aspect of the research process and gave informed consent. All participants contributed to the study freely and all data was handled in the strictest confidence. It was important that all participants felt comfortable with the research process. If any participant showed distress at any point, the data collection was halted and all participants were free to withdraw from the study at any point.

8

Exploring the data

How can the interaction and relationships be effectively developed?

Building awareness – the role of the facilitator

From the first few minutes of the first session, it was evident that the role of the leader or facilitator of the group would be more than someone who organises the sessions and identifies the research papers. As the group instigator, I was aware of my intentions not to present learning as something defined and packaged, but in contrast to encourage the notion of group accountability and shared understandings. I was aware of the importance of framing the discussions around teaching and learning (Coe et al, 2014), lifting the tone away from criticism to critique and critical reflection. It was essential that our discussion provided a supported, open space for teachers to examine concepts, ideas and practices, tussling with new and potentially challenging points of view.

When looked at in their entirety, the session records highlight a breadth and depth of wide ranging discussions within each 2 hour session, with several reoccurring themes across the year. This illustrated a spiral curriculum of repeated thinking the participants engaged in, a revisiting tussle with new ideas and concepts rather than a linear progression through an inflexible pre-prescribed course of learning. During the later sessions the participants made constant reference to key moments of transformational thinking, which they felt had shaped their practice or developed their thinking dramatically. For each teacher, these critical moments were deeply personal, idiosyncratic and often emotionally charged, highlighting the need to present new ideas from multiple and varied perspectives, within differing non-judgemental contexts.

One of the reoccurring themes in the data is my desire to use frameworks to provide a structure for each session and to support the dialogue during the lesson observations. It was important that any dialogue during the sessions was different in tone and manner than may have been previously experienced. I quickly became aware of the need “to develop proformas/plans that can be followed and adapted” (Online Research Diary, 14.3.2015 ) supporting teachers to be tentative, reflective and generous in their observations and with each other.

To structure the first two lesson observations, I used a framework for observation developed from Burroughs-Lange (2004) and illustrated in Figure 1. This framework called for teachers to respond to the group identifying anything they considered thought provoking and interesting. Any initial thoughts were developed through a series of open ended prompts for talk, such as “I wonder what that might show us…?” or “What could

9

that tell us?”. Although this framework called for the participants to observe and reflect, I realised that it did not explicitly demand that they used the research evidence they were exploring in response to the teaching and learning they were observing. In addition, it became clear that although the initial model was effective for behind the observation screen sessions, a different, more layered approach to observation would be required when observing lessons on video.

Figure 1: First framework for observation

After the second session, I reflected that the observation of video evidence made the teachers “ very nervous and tentative about sharing their thoughts, but some interesting ideas came out of it.” (Online research diary, 29.4.2015). As Cordingley et al (2015) note this may reflect the surfacing of deeply held moral and ethical tussles and the critical reflective engagement with existing theories, beliefs and rationales. Consequently, I decided to extend my original model to acknowledge and accommodate the emotional responses of the group.

The second framework for observation included explicit reference to the emotional responses of those involved and provided an opportunity for the participants to express their thoughts and ideas regarding the teaching and learning (see Figure 2). Despite the further layers of structure, I felt, this model failed to lift the dialogue within the group to a level of critical reflection. Often the discussion remained within the lesson, with teachers failing to generalise or apply ideas discussed in a wider context.

10

Figure 2: Second framework for observation

Figure 2. Developing framework for reflective discourse during shared lesson video observations, based on Gibbs (1988)

My third framework for observation aimed to encourage the recognition of contrasting other viewpoints and stances and situated the dialogue within the participants’ control. I felt this model enabled the research evidence to act as a lens through which teachers could interrogate their personal understandings, perspectives, moral and ethical stances. This final model seemed to help shift the responsibility for the discourse from myself as a gatekeeper of knowledge to the teachers, leading them to become constructors of their own understandings. Reflections from the online research diary confirmed that this framework encouraged a change in their perceived participatory and contributory roles within each session. Rather than expecting a top down expert leader to novice model of knowledge transmission, the role of a group facilitator changed into a participant who drew the strands of thinking together and represented them to the group allowing further reframing of the discussions.

11

Figure 3: Third framework for observation

Figure 3. A framework for shared observation and building reflective dialogue based on Jay and Johnson (2002)

How are teachers encouraged to engage with the research evidence?

Becoming responsive to each other

From the beginning, I recognised that an atmosphere of trust was essential to the workings of each Special Interest Group. For most of the twelve members of the group, this was a new and unfamiliar structure to professional learning. The prospect of sharing teaching with each other appeared to be the most worrying aspect of the model, although several teachers were nervous about engaging with the research. Generally, teachers joined the group through one of two routes. The teachers either self-selected out of interest or they were nominated by their Headteachers to be involved, As Hargreaves and Fullen (2006) note, the route by which the teachers joined the group did not seem to affect their engagement or interest in the sessions. It appears that the trusting

12

relationships quickly woven across and through the group, supported the participants to challenge, question, and reflect on the ideas discussed.

It appears that many layers of trusting relationships were established within the group and each one contributed to building the community of learners. The relatively small size of the group, with twelve teachers, was an important factor in allowing teachers to develop personal and professional learning relationships. In addition, the regular sessions over a timeframe of a year allowed teachers the time to explore and develop their practice in the classroom and therefore bring something fresh to contribute to the shared learning of the group. These trusting relationships developed both between individuals, within clusters of individuals and across the group, developing in several stages and took several sessions to secure before resulting in teachers feeling they could “be brave” (Session Record 4, 12.3.15) in their learning.

Stages in Establishing Trust

Stage 1: Group facilitator to individual participant Wenger (1998) suggests that it is essential for every member of the community to feel their knowledge, skills and understandings have equal value and importance. This was encouraged by recognising teachers as constructors of their own learning and contributing as experts in the teaching and learning within their own classrooms and schools. An initial email to the group highlighted my role within the community, not as an expert who would be delivering incontestable knowledge, skills and understanding to the attendees, rather as someone who was enabling the group to exist. My initial email explained that;

“.. the intention is not to run a 'course' but to establish a group where we can explore the effective teaching of guided reading, by observing live teaching and considering some of the research into the teaching of reading and guiding reading.” (group email, 9/9/14)

The email continued by asking all the participants to suggest some areas of interest and topics they would like to consider. From this point, communication pathways were open and regularly used by the group members. Comments varied from organisational requests to reflections on research papers that had been read and teaching and learning successes. Regular group contact was maintained through emails with session planning and session notes circulated, including links to papers and articles of interest.

Stage 2: Participant to ParticipantThe first SIG group meeting began with a short ice-breaking activity which enabled the participants to meet each other and then moved into a group discussion to establish “the working rules of the group” (Session Record, 6.11.2014). These rules encouraged the participants to work together, disregarding role and position in school, by emphasising a “collaborative and collegial” tone, a focus on outcomes for children with attention to the learning 6.11.2014). All sessions were conducted in the round, with the participants

13

sitting in a circle. By SIG group meeting 3, the participants had begun to develop strong professional learning relationships, arranging visits to schools, sharing resources and ideas. Over the sessions, the language the teachers used to share their teaching and learning changed. By Session 4, one participant described “being brave” as they tried a new strategy and the group began to describe “teaching disasters” as well as successes. As the trust between members developed, they began to value all experiences as opportunities for the group to share and learn from.

Stage 3 – Participant to the GroupBy the fourth session, the group as a whole began to acknowledge and power of teaching for each other. As one participant articulated, they realised that by sharing your teaching, you were allowing everyone to learn. They felt there was “great power in having teachers from different year groups, as this widened the range teaching observations they could share and reflect on.” Research Diary (20.3.2015)

Whilst teaching behind the observation screen provided spontaneity and the opportunity to share reactions from different viewpoints, the video observations allowed the teacher to be part of the group, share in the discussion and develop the contextual understandings beneath the observable learning. Both were perceived as valuable but challenging learning opportunities, as one participant noted “it is hard to open your practice to the scrutiny of others, but the power if it is the reflection you have, seeing it through the eyes of the others.” (focus group interview, 11.06.15)

During the focus group interview (11.06.15), the participants identified they would have enjoyed the opportunity to use other forms of evidence such as sharing lesson records, planning and resources to add depth to the dialogue. However, it was within the observation of teaching that the distinction between espoused theories and current practices became evident as the participants explored their teaching from within the viewpoint of the other members of the group

It appears that the trusting relationships built within and across the group ensured that all members felt supported and valued. As one participant commented “you have allowed us to talk about what we wanted. We have had the chance to discuss and reflect and think. That has been really refreshing!” (focus group interview, 11.06.15 ). The regular sessions provided the space for both trusting relationships and practice to develop and the sessions were enjoyed for their quality and depth, rather than the time spent doing them.

14

What counts as good evidence?

Becoming responsive to the evidence

The evidence used with the SIG groups could be interpreted from two different angles: the research evidence presented by external agencies and the evidence of practice observed within the teaching sessions.

Positively, all the teachers felt their teaching had improved and developed over the year they attended the sessions. They were surprised by the gradual nature of the change and the subtly of their deepening understanding. Interestingly it was only through prompted reflection did the teachers acknowledge “a development of practice in guided reading, an opportunity to add to their professional toolkit of examples. “ (focus group response, 11.06.15)

At least for some members of the group, there appeared to be a change over time in their responses to the research evidence and papers they considered. Initially, the participants admitted they rarely engaged with research evidence. As one teacher explained "I rarely look for research for my own teaching. I usually go online to find something for someone else, use it in my leadership role. I've never really thought of doing it myself" (questionnaire response). Despite 84.5% of the articles and papers used during the sessions being easily available through the internet (see Appendix 2), a teacher acknowledged "I never look for research, I just use the internet to find ideas about what to teach. Maybe I should!" (Questionnaire response).

Although I considered it important to present the group with different styles of research papers and articles, an analysis of the evidence papers used revealed that I tended to rely on large meta-analysis and literature reviews. On the surface, this type of research paper might be a useful tool for teachers, presenting a synthesis of the findings of a wide range of studies with clear implications for the classroom. However, the teachers in the SIG group found this style of research to be challenging, considering it to be "quite a hard read with a lot of findings.” (email. 4.2.2015). More importantly, they felt this type of research lacked any practical application, being principally for an academic audience and lacking any classroom application. The group suggested research evidence was most accessible when it was presenting the evidence from one study as a short pdf (focus group interview 11.06.15). They enjoyed papers with a practical focus, focusing on pedagogical issues in which they “could identify their own practice in what they read.” (Online research diary 29.4.2915), in contrast to those that focused on highly theoretical subject knowledge. As Sharples (2013) notes “high quality reviews are necessary but not sufficient for practice: they need interpreting for guidance and converting into meaningful materials.” (p14).

15

Nevertheless, by the end of the six sessions the teachers recognised the value of the research in providing a direction and focus for professional dialogue and encouraging critical reflection (focused group interview, 11.06.15). They had become more comfortable with challenging the evidence, exploring the claims made and becoming critical consumers of the evidence.

In addition to the published research, further rich sources of knowledge were used within the group as evidence including live teaching and video recordings. These forms of evidence can also be challenging, demanding the development of new professional skills.

Live teaching observations demanded a precision of perception and fast responding from the teachers in order to explore the teaching. All observers share a moment in time from within differing personal professional and theoretical understandings. Discussion can develop a collective and collegiate interpretation of the events. In contrast, video observation provides the teacher with the opportunity to share their teaching decisions with the group, but require they reflect on their practice at the same time as the others. The focus group interviews highlighted a difference in opinions as to which form of sharing practice was more comfortable. Some teachers preferred to be observed from behind the screen as “you can’t hear what they are saying” (focused group interview, 11.06.15). Alternatively, others preferred to video themselves working with small group if children within their own school context in order to share their teaching.

16

Lessons from the study As Cordingley et al (2025) note, and this study has highlighted, there is not a “one size fits all model to teaching and learning” for both children and adult learners. This small pilot study sought to establish the feasibility of using a Community of Practice (Wenger and Lave, 1985) model as a framework to develop teachers’ capacity, capability and agency to adapt their teaching according to a research evidence base and to begin to develop protocols and frameworks that might scaffold this approach to professional learning across the Teaching Alliance.

By using a critical framework through which to explore the layers of data collected, three essential strands have been revealed which may contribute to the establishment of effective teacher professional learning communities. These strands reflect a growing acceptance that understanding that effective teacher professional learning must stem from and reflect the interests and understandings of teachers.

Building AwarenessAs the data has shown the Special Interest Group provided an opportunity for the teacher participants to build their learning, examining their tacit understandings through the lens of educational research evidence.

Key points for consideration 1. A group of 10-12 participants encourages a shared learning community

2. Ensure session are short, planned, regular and powerful

3. Respect individual differences and starting points. Ensure teachers are in control of the process and support emotional responses that participants may have non-judgementally

4. Use frameworks to support discussion, lesson observations and the session. See Appendix 2 for further models.

5. Encourage participants to bring a range of evidence to share at the sessions. The facilitator should not be the gatekeeper to knowledge.

Becoming responsive to each otherSharples (2013) notes that “research use is emerging as a largely social practice, with interaction and relationships being key factors in determining how evidence get used and applied in practical settings” (p18) and this small study suggests that Communities of

17

Practice (Wenger and Lave, 1985) in the form of Special Interest Groups may be able to provide a safe space in which teachers can open their practice to the scrutiny of others in the light of research evidence. Through the use of the groups, the teachers involved developed a shared sense of purpose and engagement.

Key points for consideration 1. Consider the different stages and layers of trust that need to be established within the group.

2. All teachers must be prepared to share – they need to be brave with each other

3. Consider using a wide and varied range of evidence (lesson observations, records of teaching, resources developed) to add contextual background to the learning

Becoming responsive to the evidenceAs Sharples (2013) notes,“ research into knowledge mobilisation suggests that impacts are more likely when resources are supported through interactions and discussions with practitioners about evidence and its use in their particular contexts. “ (p16). Supporting the understanding of the pedagogy of teaching may be more important when supporting teacher professional learning.

Key Points for Consideration

1. Use short articles that have a directly practical application, focusing on the development of pedagogical skills rather than subject knowledge.

2. Ensure teachers are supported to understand and challenge the evidence

3. Look for evidence that builds on and reflects the interests of the group.

Further questions This report highlights the findings from a small pilot study seeking to consider the potential benefits and limitations of using a community of practice model to support the professional learning of teachers. There are many limitations that must be recognised in the finding and areas worthy of further exploration. Firstly, as Wiliam (2014) notes, the process and methods of supporting teacher development needs careful attention. This small groups study suggests there could be very substantial benefits in supporting

18

teachers to develop their pedagogical knowledge in this way. The study was conducted with a small self-selected sample of primary school teachers, from one geographical location, with one person acting as the group facilitator. Therefore the replicability of the structures and frameworks included are yet to be tested. Further questions about the generalisability of the model would benefit from further study. These include exploring the role of evidence used within the group and the types of research evidence which prove most effective for study.

19

ReferencesBiesta, G., Priestley, M. and Robinson, S. (2015) The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21:6, 624-640

Bransford, J.D., Brown A.L. and Cocking, R.R (1999) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Commission on Behavioural and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, Washington DC, National Academy Press. Accessed 20.07.2015 at how people learn

Brown, C. (2015) Leading the Use of Research and Evidence in Schools, London: IoE Press,

Brookfield, S. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burroughs-Lange, S. (2004) Teacher Leaders as Teachers of Experienced Professionals, The Networker

Caudle, L. A., Moran, M.J. and Hobbs, M.K.(2014) The potential of Communities of Practice as Contexts for the development of agentic teacher leaders: a three year narrative of one early childhood teacher’s journey. Action in Teacher Education, 36:1, 45-60

City et al. (2010) Instructional Rounds in Education, USA:Cambridge, MA

Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., Elliot Major, L. (2014) What Makes Great Teaching? Review of the underpinning research; CEM, Durham University, The Sutton Trust

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education, London:RoutledgeFalmer

Cooper, A. (2010) “Knowledge Brokers: A promising knowledge mobilisation strategy to Increase research use in education.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for American Education Research Association, Denver, Colorado

Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., Saunders, L., Coe, R. Developing Great Teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust. 2015.Accessed 20.07.2015 from Teacher Development Trust

Finlay, L. (2008) Reflecting on Reflective Practice

Hargreaves, A. and Fullen, M (2012) Professional Capital. Oxford, UK: Routledge

Jay, J.K. and Johnson, K.L. (2002) Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73-85.

20

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Larrivee, B. (2000) Transforming teaching practice: becoming the critically reflective teacher, Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293-307.

Mc Niff, J and Whitehead, J. (2006) All you need to know about Action Research. London:Sage

Gibbs, G (1988) Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.

Gillham, B. (2000) Case Study Research Methods, London: Continuum

Nutley, S., Walter, I.C. and Davies, H. (2012) “What counts as good evidence?” London: Alliance for Useful Evidence

http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/What-Counts-as-Good-Evidence-WEB.pdf

Accessed 26.6.2015

Priestley, M., Biesta, G. and Robinson, S. (2015) Teacher Agency An Ecological Approach. Bloomsbury Academic, UK

Robson, C. (2011) Real World Research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing

Schon, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, USA: Jossey

Bass

Sharples, J. (2013) Evidence from the Frontline; A report for the Alliance for Useful Evidence

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. & Fung, I. (2007) Teacher professional learning and development. Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education

Timperley, H. (2008) Teacher Professional Learning and Development. International Academy of Education. International Bureau of Education, Paris: UNESCO

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press

Wiliams, D (2001) Embedded Formative Assessment, US: Solution-Tree Publishers

Wiliams, D. and Leahy,S. (2014) Sustaining Formative Assessment with Teacher Learning Communities. Available at

21

Winter, R. (1996) Some principles and procedures for the conduct of action research. In

O. Zuber-Skerritt (ed) New Directions in Action Research. London:Falmer.

Zeichner, K. M., and Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

22

Appendix 1The session structure for the Special Interest Group sessions

Before the session

The participants pre-read selected piece/s of research. This research is identified by the SIG leader, from topics suggested by the group. Each piece of pre-reading to be identified with 2 aims:

1.   To introduce a range of research methodologies, research designs and reports

2.   To challenge and extend the subject pedagogy of the group and provide a forum for discussion

Participants are asked to briefly prepare any thoughts or responses to the research to share during the SIG session.

During the session

The session starts with each participant reflecting on what they have been trialling/changing/noticing in their classrooms in the past week. Resources, thoughts and ideas can also be shared.

This leads into a discussion stemming on their thoughts and reactions to the pre-reading and developing an agreed focus for looking during the lesson observation. A live teaching observation behind a one way observation screen and/or a filmed teaching session follows.

After a live teaching observation, the observers report back to the teacher on the discussion behind the screen, highlighting key strands of the discussion and new insights and knowledge generated. During a recorded lesson observation, the teacher has the opportunity to reflect on and explain their decision making as they teach.

Towards the end of the session, the SIG Leader summarises the strands of the discussion and asks the participants to share any particular areas of interest or thoughts from the session that have resonated with them. The group members were asked to identify something to develop or consider within their own contexts before the next session.

The session concludes with the participants indicating topics and areas of interest that could be discussed in the next session.

After the session

Records of the SIG session are written by the SIG leaders and agreed by the members of the group. Further readings in line with the thoughts and interests of the group are identified and shared, prior to the next session.

23

Appendix 2Using frameworks to structure the discussion allows participants to build towards transformational critical reflection and provides a rhythm to the sessions that teachers transfer to their own professional settings. A structure for the session, with an accompanying plan to record ideas and thoughts is supportive.

A review of the session, including suggestions of what sorts of research the group would like to consider next.

1 Lesson records, planning, children’s work, assessments, resources, interesting books and resources.

2 These may reflect the surfacing of deeply held moral and ethical tussles and the critical reflective engagement with existing theories, beliefs and rationales (Cordingley et al, 2015).

24

i. Welcome; Introduction ii. What has happened since we last met? Reflections and feedback

from the classroomiii. What struck you about the reading/papers? Discussion arising from

the research evidenceiv. Setting the scene for the teaching: Introduction to teaching

observationv. Teaching observation (using framework to structure discussions)vi. What did we notice? Reflection and discussion from observations

during the observationvii. Where will we take these new ideas? What will we try? Exploring

new ideas and thoughts leading to action planning of areas

Crown copyright 2017

The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education.

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: college.research@education.gov.uk or www.education.gov.uk/contactus

25