The Impact of Targeted Continuing
Professional Development (CPD)
On Teachers’ Professional Practice in Science
AN EVALUATION OF THE CLASSROOM IMPACT OF
COURSES PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL NETWORK OF
SCIENCE LEARNING CENTRES (NNSLCs)
Main Report
February 2010
Judith Bennett
Martin Braund
Fred Lubben
University of York
Department of Educational Studies
This report should be cited as:
Bennett, J., Braund, M., & Lubben, F. (2010). The Impact of Targeted Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) On Teachers’ Professional Practice in Science.
Main Report. Report commissioned by the DFCS through the National Science Learning
Centre. York: University of York, Department of Educational Studies.
The full data are stored at the Department of Educational Studies, the University of York.
© Copyright
The University of York, UK, and the authors of the report hold the copyright for the text of the
report. The authors give permission for users of the report to display and print the contents of
the report for their own non-commercial use, providing that the materials are not modified,
copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the materials are retained, and the source
of the material is cited clearly following the citation details provided. Otherwise users are not
permitted to duplicate, reproduce, re-publish, distribute or store material from the report
without express written permission.
The Impact of Targeted Continuing
Professional Development (CPD)
On Teachers’ Professional Practice in Science
AN EVALUATION OF THE CLASSROOM IMPACT OF
COURSES PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL NETWORK OF
SCIENCE LEARNING CENTRES (NNSLCs)
Main Report
February 2010
Judith Bennett
Martin Braund
Fred Lubben
University of York
Department of Educational Studies
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to acknowledge the funding and support received from the
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) through the National Science Learning
Centre. The research team is very grateful to all the staff and pupils at the schools involved in
the evaluation, and to other people who contributed in their various roles.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section 1
Section 2
Executive Summary
iii
Background and context
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1
2
3
4
Review of the literature
2.1
Factors influencing classroom impact of CPD
2.2
2.3
Section 3
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
References
Research questions
Rationale for the choice of case studies
Data streams
Timeline of evaluation of case studies
The Classroom Impact Routes model to CPD
Findings
4.1
Section 5
Interventions
Models for evaluating CPD interventions
CPD evaluation models developed from business
Practice
The evaluation methodology
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Section 4
The role of the NNSLC in science CPD
Previous evaluations carried out by the NNSLC s
Structure of the report and the case studies
A note on anonymity
Participants’ gains from CPD that affect classroom
Practice
Gains in participants’ classroom practice: the P1 route
Gains in peers’ classrooms: the P2 route
Gains in all classrooms: the P3 route
Factors that facilitated progress along CPD routes
Factors that hindered progress along CPD impact routes
Impact of the different course durations
The feasibility and reliability of data collected to explore
classroom impact of CPD
5
5
7
10
12
12
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
19
22
24
24
Conclusions and implications
26
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
26
26
27
27
28
28
Introductory remarks
Factors that resulted in high impact
Recommendations for schools
Recommendations for the NNSLCs
Wider implications for CPD provision
Implications for future research evaluations of CPD
31
i
Annexes
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Search criteria for the nature and extent of change
in classroom practice due to CPD.
Search criteria for evaluation models of CPD activities
Interview schedule first telephone interview with course
participant
Interview schedule second interview with course
Participant
Interview schedule first interview with SMT or HoS
Interview schedule second interview with PD Manager
SMT or HoS
33
34
35
37
40
42
Appendices: The Case Studies
A.
Course A introduction
43
A1
A2
Course A Case Study A1
Course A Case Study A2
45
57
B
B3
B4
Course B introduction
Course B Case Study B3
Course B Case Study B4
68
70
81
C
C5
C6
Course C introduction
Course C Case Study C5
Course C Case Study C6
90
92
102
Annexes to Case Studies
119
ii
Executive summary
Context
1.1
This study focuses on the impact of Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
programmes offered by the National Network of Science Learning Centres (NNSLCs).
The purpose of the study was to add depth to data currently collected from programme
participants by the NNSLCs.
Research study questions
2.1
The study addresses three questions:
 What is the nature and extent of teachers’ professional change in classroom activities
as a result of participating in selected CPD programmes offered by the NNSLCs?
 What are factors facilitating and/or hindering such classroom impact of selected CPD
programmes?
 What are the issues affecting the feasibility of gathering reliable and valid data on the
classroom impact of teachers’ participation in selected CPD programmes?
Key points from the existing literature
3.1
The study includes a systematic review of the research literature on evaluating the
impact of CPD.
3.2
The systematic review shows that the majority of the studies on the impact of CPD have
been undertaken in the USA, and focus on CPD associated with externally-imposed
objectives, most usually relating to the implementation of new standards. Many of the
studies also have a formative component to the evaluation as their aim is to improve
CPD programmes.
Study methods
4.1
The study was undertaken over a nine-month period in 2009-10.
4.2
The study reports eight case studies of four CPD programmes, as summarised below.
Programme
Gifted and Talented
Science demonstrations
Inspiring science through
demonstrations
Inspiring post-16 Biology
Centre
Regional
Regional
National
Age range
Primary (5-11)
Secondary (11-18)
Secondary (11-18)
Duration
One day
One day
Three days
National
Upper
(16-18)
Five days in total
(three plus two days)
secondary
The case studies focus on two participants per programme. The selection of
programmes is such that comparisons can be made between participants from different
schools on the same programme, programmes aimed at teachers in primary and in
secondary schools, shorter and longer programmes with the same focus, shorter
programmes (normally offered at Regional Centres) and longer programmes (normally
offered at the National Centre) and including a two-part programme with tasks to be
completed between the sessions.
4.3
Data were gathered primarily through interviews with the programme participants, and
senior staff in their schools. These were staff who had responsibility for formulating the
school CPD policy and were in a position to gather some evidence of impact in the
school. Participants were interviewed within four weeks of the CPD programme, and
then again two-four months later. Additional data were gathered through observation of
iii
lessons, and document study (action plans and other materials produced by participants
before and during the CPD programme, lesson plans, lesson materials, schemes of
work, electronic materials and other resources generated as a result of participation in
the CPD programme).
4.4
The researchers participated in the CPD programmes for which they were gathering
data.
4.5
For the purposes of the study, ‘impact’ is defined as being able to identify in classrooms
evidence of changes activity that relates to the aims of the CPD programme attended.
4.6
Based on the findings of the study, a new model, the Classroom Impact Routes model,
is proposed for different routes to impact of CPD (see Section 3.5). This was
subsequently used as the framework for analysis.
4.7
Three classroom impact routes, P1, P2, and P3 reflect increasing complexity and levels
of involvement of teachers in classroom impact resulting from CPD:
 The personal impact or P1 route is from participation in a CPD programme to direct
impact in a participant’s own classroom, where participants implement changes in
their own classroom practice that reflect aims of the CPD programme.
 The peer impact or P2 route is where participants share their experiences with some
peers in their school such that both they and the participant modify their classroom
practice to reflect aims of the CPD programme.
 The policy impact or P3 route is where the participant interacts with colleagues and
peers in their school such that changes in structure and/or policy are implemented on
a wide scale. Aims of the CPD programme are reflected in changes in the classroom
practice of the participant and that of several of their peers.
4.8
The new Classroom Impact Routes model differs from a very commonly used model for
CPD impact developed by Guskey (2000) in that it proposes different routes to impact,
rather than a sequential series of steps. The most fundamental difference is that the
‘routes to impact’ model suggests that impact in a participant’s own classroom is
possible and independent of organisational and/or policy change in the participant’s
school.
Key findings: factors identified as contributing to high impact
5.1
A combination of authoritative knowledge gained through CPD and a teacher’s own
inspirational advocacy, is powerfully persuasive. A teacher who is an enthusiastic
participant in CPD will have an impact, irrespective of their status in the school.
5.2
A pre-existing ‘conflict’ in a participant’s context between what they know and what they
are being asked to do is likely to lead to high levels of impact, (e.g. teacher uncertainly
over what demonstrations are permissible under current Health and Safety legislation;
teacher uncertainty about which pupils might be considered to be ‘gifted and talented’).
5.3
The resources, ideas, strategies and policies promoted at the CPD course need to link
closely to practice in the school, rather than conflicting with whole school development
priorities.
5.4
Senior management involvement needs to be supportive, but not unduly directive.
5.5
Their needs to be acceptance that CPD impact in classrooms manifests itself not as a
‘bolt-on’ set of new procedures, but as smaller changes integrated into existing practice;
teachers are very aware of this difference.
iv
5.6
A note of caution needs to be sounded about the effects of recent attempts to
concentrate and rationalise teacher responsibilities in order to justify paying
responsibility allowances or to cross pay thresholds. This potentially creates the climate
where teachers are more likely to be pushed towards the ‘P1 route’ in the Classroom
Impact Routes model, and go for direct impact in their own classrooms, at the expense
of more widespread change.
Key recommendations for schools
6.1
Schools should make more effective use of their existing monitoring and lesson
observation systems to provide more robust and accountable evidence for classroom
impact of CPD.
6.1
Since all courses at RSLCs and the NSLC require participants to submit action plans,
these should be monitored and reviewed by schools as part of their CPD monitoring and
review procedures.
6.3
Teachers should be encouraged to collect examples of evidence of impact of CPD. This
might include surveys of staff use of resources, questionnaire data on pupils’ attitudes to
new teaching or evidence of improved pupil performance in tests, examinations and
homework where this is relevant to the areas addressed by CPD.
6.4
Schools should ensure that there are adequate materials, resources and equipment to
carry out new approaches and classroom activities suggested by CPD. Teachers
coming back from CPD are often frustrated by not being able to implement change over
a short timescale.
6.5
Where dedicated time for CPD is given to departments or school curriculum areas (in
primary schools), this should be protected wherever possible, as teachers feel frustrated
by inroads made to address whole school development priorities.
6.6
The process of allocating CPD for teachers must involve the knowledge and agreement
of all participants and tiers of management.
Key recommendations for the National Network of Science Learning Centres
7.1
Resolution of conflicting views and ideas within departments and schools is fruitful for
moving towards effective classroom impact of CPD. (This equates with psychological,
theory where cognitive dissonance is a precursor to effective learning.) Thus it is
recommended that the NNSLCs emphasises the contentiousness as well as the
information-value of CPD courses and requires providers to identify explicitly potential
alternative (contentious) perspectives and the implied changes in teaching and
departmental and/or school policy.
7.2
Following on from the above, promotion materials should profile courses as
opportunities to discuss and debate contentious issues, with objectives phrased around
questions as well as answers.
Wider implications for CPD provision
8.1
CPD providers should define in their planning intended CPD classroom impact routes
that are most likely from proposed CPD interventions and reflect this in their promotion
materials.
8.2
CPD providers should differentiate the format of the CPD implementation plans to be
completed by each participant for the three different CPD classroom impact routes.
8.3
CPD providers should ensure that courses for the ‘P2’ and ‘P3’ routes in the Classroom
Impact Routes model include (i) ‘try-it-out-yourself’ sessions within the course and (ii)
reports of ‘try-it-out-yourself’ experiences in the last block of a two-part CPD course, as
v
teachers often wish to build confidence through changes in their own classrooms before
engaging with colleagues.
8.4
CPD providers should provide an increasing time period for the evaluation of CPD
outcomes and impacts for the three different routes indentified in the Classroom Impact
Routes model, and encourage course participants to produce an increasing array of
sources of evidence (from themselves, their peers, and their managers) for the
evaluation in each of the three different impact routes.
Implications for the methodology of future research evaluations of CPD
9.1
Case study methods collecting detailed information at different points before, during and
after CPD intervention are essential in understanding the communities of practice and
learning that exist within the area of teachers’ experience that is loosely defined as CPD.
9.2
A data collection period of about a year to eighteen months would enable longer-term
impact effects to be assessed, and would provide a reasonable balance between cost
and quality of data.
9.3
The most informative aspects of the methods are: attendance by the researcher in the
CPD programme, school visits and scrutiny of documents and resources developed, and
interviews with participants and key colleagues.
9.4
The least useful aspect of the methods is observation of teaching, as changes are often
small and distributed throughout lessons. Without extended observation pre and post
participation in CPD, with the attendant costs, little of value emerges.
Usefulness of the ‘routes model’ of CPD impact
10.1 If classroom impact is an intended CPD outcome, the Classroom Impact Routes model
is useful for classifying CPD interventions according to their objectives, identifying
appropriate classroom impact criteria, determining realistic impact time lines and
differentiating appropriate classroom impact evaluation measures.
10.2 The Classroom Impact Routes model is flexible as it enables different CPD foci to be
characterised appropriately. Some CPD topics lean more naturally towards specific
classroom impact routes. For example the course on ‘Gifted and Talented learners in
science’ leans towards the ‘P2’ and ‘P3’ routes as it concerns a cross-curricular theme.
In contrast, a course on ‘Exciting demonstrations in science teaching’ will have little
policy implications and thus leans towards the ‘P1’ and ‘P2’ classroom impact routes.
10.3 The Classroom Impact Routes model also takes account of the length of time
associated with different routes to classroom impact. Impact along the ‘P2’ and ‘P2’
routes (most often seen in primary schools) takes longer than the impact through the
‘P1’ route since it requires a dissemination stage with colleagues and or discussion
stage for policy adaptation.
Recommendations for future research on classroom impact of CPD
11.1 The subject and topic spread of courses evaluated in this small-scale study was limited
by time and resources. The study could usefully be extended to cover CD programmes
in different disciplines; that address science specific training rather than whole school
issues in primary schools; that are implemented over a longer time scale, such as two,
three and four-part courses; where a management or coordination element is included;
where an additional assessment or accreditation demand is present.
11.2 It is vital to explore pre-CPD drivers at personal and institutional level that influence
engagement with, and decisions about, what CPD is chosen.
vi
11.3 The literature on factors affecting classroom impact of professional development has
emerged largely from quantitative studies in the USA, where the agenda is often
externally driven and aimed at system-wide change. In the UK, the agenda for CPD is
more often internally driven within schools, and aimed at more incremental change. The
investment in STEM CPD as part of the national priority to increase general interest,
literacy and uptake of the school population in STEM subjects means it is timely for a
large scale quantitative study to identify factors that affect CPD impact within the UK
context. Some of the methodology of the American studies could be adopted.
vii
1.
Background and context
The National Network of Science Learning Centres (NNSLCs) provides continued professional
development (CPD) at its national and regional centres (RSLCs) targeted at supporting
science teachers in gaining knowledge, skills and confidence needed to change their practice,
for example in using assessment, in teaching practical work, in differentiating pupils’ work.
Evaluations carried out by trainers and managers of CPD at the centres has, so far, described
mainly teachers’ self-reported intentions and actions and reactions to training. There have
been no follow up studies in schools in which they teach to establish to what extent any
changes in practice that occur as a result of CPD have taken place and how these affect
classrooms. This is the purpose of the study reported.
To get a more robust view of the impact of CPD across NNSLCs’ provision, the Department of
Educational Studies (DoES) at York was commissioned by the National Science Learning
Centre (NSLC) to carry out limited in-depth research. The DoES at York has expertise and
experience at evaluation of CPD. For example key national programmes in science such as
the York Science Enhancement Programme (YSEP, Lubben et al., 2006) and more general
CPD such as the Teacher Effectiveness Enhancement Programme (TEEP, Ragbir-Day et al.,
2008) have been evaluated. The Department also has significant expertise at systematic
reviewing of research literature. Although geographically based on the same campus, the
Department was seen as having no direct academic or managerial connections with the NSLC
that would compromise its professional criticality.
1.1.
The role of the NNSLCs in science CPD
A rationale for science teachers’ CPD was established by the White Rose University
Consortium in their proposal to the Department for Education and Skills for funding to develop
the NNSLCs. The argument was made that science teachers should have the same rights and
provision for CPD as has been available to other professions such as lawyers and
accountants and that is a condition of their licenses to practice (The White Rose University
Consortium, 2005). Additionally the consortium argued that CPD was especially important for
science teachers to help assure a highly skilled and motivated workforce, ‘needed to provide
an appropriate level of science education for specialists and the general population’ (p 105).
In the past science teachers, whilst welcoming opportunities for CPD, have not seen it as an
essential part of their professional identity (Wellcome Trust, 2006). According to the NSLC’s
director, John Holman, it is the mission of the NNSLCs to systematically embed CPD in
professional practice and to gradually change the culture of schools towards valuing science
CPD (Holman, 2009). The home page of the Science Learning Centres web site, states that
the NNSLCs, ‘supports teachers in enhancing their professional skills by learning more about
contemporary scientific ideas and in experimenting with effective teaching approaches and
gaining experience of modern scientific techniques’ (sciencelearningcentres.org.uk). The
overall aim is to, ‘improve science teaching to inspire pupils by providing them with a more
exciting, intellectually stimulating and relevant science education, enabling them to gain the
knowledge and the understanding they need - both as the citizens and as the scientists of the
future’.
Jointly funded by grants from the Wellcome Trust and the Department for Education and
Skills, the NNSLCs was established in 2004 and comprises nine Science Learning Centres
(RSLCs) serving regions of England and a National Science Learning Centre at York which
opened at the end of 2005. The network is currently operated under a contract with the
Department for Children, Families and Schools (DCSF). The nine regional centres are mostly
based in Institutions of Higher Education and offer courses for science teachers and school
technicians of short duration (up to three days, but most commonly one or two days). The
RSLCs include very high grade laboratory and training facilities within existing buildings
(except for the North East which was a new build). The NSLC was a new building with multiple
1
bespoke facilities including, laboratories, training rooms, office space, library and archiving
facilities, computer suites, a large lecture hall and video-conferencing.
The NSLC was
endowed with residential facilities and can therefore offer longer courses than at the RSLCs.
Two part courses are common at the NSLC and comprise blocks of two or three days
separated by weeks or months back at school. There are a few courses that involve three or
four blocks of training, more often aimed at managers or coordinators of science in primary
and secondary schools. The other distinct characteristic of the NSLC is that it can provide
courses for the devolved nations of the UK, whereas the regional centres are for England only.
The NNSLCs is furnished with a sophisticated web-based portal system that handles
advertising of courses to schools and hosts areas dedicated to each course from which course
information, handouts, presentations and teaching resources can be downloaded. Course
participants have the ability to upload materials they have contributed as part of their courses
via web portal ‘course areas’ and to maintain contact with their fellow participant teachers.
Currently participants at courses at the NSLC are able to retrieve full costs of their training,
including for supervision cover, by application for ‘impact awards’. These awards are made on
the basis of participants’ action plans, verified by a member of senior management at the
school and submitted to staff at the NSLC. Similar awards are available for participants of
courses at RSLCs but these do not cover costs of supervisory cover. Additional awards of £1K
per school were made available through Rolls Royce from 2009, requiring submission of
printed action plans from courses via a special web portal. Selected submissions are judged
on their merits for bringing about impact from CPD by a team drawn from permanent staff and
tutors teaching at RSLCs and at the NSLC.
Between 2005 and June 2009, the NNSLCs delivered over 70,000 training days to primary
and secondary teachers and school laboratory technicians. It is estimated that in 2008/09, the
NNSLCs engaged in one way or another with 72% of all maintained secondary schools in
England.
1.2.
Previous evaluations carried out by the NNSLCs
The NNSLCs systematically collects evidence of course impact using Guskey’s (2002) impact
model. Briefly, this model differentiates between the following levels of impact of CPD:





Impact level 1:
Impact level 2:
Impact level 3:
Impact level 4:
Impact level 5:
participant’s reactions to the course provision
participant’s learning
organisational (i.e. school or department) support and change
participant’s use of new knowledge and skills
student learning outcomes
All course participants are asked to submit ‘intended learning outcomes’ (see Annexes to case
studies p.125 et seq.) before the start of the course. These outcomes are to be agreed
between the participants and their line managers. Open responses are expected for ‘personal
and professional outcomes’ (knowledge, skills and attitudes of the participant) corresponding
to level 2 and possibly level 4. Participants are also required to state expected ‘broader
outcomes’ (for the school, colleagues, pupils) corresponding to levels 3 and 5.
At both the national and the regional Centres each participant completes a one page ‘Learning
and Evaluation Tool’ (see Annexes to case studies) documenting, for each course session, the
key learning points and a personal plan for subsequent action. Thus evidence is collected for
impact at level 2, with intended impact at level 4 through the action plan.
Some time after course completion a participant is expected to submit electronic or paper
feedback, after consultation with the line manager, on the form entitled ‘The impact of your
professional development’ (annexe to case studies pp 127-130). Separate sections ask
for impact ‘on your knowledge and skills’ (level 2), ‘on your practice’ (level 4), ‘on the school’
2
(level 3) and ‘on the pupils’ (level 5). The respondent uses a four tier scoring scale (from zero
to high impact) and describes evidence for the reported impact. The return-rate for this
feedback varies considerably for different courses, and some RSLC staff query the validity of
some of this self-reported and non-triangulated data.
Our research study focuses specifically on classroom impact (level 4) of courses provided by
the Network. Apart from a measure of the nature and intensity of the impact at this level, we
are also interested not only in how the course has facilitated such impact, but also in the ways
impact (or lack of it) at level 2 (the teacher) and level 3 (the school context) has influenced
classroom impact.
1.3.
Structure of the report and the case studies
The following section of the report (2) summarises areas of the literature relevant to the study;
firstly factors that have been found to influence classroom impact of CPD and secondly on the
methods used to evaluate CPD interventions. This review is followed by the research
questions addressed and descriptions of the methods used to select courses and cases and
collect relevant data. The section on evaluation methodology closes by proposing model, used
to analyse the findings for each case to uncover how and why some actions by teachers have
had more impact in classrooms than others – the classroom impact routes model. The most
important findings are considered in section 4. Gains from CPD that affect science in
classrooms are shown for the three routes to impact, for course participants, for departments
and for whole schools. Factors that facilitate and hinder progress along different CPD routes,
in terms of our analytical model, are considered.
In the conclusions section (5), factors that resulted in the highest impact on classroom
teaching are highlighted and discussed and implications that should be taken account of by
schools and the NNSLCs are proposed. We also suggest how the study contributes to the
current national picture and future for science CPD, the methods used in the study and what
further research might be done.
Case studies provide the raw data from which our findings and conclusions are drawn. Each
case study is effectively a teacher who attended a course in a particular school and each case
is provided as a separate appendix to the report. Case studies are grouped according to which
course was attended and follow a general introduction describing the intended outcomes of
the course and a summary of what was provided and experienced. Case studies are reported
with a common structure:

A brief description of the participant’s school, including information drawn from the
most recent Ofsted report.

The choice process that resulted in the teacher choosing the course.

The teacher’s expectations of the course.

The teacher’s intentions and plans for actions resulting from the course.

Notes of observation of any lessons taught by the teacher (where it was possible
to carry this out).

A table summarising what was evidenced as classroom impact of CPD.

Factors that facilitated classroom impact of the CPD, relating to:


the teacher’s pre-course expectations;
the characteristics and content of the course;
3



the personal characteristics of the teacher;
the school’s ‘implementation space’ for CPD
Factors that hindered classroom impact of the CPD, relating to:




the teacher’s pre-course expectations;
the characteristics and content of the course;
the personal characteristics of the teacher;
the school’s ‘implementation space’ for CPD
We have coined the phrase ‘school’s implementation space’ to conceptualise how physical
and human resources connected with CPD in schools and strategic management processes
and policies interact with CPD actions planned by teachers. These strategic management
actions might be at a ‘macro’ policy level, reflecting school development or national priorities
for change that then translate into ‘micro’ actions such as time and resources provided for
teachers.
1.4.
Anonymity
Throughout the report and in the case studies appended the identity of schools and persons
has been anonymised in line with best practice in educational research. Thus schools are
referred to by fictitious names and interview data by code letters referring to the role of the
person interviewed:
T=
SMT =
HoS=
HoB/HoP=
participant teacher
member of school’s senior management responsible for CPD
Head of Science
Head of Biology/Physics, etc.
Extracts from interviews have a unique code identifying the case study, person interviewed,
time point of the interview (e.g. first, second or third occasion) and the page and segment of
the transcribed interview text from which the extract came. Courses are given letters (A-D) and
teachers-cases numbers (1-8).
Thus: SMT/B4/1.2/6-8 indicates that the extract is from segments 6-8 on page 2 of the
transcript of the first interview with the member of senior management in case school number
4 of the teacher who attended course B.
4
2. 0. Review of the literature
The study has used systematic review procedures. Two systematic searches of electronic
data bases (ERIC and the BEI) were conducted. The search for background literature on the
nature and extent of change in classroom practice as a result of a CPD intervention (research
questions 1 and 2) yielded 146 studies of potential relevance. After screening these studies
against pre-determined search criteria (see Annexe 1) 18 pertinent papers remained.
Secondly, the search for background literature on models for evaluating the impact of CPD
interventions (research question 3) resulted in 270 papers. Using a second set of search
criteria (see Annexe 2) this large number of papers was reduced to nine, mainly because a
considerable cluster of simple CPD evaluations needed to be discarded.
2.1.
Factors influencing classroom impact of CPD interventions
Large scale cross-project studies
A comprehensive study of the CPD initiatives offered within the Eisenhower programme in the
USA used a self-constructed prima face framework for high quality CPD initiatives to evaluate
the factors contributing to classroom change (Desimone et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001). The
framework variables included the CPD content focus, extent of active learning opportunities,
programme coherence, its duration, collective versus individual participation, and the nature of
the CPD activities. Questionnaire and interview data from 86 CPD programme managers and
a representative sample of more than 700 participating teachers were used for regression
analysis.
The findings indicated that the CPD programmes with the highest classroom impact showed
nine common characteristics within the three areas: CPD course content, delivery process and
the implementation context. High impact is related to:
CPD content that:
- is driven by externally-imposed objectives (usually implementing standards);
- is focused on (new) subject matter and related PCK, rather than general teaching
strategies.
CPD delivery process that:
- is based on strict planning for its implementation;
- includes formative evaluation cycles;
- is implemented in close collaboration between CPD providers and school districts
- covers an extended period of time;
- allows for active learning opportunities.
CPD context that:
- demonstrates close links between CPD activities and the reality of school
- explicitly addresses teachers’ goals.
It is noted that the CPD initiatives included in the Eisenhower programme supported large
scale changes in the curriculum, thus several participants were recruited for training.
A more recent study of factors in CPD effectiveness, in terms of teacher learning and the
ability to implement the programmes, has been conducted by Penuel et al. (2007). This study
explicitly builds on the evaluation of the Eisenhower CPD portfolio (Desimone et al., 2002) by
using a more extensive focus on the specificity of implementation contexts. A new theoretical
framework includes five similar and two extra constructs, such as: the focus of CPD (on
subject content, teaching strategies or a mix of these); the scope for teachers’ active learning;
the programme coherence (the perceived alignment of CPD activities and teachers’ own
goals); its duration or time span; the role of colleagues (expanding the notion of collective
participation); reform versus traditional CPD (about ‘proximity to practice’, p.928); and local
support/barriers (resources and hindrances in the school). These last new constructs are
firmly representing the implementation context.
5
Methods are similar to those used by Garet et al. (2001) but now drawing on a sample of 28
providers and 454 participating teachers in the CPD programmes supporting the GLOBE
curriculum, based on inquiry methods, for Earth sciences. The findings show that impact on
programme implementation is related to:
Content:
- the CPD content, with more subject content a higher impact;
- the CPD focus on inquiry and scientific methods;
Process:
- the total hours of CPD input (being negatively or positively related for different impacts);
Context:
- allowance for planning, implementation and integration of the new curriculum on own
practice;
- the degree of on-going, in-school support coherent with school practice;
- the degree of ‘reform-like’ CPD;
- access to equipment and software supporting the new curriculum.
These findings correspond with a systematic review of factors influencing teacher and student
impact of collaborative and sustainable CPD programmes (Cordingley et al., 2005). However,
since this review only includes CPD programmes that take more than 12 weeks, it will not be
further reviewed here. The findings by Penuel et al. (2007) show that classroom impact
depends prominently on factors within the implementation context. In their exploration of the
influences of the school and peer support on teacher change including in their classroom
practices, Loxley et al. (2007) differentiate usefully between teacher context, school context
and systemic context. The influence of each of these contexts may be a useful area of further
research.
More on classroom impact and CPD time
In a small study of the classroom impact of a short CPD workshop to support the teaching of
Earth science at KS3, Lydon and King (2009) analyse questionnaire responses for classroom
impact plus baseline data for the state of pre-workshop teaching of Earth science in 15
participating schools. After one year all schools reported long-term changes, to various
degrees, as evident from changed schemes of work to accommodate practical activities
promoted at the workshop. Half of the schools reported considerable impact, adopting most or
all of the proposed activities. The reported impact resulting from a 90 minute workshop
contradicts earlier reported research suggesting that CPD needs to be sustained for impact to
occur (see also Adey, 2004). Lydon and King (2009) point at the characteristics of the CPD
intervention: it was grounded in an explicit theory of learning, and promoted tried-and-tested
teaching methods supported by high quality and detailed materials for a newly constituted
area in the curriculum. Also teachers, who attended as whole science departments in the
school-based CPD workshop, were encouraged to work in groups and share experiences and
so to take ownership of the changes. These findings suggest that appropriate CPD content
and a facilitating school context can offset the absence of desirable features of the CPD
delivery strategy, such as an extended time period.
The study by Pannizon and Pegg (2007), in contrast, explored classroom impact of a 2-year
CPD experience supporting 25 Australian secondary school teachers with the introduction of
outcomes-based assessment in the science and mathematics curriculum. The intervention
was framed firmly by the SOLO model of assessment, with a focus on how well (qualitative)
rather than how much (quantitative) has been learned. Teachers were introduced to the
notion of the quality of a learning outcome, asked to practice assessment using this notion,
and using this assessment approach were supported in providing an improved learning
environment for their students. Considerable classroom impact is reported. In the discussion
the authors relate this success to; the strong theoretical grounding of the intervention, its long
duration, the shared responsibility by teachers, schools and providers in the learning process
6
and the close integration of activities during workshops and school visits into normal
classroom routine. The wide ranging innovation content (assessment) justifies the use of a
sustained CPD experience, otherwise the aspects leading to impact reside in the areas of
content and context.
The role of electronic CPD strategies and classroom impact
Jauhiainen et al. (2002) report on a multi-workshop CPD intervention for physics teachers
focusing on physics subject knowledge and PCK, innovative laboratory activities, and the use
of concept maps and seminar presentations as teaching strategies. Questionnaires from 230
Finnish teachers show that two out of three teachers reported changes in their teaching
strategies, with one third of these adopting a completely new teaching style for practical work.
Where classroom impact was reported, this was mostly related to small-group discussions on
the course to clarify the promoted strategies and their fit within school teaching. E-mail
discussion groups were seen as unhelpful for supporting classroom impact. These findings
suggest that the CPD strategy is pivotal to classroom impact, as both face-to-face small group
discussions and e-mail discussion groups are part of the intervention’s delivery strategy. The
study by Owston et al. (2008) reports a blended learning CPD programme (with a day-long
face-to-face session and a subsequent eight-weeks online session for each module) for 65
Canadian science teachers aiming to improve subject knowledge and PCK. Classroom
impact was assessed by pre- and post-intervention classroom observations, questionnaires
and an analysis of online discussion postings and reflective journals. Considerable classroom
impact is reported, especially in a change towards a more open-ended and problem-based
teaching approach. Teachers link such impact (and their satisfaction with the programme)
more with the face-to-face sessions, and needed help with planning and allocating time for the
online component. These findings seem to confirm those by Jauhiainen et al. (2002): impact
increases when the engagement with CPD activities is clearly structured. The authors suggest
a critical look at the nature of online tasks and the role of online facilitators in structuring the
CPD experience.
The case studies included in this study will look closely at ways in which CPD experiences are
implemented in school. It concerns short CPD interventions, ranging from one day to five
days spread over a period of three months, and highly structured CPD programmes. The
issues of time span, the nature of course content and the mechanisms of transfer in to
individual school contexts are pertinent.
2.2.
Models for evaluating CPD interventions
The systematic search identified nine studies elaborating on models for evaluating impact of
CPD interventions. Table 1 below summarises these studies, including the name of the CPD
evaluation model, its theoretical basis, its evaluation focus and the power it has in explaining
impact, or lack of it.
7
Table 1: Summary of studies on models for evaluating CPD impact
Author
Name of evaluation
model/framework
Basis for model
Evaluation focus
Basis of explanatory power of
impact
Abel et al., 2007
Project Profile Evaluation
Model
PD effectiveness in
business (adapted from
Guskey 2000)



Accountability
student learning
course modification
Bredeson, 2002
Architecture of Professional
Development Evaluation
Framework
CPD framework (Bredeson
2003)



Accountability
student learning
course modification
Ellison, 2004
Talent Development
Professional Development
Evaluation Model
Teacher Learning Evaluation
Model
CPD framework
(Boykin 2000)




Levels of Professional
Development Evaluation
Model
Hybrid Evaluation Model
PD effectiveness in
business



student learning
teacher attitudes
course modification
teacher knowledge, beliefs and
attitudes (as indicator for
classroom practice)
course modification
student learning
course modification
Learning impact related to
intervention content, delivery
process, project (school)
context
Learning impact related to
intervention content, delivery
process, project (school)
context
Impact related to intervention
content, delivery process, and
particularly school context
None
PD effectiveness in business: 
Logical model (Rossi et al.
2004) and Guskey 2000


CPD framework (Buchanan 
& McCalman 1989)

policy and investment decisions
within educational organisation
student learning
course modification
CPD development process
Course modification
impact related to learning,
organisational support, access,
cost effectiveness
Student learning
cost effectiveness
None
Fishman et al., 2003
Guskey, 2000
Hahs-Vaughn et al.,
2007
Hanley et al., 2008
Change Transition Evaluation
Model
Muijs & Lindsay,
2008
Hierarchical Evaluation model
Templin &
Bombaugh, 2005
Praxiological Evaluation
Model
Teacher Learning model
(Richardson 1996)
PD effectiveness in
business (extension of
Guskey 2000)
CPD framework on
negotiated praxis (Supovitz
& Turner 2000)




teacher practice
course modification
None
None
Impact related to school context
and power-relationships
participant-facilitator
8
Table 1 shows that five of the evaluation models are based on specific CPD frameworks
(Bredeson, 2002; Ellison, 2004; Fishman et al., 2003; Hanley et al., 2008; Templin &
Bombough, 2005). The remaining four evaluation models emanate from models for evaluating
staff development interventions in business (Abel et al., 2007; Guskey, 2000; Hahs-Vaughn et
al., 2007; Muijs & Lindsay, 2008). Not surprisingly, the latter group of models intends to
generate information not only on the educational impact of CPD interventions, but also on their
efficiency in terms of accounting for achievement of stated project objectives, measuring the
cost effectiveness and identifying needs for changes in organisational policy.
All but one of the evaluation models (except Muijs & Lindsay, 2008) intend to provide
information for course modification, i.e. they include substantial components of formative
evaluation.
In some models changes in classroom practice are evaluated directly (Fishman et al., 2003;
Templin & Bombaugh, 2005) whereas in most models the evaluation focuses on measuring
student learning, for which changes in classroom practice are an intermediate impact measure.
About half of the CPD evaluation models intend only reporting the level and nature of impact
of the intervention. However, five studies (Abel et al., 2007; Bredeson, 2002; Ellison, 2004;
Hahs-Vaughn et al., 2007; Templin & Bombaugh, 2005) present evaluation models which also
intend to relate such impact (or lack of it) to characteristics of the CPD course content and the
CPD strategy, and to characteristics of the school context where changes are being
implemented. Linking impact to CPD content, CPD process and school context allows
targeting specific formats of CPD interventions to participants within defined contexts in order
to optimise impact.
CPD evaluation models based on specific CPD frameworks
A number of evaluation models are based on specific models for effective CPD. The related
CPD evaluation model allows a description of the extent to which the CPD model has been
faithfully implemented. The implicit assumption is that a faithful execution of the CPD model
will result in the required impact, including impact in the classroom. For instance, Bredeson
(2002) promotes his Architecture of Professional Development Evaluation Framework by
referring to his CPD model (Bredeson, 2003) which he structures around three architectural
concepts. The need to attend to function of the CPD programme design translates into
evaluation requirements: to what extent have the learning needs of teachers and students
been met? The requirement to address the structure of the CPD design implies for the
evaluation: how do the CPD strategy and content match the context in a given school? The
focus on the beauty of the CPD design results in an evaluation of the affective impact, such as
teachers’ and students’ motivation, confidence, and response to learning opportunities. The
evaluation emphasis is on the impact on learning, not so much on enacted learning in the
classroom.
Ellison (2004) proposes a CPD evaluation model appropriate for the CPD programme
supporting a teaching approach called ‘Talent Development’, specifically aimed at
disadvantaged learners in the USA (see Boykin, 2000). Her Talent Development Professional
Development Evaluation Model consists of a set of prescribed evaluation characteristics. The
three main characteristics are (i) the use of contextually and culturally relevant evaluation
criteria and data collection methods; (ii) multi-aspect evaluation indicators of change going
beyond test scores and including student emotional and cultural development; and (iii) coconstruction of evaluation activities between (internal) evaluators and stakeholders. These
characteristics are also prominent in the related teaching approach, so this evaluation model
simply defines that the main characteristics of the CPD programme are included in the
evaluation. The evaluation emphasis is very clearly on impact in class, and taking account of
the context of learners. However, the evaluation model is sketchy and not easily generalisable.
9
The Praxiological Evaluation Model by Templin and Bombaugh (2005) is more structured but
equally tied to a specific CPD model. In their case, the CPD centres around developing
negotiated praxis (Supovitz & Turner, 2000) through six forms of CPD action:






modelling inquiry forms of teaching;
involving participants in sustained development;
engaging participants in concrete teaching tasks with students;
improving subject-matter knowledge and skills;
helping with connecting performance standards to the work with students;
helping connecting participants with other aspects of school change.
The evaluation model systematically documents to what extent these six CPD components
have contributed to classroom practice. Again, this evaluation model is not easily transferable.
The study by Hanley et al. (2008) uses the ‘Change Transition Model’ (Buchanan & McCalman,
1989) to construct an evaluation model for the process of developing a CPD programme.
Since this evaluation model does only indirectly touch on evaluation of CPD outcomes, the
detail is not discussed any further.
Fishman et al. (2003) develop a CPD evaluation model on the basis of Richardson’s (1996)
model of teacher learning, one step before a model of CPD. The premise is that teacher
knowledge, attitudes and values (KAV) only take shape by enactment in class, and
interactively with student responses. Thus an opportunity exists for measuring classroom
impact by proxy, i.e. through measuring teacher KAV. However, the authors are scathing
about the validity of data from ‘opinionnaires’ (teacher reported views) in order to measure
KAV, and emphasise the need to measure enacted KAV by classroom observations. Although
the evaluation model as proposed aims to improve the CPD intervention, it could also
measure impact on student learning as it uses pre- and post-testing against national standards.
2.3
CPD evaluation models developed from business practice
2.3.1
Based on management of evaluation
Four CPD evaluation models have their roots in the evaluation of staff development
programmes in business. The familiar five levels of the Guskey (2000) model (as discussed in
section 1.2) was the first coherent evaluation scheme for professional development episodes
in education. The other three CPD evaluation models (as in Abel et al., 2007; Hahs-Vaughn et
al., 2007; and Muijs & Lindsay, 2008) are extensions of this scheme.
It is worth summarising that Guskey’s (2002) model allows for evaluating CPD impact at five
different levels:





Impact level 1:
Impact level 2:
Impact level 3:
Impact level 4:
Impact level 5:
participant’s reactions to the course provision
participant’s learning
organisational (i.e. school or department) support and change
participant’s use of new knowledge and skills
student learning outcomes
Guskey sees CPD impact as linear across these levels. This means that impact at one level is
only possible if impact has taken place at previous levels, and that impact at a certain level
does not imply impact at the subsequent level. The Levels of Professional Development
Evaluation Model intends to report on the outcomes of the CPD episode, not the CPD process
or content. The desirable impact is at level 5, the impact on students’ learning. It
accommodates measuring such learning in terms of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, social
or emotional development. Guskey’s evaluation model does not intend to be able to explain
impact, or lack of it, at various levels.
10
In order to capture value-for-money judgements, Muijs & Lindsay (2008), in their Hierarchical
Evaluation Model, extend Guskey’s evaluation model adding a sixth level, ‘judging the cost
effectiveness of the CPD episode’. The authors test the hierarchical nature of this model by
surveying views of UK CPD coordinators and teachers about the use and usefulness of CPD
in their school, and about the extent of CPD evaluation at all levels of the hierarchical model.
Based on the reported frequency of evaluations by level, the study confirms the usefulness of
the hierarchical model. Level 1 evaluations are most frequent (over 75%) as reported by all
respondents, followed by reported level 2 evaluations. However, level 5 is more often
evaluated than levels 3 and 4 as reported by both groups, suggesting the high priority given to
test results as success indicators. Similarly, CPD coordinators report the second highest
frequency for level 6 evaluations (even higher than for level 2) indicating the management
specific evaluation coordinators may experience. In general, impact on levels 2-6 are underevaluated.
Hahs-Vaughn et al. (2007) combine the Guskey model with a Logical Evaluation Model (Rossi
et al., 2004) predictably calling it a Hybrid Evaluation Model. The Logical Evaluation allows for
an evaluation of the outcomes with respect to the achievement of the CPD project’s objectives.
The Hybrid Evaluation Model thus allows to identify the effect of inputs (such as cost
effectiveness, organisational support, CPD access, CPD strategies) directly impacting on
outputs (such as stakeholders satisfaction and learning effectiveness), and thus indirectly on
the use of new knowledge and student learning.
Abel et al. (2007) draw even on a wider set of data. Their Project Profile Evaluation Model
defines the content and delivery process for a given CPD intervention together with the
(school) context in which it is implemented. Several characteristics in each of these three
domains have been identified. These in turn are then related to the CPD impact at the five
Guskey levels. It is noted that within this model level 3 is not considered within the linear
hierarchy, as is evident from Figure 1 below. This model also has the distinct advantage that it
does not only record impact at various levels but also identifies reasons for impact or lack of it.
Figure 1: Modified Guskey Model (from Abel et al, 2007)
11
3.0.
The evaluation methodology
3.1.
Research questions
The evaluation is guided by the following research questions:
1. What is the nature and extent of teachers’ professional change in classroom activities
as a result of participating in selected CPD programmes offered by the NNSLCs?
2. What are factors facilitating and/or hindering such classroom impact of selected CPD
programmes?
3. What are the issues affecting the feasibility of gathering reliable and valid data on the
classroom impact of teachers’ participation in selected CPD programmes?
3.2.
Rationale for the choice of courses and case studies for evaluation
Throughout the report ‘case studies’ refer to teacher participants who attended one of four
different courses at either the NSLC or RSLCs.
Courses were chosen for evaluation on the basis that:



some took place at RSLCs and some at the NSLC, two at each;
they included CPD for both primary and secondary teachers;
they included courses of different durations (one day, three day and two-part).
It was possible to evaluate two courses covering the same theme (science demonstrations)
but of different durations (one day and three day). Bearing in mind the scale of the study, it
was not possible to include courses representing different subject disciplines.
Case studies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8) represent individual teachers in different schools. In case
study 6, two teachers from the same school attended course C and so each of them constitute
part of one case study. We refer to these teachers as cases 6a and 6b. Course four (D) was a
two-part course at the NSLC, the second part of which was not completed until February and
so cases 7 and 8 are not included in the main report. A subsequent additional report will be
issued to take account of additional findings relevant to course D.
Cases (teacher participants in CPD) were self-selecting in that they were often teachers who
course leaders and tutors thought would be willing participants for interviewing. In course B
(one day secondary course on Science Demonstrations at the RSLC in Sheffield) the two
teachers selected for case studies were the only ones who attended the course, the rest of the
participants being school laboratory technicians. Table 2 below shows the courses and case
studies in the evaluation. To relate case study schools/teachers to the course they attended,
each case has a letter (A-D) and a number of the (teacher) case (1-8).
12
Table 2: Courses and case studies evaluated
Course
Location
Course code / Title
Duration
Case study
teachers
Case study
school
A
East
Midlands
SLC,
Leicester
EMC08109: Gifted and
talented science
across the primary
years
One day
A1.
Cambleton
primary school
A2.
Yorks and
Humber
SLC,
Sheffield
NSLC, York
YHC08020: Science
demonstrations:
effective and safe
One day
B3.
Townend primary
school
Ringway High
School
NAC08133: Inspiring
science through
demonstrations
Three day
B4.
C5.
Field Park School
Middleton
Community
School
C6. (6a &
6b)
D7.
Wentworth School
D8.
James Academy
B
C
D
3.3.
NSLC, York
NAC09137: Inspiring
Post-16 Biology
Two part (3
day and 2 day
residential)
Cliffville School
Data streams
Data for the evaluation were obtained from three main sources: documentation, interviews and
observations. Table 3 provides details of what was collected and used.
Table 3: Data sources for the evaluation
Data source
Documentation
Examples






Interviews



Observations


Course documentation providing background on aims and
expected outcomes of the course.
Timetables, session notes, presentations, handouts and
course booklets.
Pre-course tasks submitted by course participants.
Evaluation notes made by course participants during the
course.
Action plans submitted by course participants.
Lesson plans, training materials, booklets and other relevant
materials provided in schools following the course.
Preliminary interviews with NSLC and RSLCs staff.
First telephone interviews with teacher participants, SMT
member and usually, in secondary schools, the Head of
Science or Head of Subject within four weeks of the course.
Follow-up, face-to face interviews in schools some time after
the course (2-4 months later).
Observations by researchers of the courses
Observations of lessons taught by course participants after
the course
13
Interview schedules were designed around a series of questions and prompts to aid
conversations and maintain progress where these might get stuck. Different schedules were
provided for teacher participants and SMT/HoS. The schedules for the second round of
interviews, which took place some time after courses had been completed, were adjusted to
take account of actions planned and documented by course participants and what had been
said in the first round of interviews. All interview schedules were sent to interviewees before
interviews took place. Interview schedules are provided as annexes 1-4.
All interviews were recorded with high quality digital recording equipment and sound files were
transcribed into word processed documents used for analysis and selection of extracts for
quotes.
Researchers visited each case study school 8 to 10 weeks after the completion of the course
and so the second round of interviews took place in a face-to-face environment. In most cases
(1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8) it was possible to observe a lesson taught by the course participant and
notes of these observations are included in case study reports. Visits to schools also allowed
researchers to gather additional information such as examples of lesson plans, training
materials and policy documents connected with the CPD interventions of the course and to
have better understanding of the school and management context of the CPD.
3.4.
Timeline of the evaluation
Table 4 shows the timescale over which evaluation was conducted and what was done.
Table 4: Evaluation timeline
Phase 1 
Phase 2 
Phase 3 
Phase 4
March-May 2009
June-Sept 2009
Sept-December 2009
January – Feb/March 2010

Desk based
study of
NSLC and
RSLC
programmes


Second round
interviews and school
visits for cases 1-6

Course D part 2
attended


Cases 1-6 analysed

Main report produced
Research
planning

Course D part 1
attended




Preliminary
interviews
with NSLC
and RSLC
staff
Selection of
courses for
evaluation
Design of
interview
schedules
Courses 1,2
& 3 attended
First
interviews for
cases 1-6

First round interviews
for cases 7 & 8

Course D second
round interviews

Literature review


Model for analysis
devised and tested
Production of annexe
to main report
containing cases 7 & 8
(March-April)

Production of
individual reports for
schools
14
3.5.
The ‘Classroom Impact Routes’ to CPD impact
As Guskey (2000) suggests, a CPD intervention may have an impact at several levels. It will
determine the participant’s CPD experience (level 1), may change the participant’s knowledge
and understanding (level 2), or affect the school’s or the department’s procedures (level 3),
impact on classroom interactions (level 4) or change students’ achievements (level 5).
The current study focuses on classroom impact. Whereas Guskey’s work mainly evaluates
the impact on the participant’s classroom, it is useful to differentiate additional trajectories for
classroom impact, and explore for each their specific aspects facilitating and hindering impact,
their specific criteria for impact, and, possibly, their specific impact evaluation methods.
In this evaluation we propose a model of three classroom impact (CI) routes. Firstly, a CPD
experience may change the participant (knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivation) who in turn
implements these changes in her/his own classroom, i.e. this is the conventional Guskeyan
classroom impact route. Since this is the most direct trajectory from CPD to the classroom,
this is labelled the P1 (or Personal) route. A second route for classroom impact, the P2 (or
Peer) route, involves the participant sharing and adapting the changes suggested by the CPD
with peers, which will then impact on the activities in peers’ classrooms. Lastly, on the
instigation of the participant, CPD-based changes may be translated into changes in school
(or departmental) policy, which in turn will need to be implemented by the collective school (or
departmental) staff before impacting on classroom activities across the school (department).
Since this is the most elaborate route for classroom impact, we have labelled this as the P3 (or
Policy) route. Figure 2 summarises the model.
Figure 2: Classroom impact routes resulting from CPD input
15
4. 0. Findings
As explained in the section on methodology, evidence of classroom impact of CPD was
obtained from a number of sources and occasions. Where more than one source, for example
from a teacher participant and their HoD or line manager, refer to similar actions and
outcomes, evidence is obviously stronger than in examples where there was only one source.
In the findings that follow most of the examples are from strong evidence but where there are
weaker examples worth reporting, that help give a more complete picture of classroom impact
of CPD, we have included them acknowledging that the evidence base is shallower.
4.1.
Participants’ gains from CPD that affect classroom practice
In most secondary cases personal gains of CPD are sought and valued by participants over
and above departmental or whole school gains and actions even though school or
departmental managers may strongly hope and suggest otherwise.
I think it (impact of the CPD) was probably from a base level…myself …. I think
the school as a whole was probably like the very smallest part….probably self
first … The school part…that would probably just be the sharing of the knowledge
that I have now …
T/B3/1.1.17
The primary cases provide a very different picture. Participants of CPD courses see
themselves as representatives of the school in their capacity of subject or issue (such as gifted
and talented) coordinators. They therefore foreground the gains to the school rather than their
personal gains, ‘It’s alright me going on a course … but really this (G&T) has to be a whole
school approach’ (T/A1/1.4/8. p. 46).
In most cases participants had a good idea of what to expect from courses and in general
were not disappointed by content or quality of delivery. In all cases teachers mentioned that
the CPD gave them confidence and hence an enthusiasm to try out and incorporate new
approaches in their teaching. In case B4, for example, the teacher seemed to take on board a
renewed enthusiasm for using more practical activities in science classes – lost since his days
studying for a PGCE (B4 p. 82). This was corroborated by observations made by his Head of
Department and a member of the SMT.
… if I go past his room now invariably they (pupils) will be doing a practical. If I look
at the QAS observations (observations recorded through quality assurance by senior
staff) there will be a practical involved, so I think in that respect the few instances
where he wasn’t sure what practical he could bring in, I think that has reduced that
even more now. I think it (the course) has benefited him. He says that he enjoyed
the course and it has given him a little more confidence, so I think it was good.
HoD/B4/2.3/1
Even in a case where the nature of impact was clearly intended to be at departmental level
and outcomes were very full and took place on all CPD routes (C5), personal gains were still
very important and evidenced even though they might have been downplayed by the teacher
(SMT/C5, p.99).
Gains related to the CPD choice process
In case A2 the headteacher of the primary school pursued a policy of internal staff
development partly as a result of her experience of poor quality of externally provided CPD.
Staff entitlement to go on (limited) external courses was by their own volition –– providing a
16
degree of personal professional autonomy (T/A2 p. 57 - 60). Caution about choosing external
CPD, based mainly on perceived quality of outcomes, was also a feature of some secondary
case studies (SMT/B3, p. 78). In all cases the experience of CPD at the RSLCs and the NSLC
did not disappoint managers and quality was often praised:
The crucial thing … is that training is often poor …. Either teaching grandmothers to
suck eggs, it’s patronising, or you sit through 2 or 3 hours and get 20 minutes worth.
The training that she (T/C5) went on brought back an enthusiastic teacher bouncing
- two thirds of the department have now been to a course at your place (the NSLC)
and they have come back bouncing.
It is quality training … we have so many courses and they are just reading a
PowerPoint to you … God Almighty! … Now we have people come back, who can
be critical in the best sense of the word, and they are coming back saying ‘this is
good’. Somebody has done a good job somewhere and needs a pat on the back!
It’s just damn good training and I think it is worth every penny… not that we pay
anything (for courses at the NSLC)… I would make money available out of our
budget for it and will do it if necessary because quality training is hard to find and
that is the key thing.
SMT/C5/2.4/1-5
There was evidence that teachers in all cases were willing volunteers for CPD rather than
coerced conscripts. The value of doing this was expressed by one of the SMT members thus:
I think they (the teachers) were volunteers … if you are going to do something like
this it needs to be with people who are on your side to begin with … I am not a great
fan of saying ‘right you need some help here – away you go’ …so I think they were
willing volunteers.
SMT/C6B.3/6
In primary school cases teachers were also ambassadors acting on behalf of the school and
so decisions on course selection and participants are collegiate, addressing whole school
priorities. In secondary cases CPD choices are part of a management process for CPD that
lies within the sphere of whole school development and action planning
4.2. Gains in participants’ classroom practice: The P1 route
In all cases there was evidence that information and resources provided on courses resulted
in some adaptation or change in participants’ teaching. For example in cases A1 and A2
activities to stretch the most able pupils had been incorporated into lessons and in cases B3,
B4, C5 and C6 there was evidence that participants now used science demonstrations shown
on courses. In cases B3 and C5 the practice of science technicians was also influenced by
information and resources provided on courses. Participants generally felt that activities and
methods introduced on courses saved them having to search out similar activities from a
number of different sources making more effective use of precious planning time (see B3,
p.74).
In some cases (A2, B4, C6) there was some (weaker) evidence of more general pedagogical
shifts in teaching for example to changing questioning strategies to provide more thinking/wait
time to using more practical work in science lessons and to use demonstrations as a starting
point for teaching about complex or abstract concepts such as wave theory or chemical
bonding. In case C6 one of the teachers (T/C6a) felt that having to carry out practical work
during the course helped him appreciate the difficulties that pupils have when they learn
science.
17
You know when we did it (carrying out the demonstrations ourselves) It put me more
in the position of how the kids see things … so it was helpful in that sense really.
Especially when I had to do that demonstration which I didn’t think went that well
myself … but you’d sit there and think … yes that’s what I need to be doing, that
person (participant) was good at theirs. So it was nicking ideas really from others….
Sitting there and watching other demonstrations and criticisms of my own
demonstration…It’s just this business of trying to improve and trying to engage kids
really.
T/C6a/1.3/7
In some cases teachers implemented outcomes in the hope they would impact pupils’
engagement in science lessons (T/B3 p. 74-6) or attitudes to science. In the case of T/B3
there was evidence, provided by a teaching assistant working in the lesson, that a
demonstration had indeed engaged previously uninterested pupils (T/B3 p.74).
4.3. Gains in peers’classrooms: The P2 route
Although most impact was seen in participants’ own classrooms there was some (weak)
evidence of other pupils being impacted by participants’ actions following CPD. For example
demonstrations were used at science clubs (case B3 and C5) and at meetings for pupils from
other schools, for example at primary-secondary transition events and open days (case C5).
CPD authority
There was some evidence that courses at NSLC and RSLCs provide an authoritative voice
helping resolve previously conflicting ideas or professional confusion. For example in both
primary cases teachers welcomed clarification of previously confusing or conflicting definitions
and information on quotas of gifted and talented pupils. In the secondary cases (B3, B4, C5
and C6) teachers valued clarification of what demonstrations and practical work are allowed
on health and safety grounds. In the primary cases the status and experience of the tutor
provided a trusted authority and in secondary cases this was supported by reference to
professional bodies such as CLEAPPS and the RSC.
Congruence of CPD
In most cases personal professional development that accrued from courses (on P1 routes)
was valued by participants at least as much, if not more than, gains for colleagues though all
gains were seen as being more acceptable and worthwhile, particularly by school managers,
when part of whole school or departmental professional development. In case A1 it was seen
as a bonus that strategies for teaching gifted and talented pupils also dovetailed well with work
already going on into active assessment for more able pupils and made use of already
available resources and materials. In case A2 it was also seen that suggested approaches
could be adopted without modification for use in large classes (of 30 or more pupils).
In secondary schools the classroom impact through the P2 and P3 routes was entirely at
Departmental level. It was greatest where the school’s implementation space for CPD and the
personal characteristics of participants conspired sympathetically with whole school
development to allow a cross fertilisation of ideas and rapid transfer and use of approaches by
a number of teachers (see section 4.4).
18
4.4. Gains in all classrooms: the P3 route
Gains affecting classroom practice across a whole school were more likely in this evaluation
from cases of primary CPD. This is probably because primary teachers, although attending
subject specific CPD, are not specialists seeing themselves more as generalists responsible
for pupils’ whole educational development. Thus teachers may be looking for CPD that
provides methods generalisable to their and their colleagues’ teaching in many or all subjects.
It may also be that the specific course researched here, on science for gifted and talented
pupils, was naturally more general in outcome than courses on practical investigations in
science or teaching electricity might have been. In case A1 there was strong evidence that
CPD outcomes shifted school policy on provision for gifted and talented pupils. In case A2
evidence for whole school change in policy was weaker though at least the school was helped
in clarifying its position by having more robust definitions on what constitutes gifted and
talented pupils.
4.5.
Factors that facilitated progress along CPD routes
Progress related to participants’ characteristics and status
A general trend is that personal, departmental and school gains impacting classrooms (on P1,
P2 and P3 routes to CPD) depend partly on the age, experience, status or position of the
participant. Position and status of the participant in a school may be connected to CPD intent.
Thus in cases B3 and B4 teachers were newly qualified teachers (NQTs) in their first year in
post looking for immediate professional gains to build teaching repertoires. Gains tended to be
limited to impact in their own classrooms using techniques and information gleaned from the
course. In cases A2, A2 and C5 teachers were ambassadors of schools or departments
looking for gains that would impact their own classrooms but also for colleagues and the
department or whole school. In these cases gains helped clarify and refine school policy as in
cases A1 and A2 (on provision for gifted and talented pupils) or were part of a general move to
improve the range of teaching and learning approaches in science so as to improve pupils’
attitudes and performance in science (case B4, C5 and C6a). In primary cases participants
were coordinators where there is a professional remit to gain expertise and knowledge on
behalf of others and to disseminate and help develop practice as a result. In primary schools
teachers work across subjects in a cross curricular way whereas in secondary schools CPD
tends to be subject focussed and embedded.
Progress on P2 and P3 routes is also a matter of participants’ personal enthusiasm for change
and their persuasive abilities in convincing colleagues of a need for change. In the two
primary case studies (A1 and A2) and in one of the secondary cases (B3), teachers felt they
had to try approaches met on the course first in their own classrooms so that they had more
realistic and pragmatic grounds for suggesting their colleagues act in similar ways or use the
same activities. In case B3 a newly qualified teacher felt CPD gave him improved status and
professional authority with colleagues who would then be less likely to view him as a novice
unable to ‘teach old dogs new tricks’. He was able to use his status and the authority of
knowledge gained on the course to challenge the reticence of technicians and teachers to use
some practical work they previously claimed was banned (T/B3, p. 75-6).
Progress related to style and content of courses
Courses at both NSLC and RSLCs allow time which might not be available in school-based
training for scientific concepts and processes and teaching approaches to be explored in
depth. This together with the authoritative voices of tutors was crucial in helping teachers gain
familiarity and confidence particularly in disputed areas such as defining gifted and talented
pupils or in establishing legal frameworks and risk factors for practical work. Time to meet
other teachers and talk over similar problems faced by teachers in different schools was a
valued element of courses.
19
Progress due to characteristics of schools’ implementation space and procedures
for CPD
In the analysis of case studies (appended) we have used the term ‘implementation space’ to
describe the physical and human resources available in a school and the ‘macro’ strategic
management processes and policies of the school regarding CPD that in turn impact ‘micro’
structural considerations such as timetabling and facilitation of CPD. In this evaluation it
appeared that secondary schools have a more complex implementation space for CPD than
primary schools. For example in both primary schools CPD actions were the responsibility of
the headteacher in direct negotiation with course participants. In secondary schools there
were several layers of responsibility usually involving a coordinator for CPD (often a deputy or
assistant headteacher), a line manager responsible for science and/or other faculties and a
head of subject and/or a head of department (science) or of a faculty (of STEM subjects) sometimes both. There is thus more likelihood in secondary schools, if layers of management
are not fully coherent and coordinated by rapid and effective cross communication between
them, for CPD intentions to remain unfulfilled or partially completed.
In most cases there is at least an expectation that participants will disseminate course
outcomes to other colleagues and in some cases specific space is allocated for this, for
example in school or departmental time given over to CPD. In Ringway High School (case B3)
there was evidence of the most highly developed system that included; regular meetings of a
‘development group’ representing learning faculties of the school at which development needs
are reviewed and strategy planned, half-termly days or half days dedicated to professional
development and sharing of good practice, weekly staff meetings that always include a chance
to share good practice and departmental/faculty meetings that begin with celebration of good
practice as a matter of course. In addition, individual teachers are required to self review their
performance and self assess development needs which are then communicated to, monitored
and reviewed by each faculty head. In this way space is created for individual needs to be
recognised but at the same time in cognisance of the school’s overall development needs. In
the case of T/B3 the school’s very high expectations were adjusted in recognition of the
teacher’s relative inexperience as an NQT and to help him implement personal classroom
change (P1 route) with some, more limited, progress through P2 and P3 routes.
The most effective progress on all CPD routes (but especially on P2 and P3 routes) is not
necessarily connected with the professed complexity or efficiency of the school’s CPD system.
For example, in case C5, Middleton Community School had the usual organisational layers for
CPD but a more relaxed attitude sympathetic to the needs of the department (but see
competing agendas for CPD in the following section).
The Deputy Head in charge of CPD at Middleton said this:
To be perfectly honest … well obviously we have whole school issues such as
assessment for learning and all this sort of stuff …but really we try and respond to
staff need and staff ideas. So if people can take responsibility, I mean obviously we
guide them and try and offer them things, but the way we try to grow curriculum and
grow ideas is sort of increase people – so saying, ‘well, what do you want to do?’
SMT/C5/1.1/10-12
In this case CPD impact on all routes was exceptionally positive and effective and was backed
by a number of corroborating sources of evidence (see table 1 p. 94). Perhaps what we have
here is an example of the ‘dream ticket’ for CPD impact. The ‘conditions’ in the implementation
space that combined to allow this included:

The time was ‘right’ – a newly appointed Head of Department (HoD) seeking a willing
ally (T/C5) to implement change.
20




The right ‘central alliance’ – T/C5 seen by the SMT as an ‘alpha teacher’ working with
a willing though less experienced middle manager (HoD).
The right ‘relaxed conditions’ allowing the alliance to occupy and function in the CPD
implementation space – helped by SMT who ‘backed off’ (see quote above).
The right course type – a course on effective demonstrations that was seen to be in
sympathy with improving science by making it more exciting and appealing to pupils
thereby raising their levels of interest in and attitudes to science.
Previous contact with NNSLCs courses. The teacher and her HoD had both previously
attended a course at the NSLC and had been impressed by its quality.
These conditions were supplemented by a degree of faith shown by the SMT member in
charge of CPD for the teacher involved. He saw her, her alliance with the recently appointed
HoD and the chosen course as a fruitful way of implementing change:
Well we’ve had a new head of science, only been teaching for four years… and she
came in January and obviously has immense talent but still has a lot of issues that
she needed support in and we took the gamble that somebody like T/C5 who was
that good (as an inspirational teacher) and with that much potential we would
develop and go on … so she wanted to make an impact and she came in with this
idea and one of the ways was to use yourselves (The NSLC) as a way of going
forward.
SMT/C5/ 1.2/4
Here, CPD impact actions ran simultaneously on all three routes; P1, P2, and P3. Indeed the
P3 route involved visits to other places ‘off the route map’, for example, to get associated CPD
impact from other sources including more courses at the NSLC and additional support for
physics teaching from the Institute of Physics. Other P3 route actions included; lunchtime
training sessions for staff, documented resources to support teachers, special event days for
gifted and talented pupils and pupils from feeder primary schools and a specially adapted
programme for ITT students (see all pages of case C5 p. 92-101).
In all secondary school cases the CPD implementation space included monitoring by
departmental or SMT managers but direct evidence from this (including observation of
teachers’ lessons) was not always available or, where it was, it was not able to provide robust
enough evidence to corroborate other claims for classroom impact of CPD.
Progress associated with resources
In view of recent agreements to assure the ‘rarely cover’ agreement with teachers’
professional associations it is worth noting that, in Field Park School (case B4), additional
cover supervisors had been employed, partly to facilitate attendance at external CPD. In this
case additional budgets from being a ‘National Challenge School’ were used to support CPD
and the appointment of supervisors.
The ‘stimulus’ of having to submit an action plan for award of additional finance (from the Rolls
Royce award scheme) may mean that action planning from courses at NSLC that qualifies for
this scheme is carried out more thoroughly and hence that P2 and P3 route actions are
promoted, though the time scale of the evaluation did not allow us to collect evidence to
explore this.
21
4.6.
Factors that hindered progress along CPD impact routes
Course characteristics (content/style/timing)
In a few instances documentation supplied on the course was felt to be rather overburdensome which might have impacted on dissemination. In the case of both courses on
effective demonstrations it was felt by a participant on each one that the course did not include
enough demonstrations related to the participants’ specialist subject, physics. In one case
study a participant felt that the timing of the course (on effective demonstrations), late in the
school year, did not allow enough time for reflection on outcomes, space for implementation
with colleagues or to assess impact by gathering data on performance or attitudes of pupils. In
all secondary case studies implementation effort along all CPD routes was strongest in the
weeks immediately following the course. At second interviews and during school visits there
was evidence of a tailing off in effort resulting from CPD except in case C5 (the ‘dream ticket’).
Although all courses evaluated required the submission of participants’ action plans it is worth
noting that two of the six case study teachers did not do this. There was no strong evidence,
however, that this hampered implementation of change or progress on CPD routes though it
should be noted that the most developed plan (in case C5) was in the case of the CPD ‘dream
ticket’ referred to earlier.
The characteristics of schools’ implementation space and procedures for CPD
In case C6 a breakdown in communication within the school’s implementation space
conspired against progress on P2 and P3routes to CPD. In this school two teachers attended
the three day course on effective demonstrations at the NSLC at York with the explicit
intention that they would collaborate to support each other in sharing CPD outcomes within the
science faculty. The arrangement was made through SMT without the knowledge of the HoD
who would rather have invested departmental CPD effort in more general training addressing
gaps in teachers’ subject knowledge and subject PCK in chemistry (see HoS/C6 p. 103.
Another factor that contributed to the lack of progress in this case was the significant
differences in the teaching capabilities and professional characteristics of the two teachers.
This was the only case where lessons observed in the contextual visit to the school yielded
important information on relative CPD impacts in classrooms (see C6 p. 109-110).
If the school’s implementation space has not provided a climate of mutual professional trust, in
which teachers’ classrooms and practices are open then, even where other characteristics are
in favour, some intentions following CPD can be thwarted. For example in the most positive
case of impact (C5) the teacher’s only example of action that did not take place was to monitor
staff lesson plans. Typically, this teacher found a way around this blockage on the P3 route to
obtain the information she wanted by other means (by scrutinising lists for equipment
submitted to technicians).
…My other thing I wanted to do was to check who was doing what by looking at
lesson plans and lesson observations. That didn’t go down well in the department.
Many staff didn’t feel that they should have to submit a lesson plan to me because it
is their lesson plan and it’s their lesson. They didn’t want me to go in looking at
their lessons because basically ‘what right have I got to do that?’ So we had to
change that… it wasn’t that I went in and looked at their lessons but we looked at
the request sheets, who was ordering what and then we also went and looked at if
they ordered it but have they actually used it. So we looked at the stuff when it
came back to check if it had been used.
T/C5/2.2/2
22
Competing agendas in schools’ CPD implementation space
In some cases (A1, C6) there was poor congruence between the intentions and outcomes of
CPD courses evaluated and departmental or school priorities for development. In case A2
there was a worry that what might be said in subject training about provision for gifted and
talented pupils might clash with or endanger work already going on but this turned out not to
be the case.
In case B3 where the teacher was an NQT the pressures of other almost simultaneous CPD
can compete for the available time to take on board suggestions. Here there may be a case of
personal CPD overload which is particularly difficult for NQTs to cope with. They have to
rationalise their natural desire as a new teacher to collect as many new experiences and ideas
as possible with the time needed to reflect on, adopt and use new approaches most effectively
in their teaching.
While school procedures for dissemination of CPD might focus on general issues in teaching
such as differentiation, assessment, interactive teaching and so on, science specific CPD, for
example on using demonstrated practical work, may be harder to take account of in secondary
schools. Because of the nature of the course evaluated (provision for gifted and talented
pupils) and the ways in which primary schools operate, this problem was not seen in the
primary cases.
In secondary schools where dedicated CPD time is provided for departments this might be
hijacked by pressures to meet general school development targets that are not always in
sympathy with what science departments wish to achieve.
Reticence of other teachers to take on change
In some cases, most notably in secondary cases (see cases C5 Pages ???) there was
evidence of an impression that some teachers might resist change because of habitual inertia.
In case A2 it was felt that teachers nearer retirement would be less likely to accept
suggestions for change.
Resourcing issues
Teachers returning from CPD courses can sometimes be frustrated at not being able to
implement changes due to a lack of immediate equipment and resources including equipment
and stocks of chemicals.
23
4.7.
Impact of the different course durations
Choice of whether to attend a one, three day or two part course is complex and fuller comment
on relative impact of different courses must wait until data from the evaluation of cases 7 and
8 from the two-part course have been collected and analysed. However in case C5 some
interesting comments made by the HoD focussing on cost value and participants’ availability
and personal circumstances are worth noting. These have implications for the NNSLC and for
schools.
With one day and three day courses --- it’s the money involved. With the one day
one you get the impact reward which pays for the course and goes to some of the
cover, not everything, whereas if you go up to the York ones you get the impact
bursary… You not only get the course paid for, you get cover paid for, you get
money left over to actually implement stuff once you are back, so it’s that which we
also look at as well.
HoD/C5/2.2/2
One of the problems with residential courses …If you have family which a lot of my
staff have, both M and J have young family and therefore can’t be away from home
on a residential course. Both myself and T/C5 could. Chris, another teacher in the
department doesn’t like to be away from his wife so has problems with that one. So
it was who was in the department that would be willing to go on this demonstrations
course and T/C5 is a very enthusiastic member of staff who actually does put things
in place once she is back.
HoD/C5/2.1&2/18
Courses at the NSLC have a ‘York’ factor as well as perceived benefits of the duration of
courses there:
We like York. We like the campus, the atmosphere … we just love it! Sheffield
tends to be one day and I think sometimes in one day you don’t get enough. You go
along you get a few ideas and then you are back to school the next day. At least
when you are on a residential you actually speak to other teachers and share ideas
and you bounce things around. I think you get a lot more out of it.
T/C5/2.8/7
4.8. The feasibility and reliability of data collected to explore classroom
impact of CPD
The final aim of the study was to be able to comment on the feasibility, usefulness and
validity of data collection to research classroom impact of CPD. As outlined in section 1.2.
the NNSLCs systematically collects evidence of course impact using Guskey’s (2002)
impact model. This involves participants submitting pre-course documentation on intended
learning and outcomes, in-course documentation on reactions to and intentions arising
from course content and ideas and in-course or post-course action plans showing what
will be done as a consequence of CPD for self, for colleagues and in departments or at
whole school levels. The case studies and the classroom impact routes model used to
analyse and reflect on research outcomes confirmed the usefulness of such
documentation and that Guskey’s model, in general, seems a good basis for evaluation
impact – its linear nature being confirmed in the case study research reported here.
24
However, documentary evidence alone is not adequate for uncovering the often complex
reasons that lie behind intended and actual actions resulting from CPD or the resulting
classroom impact or lack of it. Information collected from attending the course itself and
talking to teachers during it and on at least two occasions after it allowed a more subtle
exploration of the complex interaction between teachers’ professional wants and needs, to
what extent these were addressed by courses and the different factors at personal
professional and institutional level that are likely to allow classroom impact or mitigate
against it.
Returning to Guskey’s model and our Classroom Impact Routes model, CPD impact on
teacher satisfaction (Guskey’s level 1) and on teacher learning (Guskey’s level 2) are prerequisites for impact on classroom implementation of new knowledge and skills (Guskey’s
level 4). The principal focus in this study was, however, on Guskey’s level 3
(organisational/institutional - impact on the school) and this is not a necessary condition
for classroom impact, especially not for the ‘P1’ route. ‘P1’ route progress in the case
studies showed that school context is more often an input (the given conditions)
determining the implementation space in which classroom impact takes place. On ‘P2’
and ‘P3’ routes the school functions as both the backdrop context (an input) and the target
for impact (an outcome). To reveal how progress takes place on different routes to CPD
impact, however, requires different methods of evaluation, different impact evaluation
indicators and flexible timing and research designs.
25
5.
Conclusions and implications
5.1.
Introductory remarks
This study set out to address two questions relating specifically to the impact of CPD on
teachers’ classroom activities, firstly through exploring the nature and extent of teachers’
professional change in classroom activities as a result of participating in selected CPD
programmes offered by the NNSLCs, and secondly, through identifying factors facilitating
and/or hindering the classroom impact of CPD programmes. Additionally, the study also
sought to gather information on the fundamental issue of the extent to which it is feasible to
gather valid data on the classroom impact of teachers’ participation in selected CPD
programmes.
This section of the report summarises the factors that contributes to high impact, and the
implications for schools, for the NNSLCs, and for CPD more widely. The report concludes
with reflections on the methodology and on the usefulness of the ‘routes to impact’ model that
has been developed as the theoretical framework for the analysis. Finally, recommendations
are made for areas of further research.
5.2.
Factors that resulted in high impact
CPD has a good chance of resulting in classroom (and any other) impact, if it addresses a preexisting ‘conflict’ in the participant’s context, for example around the selection criteria for Gifted
and Talented children as the top 5% achievers, or as to what experiments are allowed under
health and safety legislation. The impact is likely to be greater when the conflict is made public,
that is, explicitly shared with peers before or during the course. If the conflict takes the shape
of a disagreement of the staff (as a whole) with official guidelines, the course impact is likely to
be less visual. Impact will be manifested plainly as a confirmation of school policy or practice.
Where the conflict represents different views within the staff impact may be more effective if
the staff agrees on the scope of the changes suggested by a course and provides the
management structures and resources to implement them.
Classroom impact is affected by teacher characteristics. Impact is increased less by the
status of the teacher within the school community as a successful agent of change, but rather
by the professional enthusiasm about the applicability of a particular change to the specific
school context, so more as an enthusiastic translator of change. For example, a science
coordinator in a primary school who is respected for having introduced teaching strategies
successfully resulting in considerable improvement in pupils’ achievement across the whole
school would still be judged on her enthusiasm for subsequent changes for colleagues to get
on board change. CPD can provide teachers with authoritative knowledge that, when coupled
with their own inspirational advocacy, is a powerful persuader as was the case with at least
two of the secondary teachers who carried out effective demonstrations and persuaded others
to use them.
The impact of CPD increases when the resources, ideas, strategies and policies promoted at
the course link closely to practice in the school rather than conflicting with whole school
development priorities. Management structures for CPD are more complex in secondary than
in primary schools yet this complexity is not necessarily a guarantee of effective progress on
CPD routes. In the dream ticket of CPD seen in case C5 it was the combination of a more
relaxed attitude to CPD management combined with a number of circumstantial and personal
interacting factors that underpinned successful classroom impact.
Effective CPD impact in classrooms manifests itself not as a ‘bolt-on’ set of new procedures,
but as small changes integrated into existing practice. Teachers are very aware of this
difference. A second, but related, factor influencing impact is the competition for change within
schools thus affecting the A1 and scenic route in particular. The recent attempts to
concentrate and explicate teacher responsibilities in order to justify paying responsibility
26
allowances or cross pay thresholds have also brought this sharp competition for change into
the M1 impact route. Above all teachers are professionals interested in doing their job to the
best of their ability and better still. To help do this conditions and roles that maximise benefits
from the investment made by players and stakeholders in CPD have to be considered or the
investment is only partially capitalised and used to affect the standard of teaching in schools.
5.3.
Recommendations for schools

Schools might use their existing monitoring and lesson observation systems more
effectively to provide more robust and accountable evidence for classroom impact of
CPD.

Since all courses at RSLCs and the NNSLC require participants to submit action plans,
these should be monitored and reviewed by schools as part of their CPD monitoring
and review procedures.

Teachers should be encouraged to collect examples of evidence of impact of CPD.
This might include surveys of staff use of resources, questionnaire data on pupils’
attitudes to new teaching or evidence of improved pupil performance in tests,
examinations and homework where this is relevant to the areas addressed by CPD.

Schools should ensure that there are adequate materials, resources and equipment to
carry out new approaches and classroom activities suggested by CPD. Teachers
coming back from CPD are often frustrated by not being able to implement change
over a short time scale.

Where dedicated time for CPD is given to departments or school curriculum areas (in
primary schools), this should be protected wherever possible as teachers feel
frustrated by inroads made to address whole school development priorities.

Schools should review the amount of total CPD load placed on some teachers
particularly NQTs. Time is needed for teachers, especially NQTs, to rationalise, reflect
on and incorporate new ideas from CPD into their teaching.

The process of allocating CPD for teachers must involve cognisance and agreement of
all participants and tiers of management.

Three day and two-part courses requiring residential periods may disadvantage staff
with care commitments. Schools should consider the issues of equal opportunity this
raises.
5.4.
Recommendations for the NNSLCs
We have found that resolution of conflicting views and ideas within departments and schools
is fruitful for moving towards effective classroom impact of CPD. As some learning
psychologists would argue, cognitive dissonance may be a precursor to effective learning.
Thus it is suggested that NNSLC emphasises the contentiousness as well as the informationvalue of CPD courses and requires:

providers to identify explicitly potential alternative (contentious) perspectives and the
implied changes in teaching and departmental and/or school policy;

providers include debate on these different perspectives within CPD courses;
27

promotion materials profile courses as platforms for contentious issues, with objectives
less phrased around answers, more around questions.
Additionally we suggest that:

The NNSLCs may need to consider the difference in funding for courses at the NSLC
and at RSLCs that seems, in school managements’ eyes, to disadvantage them from
sending teachers to courses at RSLCs.

The NNSLCs might consider the timing of courses especially where they occur late in
the school year and the impact this has on participants’ abilities to implement actions
and collect data to evaluate CPD impact.

The NNSLCs and especially RSLCs should continue to stress the importance of
documented action planning and the role that the school should play in monitoring and
supporting this.

Courses on effective demonstrations and practical work should address the needs of
teachers with different specialist backgrounds. There was evidence that the courses
evaluated did not include enough demonstrations in physics.
5.5.
Wider implications for CPD provision
As a result of our analysis and, in particular the application of our routes to CPD impact model,
we suggest that CPD providers could:

define in their planning intended CPD routes that are most likely from proposed CPD
interventions;

identify the component of the proposed CPD courses supporting specific targeted CPD
routes;

include in promotion materials of CPD courses explicitly intended CPD routes and
consequent action lines;

differentiate the format of the CPD implementation plans to be completed by each
participant for the three different CPD routes;

ensure that courses for the P2 and P3 routes include (i) ‘try-it-out-yourself’ sessions
within the course (see also Joyce/Showers) and (ii) reports of ‘try-it-out-yourself’
experiences in the last block of a two-part CPD course.

provide an increasing time period for the evaluation of CPD outcomes and impacts for
the M1, A1 and scenic route respectively;

encourage course participants to produce an increasing array of sources of evidence
(participant, peer, manager) for the evaluation of classroom impact for the P1, P2 and
P3 routes respectively.
5.6.
Implications for future research evaluations of CPD
Evaluation research methodology
CPD impact research involves gathering data in complex situations from a number of sources
and actors and a number of places. Case study methods collecting detailed information at
different points before, during and after CPD intervention is essential in understanding the
communities of practice and learning that exist within the area of teachers’ experience that is
loosely defined as CPD. It is vital to explore pre-CPD drivers at personal and institutional level
that influence engagement with and decisions about what CPD is chosen.
28
The timescale for collection of data in this evaluation was short, effectively only in the six
months in which schools and teachers were active in CPD or in their implementation of
consequent actions. We believe robust and worthwhile case study research could yield even
more interesting and worthwhile data if implementation was followed over at least a twelve
month period. For example in case A2 some CPD outcomes were intended to be implemented
in June or July of 2010 and so this evaluation could not do justice to this case.
The interview schedules proved robust and flexible enough to provide detailed insights into
how the various actors and participants in CPD worked. Attending the courses and visiting
schools was essential in understanding the context in which CPD is planned and executed
and outcomes implemented. Visits helped us understand the ‘implementation space’ in its
varied manifestations and different levels of complexity. The observations of lessons yielded
little that could not be gleaned from other sources except in one case (case 6) where two
teachers with very different personal attributes and capabilities from the same school
participated in the same course and just happened to have been observed teaching the same
group of pupils.
Usefulness of the ‘routes model’ of CPD impact
If classroom impact is an intended CPD outcome, the Classroom Impact Routes model is
useful for classifying CPD interventions according to their objectives, identifying appropriate
classroom impact criteria, determining realistic impact time lines and differentiating appropriate
classroom impact evaluation measures.
Some CPD topics lean more naturally towards specific classroom impact routes, for example
the course on ‘Gifted and Talented learners in science’ leans towards the P2 and P3 routes
as it concerns a cross-curricular theme. In contrast, a course on ‘Exciting demonstrations in
science teaching’ will have little policy implications and thus leans towards the P1 and P2
classroom impact routes.
The classroom impact along the P2 and P3 routes (as is usual in primary schools) takes
longer than the impact through the P1 route since it requires a dissemination stage with
colleagues and or discussion stage for policy adaptation. Impact along these routes is
delayed even longer since many participants first want to ‘try it out themselves’ (the P1 route)
before they share their experiences with colleagues.
Future research on classroom impact of CPD
The literature on factors affecting classroom impact of professional development has emerged
from very valuable quantitative studies of CPD efforts in the USA, in particular the studies by
Desimone et al. (2001) and Penuel et al. (2007). They draw on questionnaire and interview
data from large numbers of CPD participants and providers. The CPD interventions largely
support major curriculum reforms, that is they intend to facilitate systemic change. The CPD
agenda in the USA is set externally by curriculum bodies, or education management
authorities. Ideally, all teachers are to adopt the same system-wide changes. Thus the
impetus and context for CPD is very different from the provision by the NNSLC in the UK.
Here the agenda for change (and thus for CPD uptake) is determined by schools (sometimes
by individuals), is small-scale and incremental and addresses specific needs within the school
for adjustment rather than a larger scale overhaul of practice. Factors affecting CPD impact in
UK studies may very well differ considerably from those documented by the studies of
Desimone et al. and Penuel et al., as is indicated by the case study research reported here.
Current government interest in teacher development including CPD (House of Commons,
2010) means it is timely for a large scale quantitative study required to identify factors that
affect CPD impact within the UK context. Some of the methodology of the American studies
29
could be adopted. Such a study would provide information on the heart of CPD: the
‘continuous’ part of the process, the 'C' in CPD. Given the investment in STEM CPD as part of
the national priority to increase general interest, literacy and uptake of the school population in
STEM subjects it is right that evaluation of this effort should be as thorough, revealing and
illuminating as possible.
The desire to fundamentally change science teaching and hence improve pupil engagement,
interest and performance means having information that gets at the heart of the teaching and
learning process and that might have resulted largely from CPD effort. Teasing out the
complexities of context and process in STEM CPD and dissociating classroom impact from
other non-CPD factors, such as teacher recruitment and competence, schools’ socioeconomic factors and pupil or curriculum characteristics requires detailed multi-stranded
research effort over substantial periods of time. The methods and models of analysis used in
this small scale study, especially the ‘highway routes’ model of CPD impact, are an initial,
useful step in these endeavours.
The subject and topic spread of courses evaluated in this small scale study was very limited
and so future research of this type should seek to explore classroom impact that results from
courses:





in different disciplines;
that address science specific training rather than whole school issues in primary
schools;
implemented over a longer time scale, such as two, three and four-part courses;
where a management or coordination element is included;
where an additional assessment or accreditation demand is present.
30
6.
References
Abell, S., Lannin, J., Marra, R., Ehlert, M., Cole, J., Lee, M., Rogers, M., Wang, C. (2007)
Multi-site evaluation of science and mathematics teacher professional development
programs: The project profile approach. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(2), 135158.
Adey, P. (2004) The professional development of teachers: practice and theory. Boston, MA:
Kluwer.
Boykin, A. (2000) The Talent Development Model of schooling: Placing students at promise
for academic success. Journal of Education of Students Placed at Risk, 5(1), 3-25.
Bredeson, P. (2002) The architecture of professional development: Materials, messages and
meaning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 661-675.
Bredeson, P. (2003) Designs for learning: A new architecture for professional development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Buchanan, D., & McCalman, J. (1989) High performance work systems: The digital
experience. Routledge: London.
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., & Firth, A. (2005) The impact of collaborative
continuing professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning:
Review: how do collaborative and sustained CPD and sustained and not collaborative
CPD affect teaching and learning?, in Research Evidence in Education Library: EPPI
Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002) Effects of professional
development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three year longitudinal study.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Ellison, C. (2004) Talent Development Professional Development evaluation model: A
paradigm shift. New Directions for Evaluation, 101, 63-78.
Fishman, B., Marx, R., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003) Linking teacher and student learning to
improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education,
19(6), 643-658.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B. and Yoon, K. S. (2001) What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38 (4), 915-945.
Guskey, T. (2000) Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Guskey, T. (2002) Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Hahs-Vaughn, D., Zygoeris, C., & Fiedler, R. (2007) A hybrid evaluation model for evaluating
online professional development. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(10, 5-20.
Hanley, P., Maringe, F., & Ratcliffe, M. (2008) Evaluation of professional development:
Deploying a process-focused model. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5),
711-725.
Holman, J. (2009). Continuing professional development for science teachers, Science
Teacher Education, 55, 4-9.
House of Commons. (2010). The training of teachers. Fourth report of the Children, Schools
and Families Committee. London: The House of Commons, Stationery Office Ltd..
Jauhiainen, J., Lavonen, J., Koponen, I. and Kurki-Suonio, K. (2002) Experiences from longterm in-service training for physics teachers in Finland. Physics Education, 37 (2), 128134.
Loxley, A., Johnston, K., Murchan, D., Fitzgerald, H., & Quinn, M. (2007) The role of wholeschool contexts in shaping the experiences and outcomes associated with professional
development. Journal of In-service Education, 33(3), 265-285.
Lydon, S. & King, C. (2009) Can a single professional development workshop cause change
in the classroom? Professional Development in Education, 35(1), 65-82.
Lubben, F., Bennett, J. & Campbell, B. (2006). The impact of the York Science Enhancement
Programme (YSEP) on practice. York: University of York, Department of Educational
Studies.
31
Muijs, D., & Lindsay, G. (2008) Where are we at? An empirical study of the levels and
methods of evaluating continuing professional development. British Educational
Research Journal, 34(2), 195-211.
OfSTED. (2009a). Inspection report 134218, OfSTED: www.ofsted.gov.uk Accessed
November 3rd 2009.
OfSTED. (2009b). Inspection report 122111, OfSTED: www.ofsted.gov.uk Accessed
November 3rd 2009.
OfSTED. (2007a). Inspection report 108076, OfSTED: www.ofsted.gov.uk Accessed
November 3rd 2009.
OfSTED. (2008). Inspection report 107138, OfSTED: www.ofsted.gov.uk Accessed
November 3rd 2009.
OfSTED. (2007b). Inspection report 112958, OfSTED: www.ofsted.gov.uk Accessed
November 3rd 2009.
OfSTED. (2006). Inspection report 112935, OfSTED: www.ofsted.gov.uk Accessed
November 3rd 2009.
Owston, R., Sinclair, M., & Wideman, H. (2008) Blended learning for professional
development: An evaluation of a program for middle school mathematics and science
teachers. Teachers College Record, 110(5), 1033-1064.
Panizzon, D., & Pegg, J. (2008) Assessment practices: Empowering mathematics and
science teachers in rural secondary schools to enhance student learning. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 417-436.
Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., Gallagher, L. (2007) What makes professional
development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American
Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
Ragbir-Day, N., Braund, M., Bennett, J. and Campbell, B. (2008). Impact of the Teacher
Effectiveness Enhancement Programme (TEEP): Phase 2 Evaluation. Report
commissioned by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation. York: University of York,
Department of Educational Studies.
Richardson, V. (1996) The role of attitudes and beliefs I learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T.
Buttery, & E. Gruyton (Eds.) Handbook of research on teacher education. (pp. 102-119)
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rossi, P., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. (2004) Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Supovitz, J. & Turner, H. (2000). The effects of professional development and reform in
science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in
Science Education, 38, 137-158.
Templin, M., & Bombaugh, R. (2005) An innovative evaluation of teacher professional
development serving reform in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(2),
141-158
The White Rose University Consortium Team. (2005). The continuing professional
development of science teachers: a discussion paper, School Science Review,
87, (318), 105–111.
Wellcome Trust. (2006). Believers, Seekers and Sceptics, what teachers think about
professional development. London: Wellcome Trust.
32
Annexes
Annexe 1: Search criteria for the nature and extent of change in classroom
practice due to CPD.
Inclusion criteria
Studies within the review should:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Report on non-certificating and course-based CPD interventions;
Focus on interventions for science, biology, chemistry or physics teachers;
Focus on interventions for teachers with more than two years of experience;
Aim at strengthening pupils’ science conceptual understanding, skills or attitudes;
Deal with interventions for pupils in KS2, KS3, KS4 and / or KS5;
Measure change in the nature of classroom activity/behaviour due to the intervention;
Use a pre- and post-intervention design (with or without a control group);
Are published in the period 2000 – April 2009;
Are published in peer reviewed journal and are included in ERIC and / or the British
Education Index.
Exclusion criteria
Studies excluded from the review if they:
a1.
a2.
b.
c.
d1.
d2.
e.
f1.
f2.
f3.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Report initial teacher training interventions;
Report CPD interventions based entirely on mentor schemes, apprenticeships,
community of learning strategies or further degree work;
Focus on interventions for teachers who teach a subject other than science;
Focus on interventions for NQTs, laboratory assistants, heads of Science Departments,
and Advanced Skill Teachers (ASTs)
Aim at strengthening teachers’ science conceptual understanding, skills or attitudes;
Aim at strengthening teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, skills or attitudes;
focus entirely on pupils at lower primary level, or tertiary level;
Measure change in extra-curricular behaviour;
Measure change in teachers’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence;
Measure change in pupils’ achievement;
Use a design without collecting pre-intervention data;
Are published in 1999 and earlier;
Are published in books or grey literature such as theses, reports, newspapers.
Are published only in education data bases other than ERIC and BEI.
33
Annexe 2: Search criteria for evaluation models of CPD activities
If the methodological issues do not arise from amongst the papers above, a separate search
may be done with only slightly amended inclusion / exclusion criteria:
Inclusion criteria
Studies within the review should:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Report on models evaluating course-based CPD interventions;
Focus on models evaluating interventions for science, biology, chemistry or physics
teachers;
Focus on models evaluating interventions for teachers with more than two years of
experience;
Focus on aims that strengthen pupils’ science conceptual understanding, skills or
attitudes;
Focus on models evaluating interventions for pupils in KS2, KS3, KS4 and / or KS5;
Focus on models evaluating change in the nature of classroom activity/behaviour due
to the intervention;
Are published in the period 2000 – April 2009;
Are published in peer reviewed journal and are included in ERIC and / or the British
Education Index.
Exclusion criteria
Studies excluded from the review if they:
a1.
a2.
b.
c.
d1.
d2.
e.
f1.
f2.
f3.
g
h.
i.
Report models evaluating initial teacher training interventions;
Report models evaluating CPD interventions based entirely on mentor schemes,
apprenticeships, community of learning strategies or further degree work;
Focus on models evaluating interventions for teachers who teach a subject other than
science;
Focus on models evaluating interventions for NQTs, laboratory assistants, heads of
Science Departments, and School Administrators;
Focus on models aimed at strengthening teachers’ science conceptual understanding,
skills or attitudes;
Focus on models aimed at strengthening teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, skills or
attitudes;
Focus on models evaluating entirely pupils at lower primary level, or tertiary level;
Focus on models evaluating measure change in extra-curricular behaviour;
Focus on models evaluating measure change in teachers’ knowledge, skills, attitudes,
confidence;
Focus on models evaluating measure change in pupils’ achievement;
Are published in 1999 and earlier;
Are published in books or grey literature such as theses, reports, newspapers.
Are published only in education data bases other than ERIC and BEI.
34
Annexe 3: Interview schedule for first telephone interview with course
participant
Name:
School:
Course/Case: Sheffield RSLC - one day demos.
Introduction:
Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me about the impact of the Science Learning
Centre course you attended recently. Judith Bennett, Martin Braund and Fred Lubben from
the University of York have been asked by the Science Learning Centre Network to construct
case studies of the impact of different CPD courses on classroom activities in a variety of
school contexts. The discussion, as part of such a case study, will be confidential and the
reporting will be anonymous, so I hope you can be as frank as possible. The interview
questions are detailed below.
1. The context: your role
within the school
1.1
1.2
I would like you to talk briefly
about your background in the
school
2. Expectations of CPD
participation
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
One could consider CPD potentially to
contribute to three areas: self,
class and school.
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
How long have you been teaching and how long
at this school?
What are your specific responsibilities in the area
of science teaching?
Can you briefly summarise your wider role(s)
within your school e.g., pastoral, year head etc?
What are three characteristics of your school
that are most relevant in helping you to achieve
classroom impact of the RSLC course?
Which of these areas did you want the CPD
course to address most?
Can you give me examples of ideas, concepts
or skills you wanted to get clarified in your own
mind?
To what extent were these aspects addressed
in the course? What course activities helped?
Can you give me some examples of situations
in your own class you wanted to be able to
improve? (address more effectively)?
To what extent has the course supported you
in tackling these aspects? What course activities
helped?
Can you give examples of concerns of colleagues
you wanted to address more effectively through
this CPD?
To what extent has the course supported you
in these aspects? What course activities helped?
35
3.
Action plan due to the
Course.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
Any other comments
4.1
How do you plan to change your classroom
activities in the coming term? So how will it be
different from what you did before?
What aspects of the course gave you the ideas
for these changes? To what extent do you want
to modify the strategies suggested on the course
and why?
Why do you focus on these changes? What do
you see as factors in the school or in your pupils
that make these changes likely to succeed? What
are potential barriers to success(es)?
What will you expect as evidence that the
changes have been a success?
What do you expect to be the long-term impact
of the course?
Are you planning to organise any activities for
your colleagues as a result of the course? If so,
what do you have in mind?
Do you want to comment on any other aspects
of potential impact of the CPD programme on your
classroom activities?
Thank you very much for taking
the time to talk with me
36
Annexe 4
Interview schedule for second interview with course participant
Name:
School:
Course/Case: Sheffield RSLC - one day demos.
Introduction
Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me again about the impact of the Science
Learning Centre course. It was interesting to talk with you after the course about what you did
on it and your plans for actions.
1.
Your plans for action (drawing on the telephone interview 1)
Can you tell me about which of these actions you spoke to me about last time have taken
place so far and what factors have helped you succeed in these or have hindered them:
Proposed action
Supporting factors
Hindering factors
Gain more confidence in teaching
using demonstrations and extend
personal repertoire.
Being able to challenge what is
allowed/not allowed on H&S grounds
Try out or get ‘someone’ to try out
some of demos to get them to work
Think more about consequences of
doing a demo – (for explaining
science ideas rather than H&S)
Help pupils latch on to the demo as a
hook for their learning
Include more demos in science club
activities
37
2.
Your action plan (submitted to RSLC or NSLC)
Can you tell me about which of these actions you spoke to me about last time have taken
place so far and what factors have helped you succeed in these or have hindered them:
Only record any which are different to the above.
Proposed action
3.
Supporting factors
Hindering factors
Impact
I would like you to talk about the impact the course has had on you. Can you tell me:
3. Impact
3.1
What are you doing now in your teaching differently than
you did before as a result of the course
3.2
Why have you changed these things and not others?
3.3
What impact have these changes had on your pupils?
3.4
What evidence do you have that the changes have been a
success (e.g. in terms of pupils’ learning)?
3.5
What about your colleagues? Have they introduced any
changes as a result of the course or ideas and materials
from it? How do you know about what has been the effects
of any changes in what they have done?
38
4.
Further plans for development/change
I would like you to talk about the influence the course has had on your further plans for
development or change within the department. Can you tell me:
4.
Further
plans
development or change
5.
5.
for
4.1. What more do you plan to do in your own teaching as a
result of the course over the next six months – year?
4.2.
Have you any plans to disseminate ideas/materials to
other members of staff? If so please tell me about these.
4.3.
As a result of the course have you any plans for further
PD/courses? Is so, please tell me about them.
5.1
Do you want to comment on any other aspects of
potential impact of the CPD programme on your
classroom activities?
Any other comments
Any other comments
Thank you very much for
taking the time to talk with me
once again
39
Annexe 5
Name:
School:
Course/Case: Sheffield RSLC - one day demos.
Interview schedule for first interview with SMT or HoS
Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me about the impact of the Science Learning
Centre course one of your colleagues attended recently. Judith Bennett, Martin Braund and
Fred Lubben from the University of York have been asked by the National Network of Science
Learning Centres to construct case studies of the impact of different CPD courses on
classroom activities in a variety of school contexts. The discussion, as part of such a case
study, will be confidential and the reporting will be anonymous, so I hope you can be as frank
as possible. The interview questions are detailed below.
1. The context: your role within the school
I would like you to talk briefly about your background in the school.
1. Context – Your role
within the school
2. Expectations of CPD
participation
1.1
Could you briefly explain your management role(s)
within the school?
1.2
How long have you been in this role, and how long at this
school?
1.3
Can you briefly describe the school’s policy on CPD?
2.1
Which of these areas did you want the course participation to
address most?
One could consider CPD potentially
to contribute to
three areas: the teacher,
class and school.
3.1
What were the school’s reasons for investing time (and
possibly money) in training in XXXX (topic of the
course)?
2.2
How did you become aware of this CPD need?
2.3
Why did you opt for this particular CPD course? Have
you considered addressing this need in any other way?
2.4
What were the reasons for asking Mr/Ms [YYY] to go on
this course?
How do you expect [YYY] will change his/her classroom
strategies?
How do you expect [YYY] to share the CPD experience
with colleagues?
2.5
2.7
40
3. Action plan due to
the course
3.1
Have you been able to look at YYY’s action plan? If so,
what is your comment?
3.2
How is the school able to support any changes in
YYY’s practice? Which three characteristics of your
school may be barriers to achieving impact on
classroom practice?
3.3
How is the school able to support YYY in sharing the
CPD experiences? Which three characteristics of
your school may be barriers to whole-school uptake?
Part of the course was the
development of an action
plan.
4. Any other comments
4.1
Do you want to comment on any other aspects of
potential impact of the CPD programme on your
school?
Thank you very much for
taking the time to talk with
me.
41
Annexe 6
Name:
School:
Course/Case: Sheffield RSLC - one day demos.
Interview schedule for second interview with PD Manager, SMT or HoS
SMT/PD Manager:
Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to me again about the impact of the Regional
Science Learning Centre course. It was interesting to talk with you after the course about your
and the school’s role in PD and more specifically about PD gains for …. ……….. and the
impact this may have in the classroom (on pupils).
1. The action identified
by …………..context:
your role within the
school
2. Impact
3. Any other comments
1.1
Have you seen the action plan from ……… that was
submitted to RSLC/NSLC?
1.2
What part did you/others play in the formulation and/or
refinement of ……..’s action plan? How does that fit
with the school’s policy/procedures for action planning
in relation to PD (i.e. trying to probe to what extent this
PD action planning envisaged is consonant with or at
odds with what exists in the school)
1.3
These are some of the actions …… intends/intended.
Have you been aware of/monitored/supported any of
these – if so which ones and how?
1.4
Which actions/intentions have you been able to support?
Which haven’t you been able to support – why?
2.1
Are you aware of any impact of the course on pupils that ..
teaches? If so how do you know there has been impact (i.e.
what evidence, measures and so on?)
2.2
Has there been any impact on the practice of ……..’s
colleagues? (in terms of their teaching, what they now do,
their pupils and so on). If so how do you know there has
been impact (i.e. what evidence, measures and so on?)
2.3
What do you expect ……… to do now as a result of being
on the course (any further action? If so how will you
monitor/manage etc? If nothing further why not?)
2.4
What now for ………. ? (any ideas for his/her further PD)
3.1 Do you want to comment on any other aspects of potential
impact of the CPD programme on your school ?
Thank you very much for
taking the time to talk with
me.
42
Appendices: The Case Studies
Course A: Introduction
Gifted & Talented in science across the primary years (EMC08109)
Target audience:
Primary teachers, science coordinators/leaders for age group 4-11.
Course descriptor:
Has your school identified those pupils who are gifted and talented in science? Do you have a
programme to meet their needs and are your teachers offering creative activities to challenge
those children who are very able or exceptional in science?
Intended outcomes:

develop a range of approaches and strategies to develop
higher order thinking
 find strategies to identify G&T pupils
 become more confident in developing creative activities to
challenge pupils
43
Map of course EMC08109 (23 participants, incl. 4 male; 6 not Science but G&T Coord)
time
heading
10.10 Purpose
10.15 Ice
breaker
10.30
description
- what G & T means;
- how to do it;
- how to do it in school
Given 8 characteristics, walk round and ask participants if they have one
of these: aim to get a complete set of ‘yeses’
How can you adjust this activity to class (in groups)
- What skills are being developed?
- How would you adjust it for science learning?
signposting: soc skills and differentiated problem solving for G&A
- do something similar with staff training on G&A
10.30 What does G&T versus G&A: List of headings of school policy on G&A used to
it mean?
discuss:
11.10
* who are G&A in the school? (various definitions provided)
---> need for school-specific definition
T
x
target
C S
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
* Indicators for G&A versus Bright (with lists)
How can
you
indentify
them?
x
* Why attention to G&A? (groups) ---> human rights, values
x
* characteristics of G&A in science (gp activity), pooling experiences
(building of ‘group language’ and ownership)
How to use list of G&A in science to make staff spot G&A pupils
x
x
x
x
x
x
* Primary science G&A audit (formats provided), pooling experiences
* indicators of potentially G&A, but underachieving pupils (list provided)
 multiple sources for diagnostic tool
(suggested SATS, self or parent nomination, smiley faces)
 staff should know that G&A can hide; that ability grouping may help
11.10 Meeting
the needs
13.00 of G&A
(incl.
coffee)
Aim: narrow gap between G&A potential & actual achievement
x
x
x
Brainstorm re-thinking classroom environment (group activity)
* list activities on chart for one of speaking/listening, reading, writing,
ICT,
exploration, debate, role play in science
* market place: pick one of each chart to implement in your class
How to do a similar activity with your colleagues (plenary)
x
x
x
Demonstration of G&A activities: re-thinking classroom environment
* science knowledge shirts; puppets asking questions making children
talk; surprise box/bag; sc G&A displays/clips @ school foyer/monitor
lunch
14.00 Changing
activities
15.00 for G&T in
science
15.00- Planning
15.45 the way
forward
Aim: what resources are available? Any good ideas?
x
x
x
* systematically going though information pack, showing learning
materials, gadgets (incl. the oranges),
* which questions for G&A? (group generation of question stems: what
if …)
* class organisation as carousel, problem corner, etc.
Audit of G&A provision in the school (electronic frame provided)
Year planning for strengthening G&A provision (electronic frame
provided)
Plenary and evaluation of the CPD course
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
T= Teacher; C=Class; S=Staff
44
Case Study A1:
Course Participant
School
T/A1
Cambleton Primary School
Also Interviewed
SMT/A1 Headteacher
A1.1. School context
The large primary school (344 children on roll, 18 teaching staff) caters for children of ages 411 and draws mainly from a homogeneous well-maintained estate of semi-detached rental
homes, spaciously set up with public greens. The percentage of children entitled to free
school meals is above average, and so is the percentage of children with SEN. Many families
only have one earner, usually the mother working during school hours. Almost all pupils are of
White British background and almost all come from homes where English is the first language.
The few ESL pupils come from middle class homes and usually show high achievement.
“Standards are below average at the outset of Key Stage 1, particularly in the children’s
communication skills. After a period when standards have been exceptionally low in national
tests in English and mathematics, pupils’ current work shows a welcome upturn.” (Ofsted,
2009, p. 4). “Although current standards in English, mathematics and science in Year 6 are
below average, this represents steady progress and satisfactory achievement from pupils’
starting points” (Ofsted, 2009, p.5): For these subjects, 74%, 72% and 85% of the Year 6
pupils, respectively, achieve above level 4.
“Pupils achieve satisfactorily in science because they respond well to the school’s emphasis
on practical investigations. However many pupils have difficulty recording their findings
because of weaknesses in their writing” (Ofsted, 2009, p. 5). The school is successful in
stretching the more able pupils in Year 6 in science (and mathematics) with 30% (and 35%)
achieving level 5. More generally, “the school identifies pupils with specific talents and is
developing opportunities for them to improve their skills through extra-curricular activities”
(Ofsted, 2009, p. 7)
Whereas the provision at the school was classified as satisfactory during the last Ofsted
inspection (in March 2009), it has been randomly selected to receive a further monitoring visit
by an Ofsted inspector to attend to some areas of underperformance in early January 2010:
‘people will be stressed up to the eyeballs’ around that time.
The school is the result of an amalgamation of an infant and a junior school five years ago and
is still addressing the consequences of this re-organisation:
We’ve actually just got our SAT results back which are the highest they’ve been
for years. I’m absolutely thrilled. But it has been a long five years to try and get
things up and running because the juniors, in particular, had no assessment, or it
was very, very, very disjointed and it’s taken a long five years to try and get it to
this points. So I’m over the moon, everybody is really thrilled with the 85% for
science.
SMT/A1/1.1/8
A.1.2. Choice of participant and CPD course
Each SMT member mentors several colleagues as performance manager. This includes the
agreement of three individual targets each year closely linked to the school improvement plan,
and
“based on a gap analysis: looking where the children’s needs are, seeing
where the gaps are’ (SMT/A1/4.2/2). Two targets focus on numeracy or
literacy, and one on personal professional development. The staff have at
least one external CPD entitlement and there are no financial constraints.
45
The CPD course is selected by the staff member and approved by the mentor
as long as it supports one of the three targets. For CPD supporting numeracy
and literacy targets usually two staff members are participating and
disseminating ‘so that they can bounce ideas on each other when they are
back”.
T/A1/4.2/2
T/A1 has nine years teaching experience, all at this school, and over the last few years on a
part-time basis. She takes a year 2 class, is the school’s science coordinator, currently also
takes a school-sponsored middle management course and will take a group of children for an
exchange programme with a school in India in the spring term.
The CPD course was selected, in part, because she has championed the successful
introduction of active assessment at the school after attending a CPD course at the same
RSLC and by the same provider. The head suggests that the course was expected to benefit
primarily:
…. the children, so the school as a whole. That’s the one target I would prioritise,
but there will be times when staff will go no a course that is particularly relevant just
for them. So for instance, I’ve got some NQTs, and a couple of them have had
some issues wit behaviour management. So those have gone on their courses,
and it has not been relevant to the rest of my staff. They obviously have not had to
feedback, but it has impacted on their practice.”
T/A1/4.3/2/4
The course participant reverses the sequence children-thus-school in the quote above when
explaining the change mechanism:
Probably it will affect the teacher, the class and the school. But primarily I think
probably the school because it’s alright me going on a course and then going back
to class and doing my own thing, but really this [G&T] has to be a whole-school
approach. Everybody needs to know what they are doing. So primarily at the
moment it is a whole school sort of thing. But obviously I’m hoping that once we
get into it and we’ve got a definition [of a gifted child], then I’m planning on doing
some more staff meetings about actually getting activities in. Then it will become a
class issue. The new activities will be challenging and stretching, children will be
identified, and then they will be given those kind of activities.
T/A1/1.4/8 & 1.5/2
The course was expected to address three explicit needs. Firstly, the staff looked for
information and an improved understanding of the general definition of G&T.
The area of gifted and talented, or more able, is quite a grey area especially in a
school like ours where we have an awful lot of free school meals and special
needs, very special needs children. The kind of gifted and more able children,
I’m not saying they get forgotten but, because we have a large focus on special
needs in a larger group of children, it [G&T] was an area that hadn’t been
developed.
T/A1/1.2/5
Secondly, T/A1 and the staff expected the course to aid in resolving conflicting views within
the school on G&T policy, particularly around the criteria used for selecting G&T pupils.
T/A1 I was quite interested in that [G&T], because science is such a practical based
subject. But what makes somebody gifted? And what makes them more able apart
from the fact that they may be getting higher test marks? I thought it’s not just
about this top 5% in your class. There has got to be more to it and that’s why I kind
of said I really want to go on this and it’s on my professional development, and I
kind of dragged the whole school into it now.
T/A1/1.2/3
46
I
So do you mean to say the school is actually still in the process of determining
what the criteria would be for putting children on the register for gifted and more
able?
T/A1 No we do have a gifted and talented kind of list but it is more for things like literacy
and numeracy. It is actually just the children who are in the top 5% which is what
the QCA and government are kind of saying. And I just knew that when the
children were coming up to me in year 2 and I looked down and thought ‘there is
no way that child is more able in that area. But this child is, but it is not on [the list]’.
Obviously when children develop they get more confident, different things come out.
Everybody, the whole staff kind of said these aren’t right, there is something not
right about this. And S [the assessment coordinator] says we’re just going with the
top 5% and that’s pretty much where we came to. Nobody was sure what qualified
somebody to be more able apart from that they were in the top 5% of the class and
that was pretty much it. And I just felt personally, and as a science co-ordinator,
that there was a lot more to it.
I
Do you think the course materials [on selection criteria] can be fed back to the
school?
T/A1 Well, I had already done that actually. Before I went on the course I did quite a bit
of research of my own on the internet, and I kind of put together some bits and
pieces that I thought were helpful, that kind of got away from [a definition of gifted
as] somebody who’s in the top 5%, but kind of got scientific skills and curiosity and
could hypothesise and things like that. And I just made a quick couple of quotes
and things, and gave them to the staff and they looked and they said, yes we do
agree that there is more to it. So I told them I was going on this course, so they all
knew and the question they were desperate to know was, what identifies; how are
we identifying these children.
T/A1/1.3/1/2/3
Before the course, she had taken a distinct position on the desirable selection criteria and
raised expectations amongst colleagues that the course would help to resolve the policy issue.
Before I went on the course I did quite a bit of research of my own on the internet,
and I put together some bits and pieces that I thought were helpful, that kind of got
away from [a definition of gifted as] somebody who’s in the top 5%, but kind of got
scientific skills and curiosity and could hypothesise and things like that. And I just
made a quick couple of quotes and things, and gave them to the staff and they
looked and they said, yes we do agree that there is more to it. So I told them I was
going on this course, so they all knew and the question they were desperate to
know was, what identifies; how are we identifying these children.
T/A1/(1.3/3
Lastly, T/A1 looked forward to obtain ‘some ideas for activities that can stretch the more able
pupils, and how these could be mashed into the normal classroom activities’ as illustrated by
the following quote:
I really wanted some quite creative ideas of how to challenge and stretch these children
within the classroom. How to group them, how to work them. I really did want some
ideas about that, or be pointed into the right direction of where I could get that help. It’s
OK identifying these children but you’ve got to move them on and stretch them and it was
about real practical ideas that will work in a classroom.
T/A1/1.5/4
A.1.3. Achieved classroom impact
Table 5 overleaf summarises the classroom impact of the CPD through three impact routes,
either impacting directly on the participants’ own classroom (the P1 route), on the classrooms
of the participant’s peers (the P2 route) or the most elaborate impact route on all classrooms
through policy changes (the P3 route) emerging from the CPD.
Table 5 : Classroom impact by impact route
47
Impact route
P1
on participant’s own
classroom
P2
on classrooms of
participant’s peers
P3
on all classrooms
through policy change
Nature of classroom impact
* New easy accessible activities from course for stretching
pupils have been adopted one term on, T/A1/1.5/4, 1.8/5
(intended) and T/A1/2.5/5
* Activities from amongst the creative curriculum activities
have been implemented with opportunities for G&T,
T/A1/2.5/5
* Creative curriculum activities introduced for more able
pupils in KS2 one term on, T/A1/2.5/5
* Less mixed-ability teaching (in its infancy one term on)
T/A1/2.5/5 and 2.6/1
* Purchase of resources, T/A1/2.6/5/9, intended T/A1/1.8/5
* Shared view of the definition of Gifted versus Able
children, and how to identify them after half a term
T/A1/1.3/3, but not consolidated in ‘checklist’ yet one
term on T/A1/2.1/4
* Inclusion of all G&T steps in the science development
plan 2009-10, and in school improvement plan,
T/A1/2.6/2/3, T/A1/5.7/6/8
Table 5 suggests that even a full term after the CPD experience relatively little impact has
been achieved on T/A1’s own classroom (the P1 impact). She has ‘tried to do a few activities
that were recommended on the course, little activities that did not cost a lot’ (T/A1/2.5/5), and
introduced some ideas for G&T children within activities from the ‘creative curriculum’
(T/A1/2.5/5). These seem mainly a preparation for recommending (or not) such innovations to
peers, i.e. the P2 route of classroom impact.
Consequently, in her role as science coordinator, T/A1 has shared her experiences with the
new activities from the course and the opportunities of inserting G&T activities within creative
curriculum approaches with colleagues. Similarly, T/A1 has suggested allowing children to
work in ability groups as a way of challenging G&T children. It is not clear to what extent
these suggestions have been adopted. In addition, some resources recommended at the
course have been purchased and circulated amongst colleagues. Thus the CPD experience
has, seemingly, impacted more on T/A1’s peers, although little evidence is available of the
actual classroom impact (the P2 route) after one term.
Most effort seems to have been devoted to classroom impact through the P3 route. This was
to be expected since one main motive for participating in the course was the conflict about the
selection policy of G&T children. A shared view on the criteria for G&T has been established
following the course, but this has not yet been consolidated into guidelines for selection, in
part because of uncertainty about the scope of these criteria – for science only or for all
subjects. Meanwhile, the five steps on the P3 route for classroom impact (agreement on
selection criteria; identification of G&T children; developing appropriate science activities;
disseminating and implementing these activities; monitoring and supporting the
implementation) have been included in the science development and the school improvement
plans for 2009-10, securing monitoring of classroom impact.
A.1.4. Factors facilitating classroom impact of CPD on G&T
A1.4.1 Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
It seems obvious, but significant, that the potential for classroom impact along all routes is
increased if the participant has classroom-related reasons for going on the course, as
opposed to reasons such as satisfying curiosity, the intention to increase awareness or for
gathering information.
I really wanted some quite creative ideas of how to challenge and stretch these
children within the classroom. How to group them, how to work them. I really did
48
want some ideas about that, or be pointed into the right direction of where I could
get that help. It’s OK identifying these children but you’ve got to move them on
and stretch them and it was about real practical ideas that will work in a
classroom.
T/A1/1.5/4
Similarly, classroom impact, even through the P2 and P3 routes, will be indirect (and delayed)
if a CPD course is attended because a new role has been adopted (such as a role as HoD or
coordinator), or for reasons of departmental management or policy development.
The case also seems to illustrate that classroom impact (in this case through the P3 route) is
facilitated if attendance is prompted by a pre-course conflict, preferably made public amongst
colleagues, so that the course is looked towards for arbitration.
So I told them I was going on this course, so they all knew and the question they
were desperate to know was, what identifies …., how are we identifying these
[gifted] children. So I was very pleased that X spent quite a long time on that
[during the course]. So then I gave them all the stuff; we had a whole staff
meeting on it.
T/A1/1.3/3
Naturally, the course content will need to address such a conflict in order to allow for
arbitration impact.
A1.4.2 Impact factors related to course characteristics
Unsurprisingly, classroom impact through all routes seems to be greatly facilitated by the type
of materials, resources or strategies promoted or practiced during the course. The main
criterion seems to be the degree of match of the proposed resources or strategies with
existing school practice: do they use materials easily available? Are they practicable for use
in large groups? Do they fit with current lesson plans?
She did give us quite a lot of websites that we could go and get ideas from. I
really didn’t want to hear loads of ideas that took forever to set up and were
costly, but rather something that you could just pick off the shelf and go with and
would really stretch. She did that quite well. I did notice that they [proposed
activities] were all really… just stuff that was lying around; string and card and
paperclips and stuff like that. And I remember she did say this is all stuff that
you’d be able to grab on a dinner time.
T/A1/1.5/6
It’s alright having a book but it’s got to work in a classroom with 29 children with a
lot of different abilities, special needs, perhaps no TA support.
T/A1/1.5/4
It has to be something that’s not going to be all-consuming. I did the activities
she did, like with the orange and stuff like that. They were dead quick things that
could be done. So I was pleased about that.
T/A1/1.5/6
Well I’m hoping to get some more creative ideas and implement them. I want to
look at all this stuff [provided at the course] and look at the topic that we’re doing
and plan and put it into my plan, actually plan it and deliver it and see how it goes.
I probably will, on the planning, have a separate plan with differentiation.
Separate area for them [able pupils] and fill that in and say this is what they are
going to be doing for that learning objective.
T/A1/1.8/1/3
As this course targets primary science coordinators, its classroom impact (through the P2
route) also seems to increase if the course provides materials ready for dissemination with
peers, as illustrated below:
49
Maybe what would have been helpful would be a list, I mean I know there was a
lot of paper in there, but maybe just one sheet of paper with websites and
resources and books and things so you can just think: this is the subject I’m doing,
this is the year group I’m doing, this is my learning objective for the lesson but I
want a little bit more tweaking for the gifted and more able to stretch them onto
the next level, that kind of thing. I would have just liked a more comprehensive
list of things that maybe we could go to. Maybe something that I could have
given staff because they weren’t there.
……..
I think it’s probably because I’m trying to work with the whole school, and other
people may be there just for themselves which would have been easier but
because I’m trying to feedback to about 18 teachers, I would have just liked
something to say ‘why don’t you try this’ ‘why don’t you try that’. And how people
say to me ‘oh that’s alright if you’re a year 2 but what about if you’re a year 5’?
T/A1/1.6/3/7
A.1.4.3. Impact factors related to characteristics of the participant
Although the course participant is seen and recognised as a very effective change agent (e.g.
leading improvement in science SAT results) this status does not necessarily pull colleagues
along when she promotes other innovations, thus increasing classroom impact through the P2
and P3 route. Instead, the crucial characteristic of the change promoter is passion for the
innovation:
I
You mentioned the very high SAT results; how do you think that will affect the
enthusiasm of colleagues to take on a new initiative like this? Would it also mean
like – ohh, she’s suggesting this; she sees that this would work and previously
obviously all these innovations she has introduced herself they have worked, so
this is a new one introduced by her. Therefore, we should go for it. Do you think
that sort of reasoning exists?
T/A1
Well, I don’t know about that. [laughs] I think it is, if I’m honest with you, a team
effort. I really do think it’s a team effort. I mean you can say ‘implement these
things’, but it’s up to everybody else to do it. So I mean it is a team effort.
T/A1/2.4/8/9/10
I think the biggest impact is how passionate the person is when they return from
the course. T/A1’s passion when she came back and said: ‘we’ve got to do
experimental science – this is how you do it’ had a bigger impact than any
amount of sheets of paper.
T/A1/5.11/8
I
The other possibility is the status of the person. I mean, in our case the fact that
SATs results have improved tremendously. Would that put [you] in a good
position to guarantee impact, that people will say: ‘well what we have done in
science in the past has been successful and therefore we will run with this one
too’?
T/A1
I understand what you are saying about the status of the person, and the subject.
I still think that for our school the passion of whoever is proposing a change
carries more weight. Because I know that we had certain projects that have got
off the ground, not because of the status of the person, or even the status of their
subject, but because they came and said ‘this is really good, we’ve got to do this’,
and that sometimes have been NQTs. It’s got a lot more to do with the oomph
factor. The ones I’m thinking of have not been the most charismatic members of
staff. They are the ones who have seen something, done something and gone
‘yes, that’s it’. I’m thinking of a staff member who has done that and you would
walk past, and you would think they are the least oomphy person you have come
across. They still manage to get things done.
T/A1/5.12/3/7
50
[Any change], it’s almost like selling it to the staff. And if you can’t do that, if a
member of staff comes across as very flat, that can become a stopper for change,
if that makes sense.
T/A1/4.6/7
The impact of the course (here particularly for the P2 route) seemingly is also facilitated by
value congruence between the participant and provider, in this case in terms of their views of
the role of a science coordinator as a collaborator with colleagues aiming at inclusive peer
development rather than adopting an expert role. Below are some examples of value
congruence in developing selection criteria for G&T children and in constructing a G&T audit
for the school:
I remember she [Tutor] said to us, you have to do it yourself, you have to
feedback to the staff. So what I photocopied the three or four things [criteria lists]
[she] gave me. We had a whole staff meeting on it and they worked in their year
groups. ….. So they did that and then they handed it me all back and I’ve
collated all their notes and things I gave it back to them to kind of look over and
see whether they agreed or didn’t agree. I’ve got that back and now I’m kind of
just writing a kind of definition, a check-list, so that everybody knows what it is.
And when I’ve compiled it, then I’ll give it back to the staff in a staff meeting.
Then they will say whether they agree or don’t agree, and what the criteria is for a
more able child in the school.
T/A1/1.3/3 & 2.1/8
The audit, yes… I didn’t get much of the audit done [on the course] so when I got
home I filled in what I personally could and then I kind of thought I can’t fill
anymore in so I gave it to the staff and they filled it in. So that’s worked quite well
because then they know what I’ve done and they’ve had a massive input in it.
Because unless you’ve had an input into something you’re not really bothered
about it. It’s just another bit of paper that’s thrust at you and another something
that you’ve got to do.
T/A1/1.7/3
A.1.4.4. Impact factors related to the school implementation space
The potential for classroom impact along all routes seems to increase as the participant,
colleagues and management clearly agree on a measurable criterion for success of the
change: an increase in the percentage of level 5 achievers:
It’s very interesting to see whether focusing on gifted and talented will raise the
level 5 when it gets to year 6 and not just everybody on level 4 or below, to see
whether in a couple of years, whether it has actually worked in science and the
level 5’s are getting higher.
T/A1/1.11/1
If you look at our science gifted and talented, last year 13% reached a level 5,
30% reached a level 5 this year. So I see that credit has to go down to T/A1 and
some of the feedback she has given back to staff and staff implementing some of
the suggestions that she has made.
T/A1/4.3/10
The number of level 5s we get is increasing as the years go by and I think part of
that is down to us identifying them sooner, and giving them very carefully taught
lessons to address the needs that they need as gifted and talented children.
T/A1/5.2/12
There is a common awareness that the implementation space for innovations resulting from a
CPD course is limited within existing school practices. Overload, time shortage and innovation
fatigue are mentioned by both the change agent and the school management. Within these
circumstances two important strategies are mentioned for increasing classroom impact
through the P2 route. Firstly the strategy of several small changes (drip-feeding) is promoted.
51
The second, more prominent, strategy relies on ‘hiding’ innovations from the CPD course
within major changes already on their way within the school, as the last quotations suggest. It
thus means that classroom impact of the CPD course, ironically, benefits from a school
environment where other major changes are taking place simultaneously.
You have to watch that you are not over-burdening people. I don’t like burdening
staff: you’ve got to do this now, you’ve got to do that now. You think: Oh God,
not something else!
T/A1/2.4/3
I mean I know what it’s like to be a teacher. You [change agent] certainly don’t
want to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. So I think this kind of dripfeeding every so often is a lot better.
T/A1/1.7/3
We’ve also introduced active assessments so less test based assessment further
down the school. We’re trying to do some creative recording, more creative
ideas. (1.2/2) You can have children who can’t read and write very well but
might be very good in thinking logically and in scientific understanding. I need to
do another staff meeting just to try and get that over but we are doing things like
the active assessment. Which we’ve been doing about 2 years now and a lot of
that, of those activities, focus on understanding and the processes and
organisation and how people think, rather than what they are writing down. And I
have said maybe we could use some of those activities of how they might apply
to the more able. For instance, if we’ve got in our definition that a more able child
uses precise vocabulary, that might be something where they can think of an
activity that might show them that they [the able pupil] can do that. The active
assessment is very good for that. So I think that’s probably the way we’ll do it.
T/A1/2.2/5/7
The strategy of ‘hiding’ innovations is legitimised by the views of teachers and curriculum
management that changes should be organically integrated with the existing practice, as noted
by the Head:
We have to make sure changes are embedded into the curriculum so it’s realistic.
What I don’t want are just kind of add-ons.
SMT/A1/4.5/8
This case study shows that several well-established management practices may support the
classroom impact of CPD, especially through the P2 and P3 routes. Firstly, there is an
expectation to disseminate gains at the course formally and informally according to the Head.
SMT/A1 When they come back they disseminate that information back to the staff who
put some action in place as to what we are going to do about it. Then we have
a review date usually about six months afterwards just to see if any initiatives
have had an impact on what the children are doing.
I
When you say dissemination to the staff, it means that they report in a staff
meeting I assume?
SMT/A1 Yes. Usually it would be done at a staff meeting. However if I feel that it was
particularly relevant and it will bolster or it actually fits in with the Inset day that’s
already planned, we will organise some time within that Inset day for feedback.
If it’s particularly urgent it might be an after-school meeting.
SMT/A1/4.2/2/4
SMT/A1 Sharing [CPD] experiences is expected. Apart from the staff meeting or Inset,
also the staff room chit-chat has an impact. You all have staff just talking about
things – what was the course like, yes it was really good, these aspects. And
you just get this general informal discussion as well.
SMT/A1/4.5/2
52
Equally the school has the expectation to work gains form the CPD into the science action
plan, then into the school development plan. This provides direct accountability on the impact
of CPD through in-class monitoring, a point emphasised in the last Ofsted report.
The head does say, ‘you need to do some monitoring’ because people get quite
complacent. We are doing next year a lot of monitoring because we’ve just
been Ofsteded [and more monitoring was one of the recommendations]. The
Head’s given me some time every couple of weeks to actually monitor planning,
the gifted and talented implementation, classroom observations, maybe looking
at gifted and talented and how people are doing it. So I will be able to keep my
eye in the classroom a bit more than I have been. And I think then people will
think, and I know how I think; oh somebody’s coming round, right I’d better get
my act together and do it.
T/A1/1.8/9
I
How can the school support the implementation of the action plans?
SMT/A1 Usually it’s with the time to the person to make sure it’s embedded into the
curriculum. Say T/A1 will get non-contact time to ensure that she can monitor
what’s going on, because that needs to be done pretty rigorously because
otherwise you get people trying to do lip-service. The staff has to see the
benefits of it as well. If the staff will see it’s had an impact on the children,
they’ll be more motivated to do it and it’s a win-win situation. But sometimes it
needs a little bit of support in there to get it off the ground. So the action plan
needs to be used effectively and often it needs that co-ordinator to have some
time to ensure that it is done effectively. And if anyone has got concerns then
she is there to support, help them and even sometimes model lessons so that
they can see. It’s time basically.
SMT/A1/4.5/8
A.1.5
Factors hindering classroom impact of CPD on G&T
A.1.5.1. Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
None.
A.1.5.2 Impact factors related to course characteristics
Classroom impact, specifically its speed, is affected by the specific topic of the CPD course.
The case study shows that, for instance, CPD on G&T in primary schools focuses on changes
in policy and on whole school development, thus lengthening the impact trail from three to five
steps: (i) agreement about the criteria for G&T; (ii) identifying G&T children using these criteria;
(iii) planning challenging activities; (iv) setting/implementing these activities; (v) monitoring the
effect of these activities.
Really this [G&T] has to be a whole-school approach. Everybody needs to know
what they are doing. So primarily at the moment it is a whole school sort of thing.
But obviously I’m hoping that once we get into it and we’ve got a definition [of a
gifted child], then I’m planning on doing some more staff meetings about actually
getting activities in. Then it will become a class issue. The new activities will be
challenging and stretching, children will be identified, and then they will be given
those kind of activities.
SMT/A1/1.4/8 & 1.5/2
A similar effect of a delay in classroom impact results from the fact that primary CPD
participants mostly are subject or issue coordinators (similar to a secondary Head of Science),
and thus their CPD naturally results in P2 and P3 impact routes, as illustrated below:
53
I
If you think of your CPD course, you could see that as a contribution in three
possible areas: a contribution to your self-development as a teacher, or how it
could be impacting on what you do in class or, thirdly, how it would affect the
school. Which of those three areas did you want it to affect most?
T/A1
Probably all three. But primarily I think probably the school because it’s alright
me going on a course and then going back to class and doing my own thing, but
really this [G&T] has to be a whole-school approach. Everybody needs to know
what they are doing. And everybody is interested because they generally needed
some help with it. So primarily at the moment it is a whole school sort of thing.
But obviously I’m hoping that once we get into it and we’ve got a definition [of a
gifted child], then I’m planning on doing some more staff meetings about actually
getting activities in. Then it will become a class issue. The new activities will be
challenging and stretching, children will be identified, and then they will be given
those kind of activities.
T/A1/1.4/8 & 1.5/2
A.1.5.3. Impact factors related to characteristics of participant
The case shows some evidence that classroom impact through the P2 route seems to be
affected by the participant’s perception of her role as coordinator. She will clearly first try an
innovation (e.g. introducing challenging activities) in her own class ‘to see how it goes’ before
recommending it to colleagues.
I’m hoping to get some more creative ideas and implement them [in my class].
That’s basically what I want to do first. I want to look at all this stuff and look at
the topic that we’re doing and plan and put it into my plan, and actually deliver it
and see how it goes. That’s what I’m going to do first.
T/A1/1.8/1
A.1.5.4. Impact factors related to the school implementation space
As mentioned earlier classroom impact may well be hampered by lack of time, overload and
innovation fatigue. There is acknowledged competition for time for different change agendas,
with priority given to subjects by which the school is being measured, i.e. numeracy and
literacy in primary schools. The fact that SATS for science are not any longer written at the
end of KS2 may well tilt this competition for time and attention in favour of subjects other than
science.
Now the staff meetings they fill up very quickly because we are doing APP,
assessing pupils progress, for literacy and numeracy. We’ve got the language coordinator who wants literacy, we’ve got a lot on SEN and PSHE, child protection
all sorts of stuff. So every Monday everybody is sat there [ ] and the weeks just
fill up. So it’s a case of grabbing a slot and saying this is for science now. Only
I’m really conscious of giving anybody anything extra, because people are just …,
it’s hard.
T/A1/2.3/3
Because of the situation our school is in, our bias is very much literacy and
numeracy. And actually science and ICT often get left, not left off, but less
prominent because to be quite honest the Government does not want to know
about science or ICT. One day they will turn around and they will want science as
well. But at the moment they don’t particularly mind. But it is nice that somebody
is doing some intensive work to build up those skills in science because our SATs
results for science have always been better than the literacy and numeracy which
proves how intelligent our children can be, when given a different stimulus
T/A1/5.4/9
The focus at the minute is on APP, assessing pupils’ progress, in literacy and
numeracy. And now of course the key stage 2 SATs [for science] are out of it. I
54
did say the other day in a staff meeting that I was quite concerned; it wasn’t
aimed at the literacy and numeracy teachers, but I was quite concerned in
general that now that the key stage 2 SATS were gone we’d all take the foot off
the pedal. And I said: that can’t happen, because our results last year were the
highest in eleven years, and it’s because we’ve worked really hard. And it’s not
perfect: there are still bits that we need to be doing and there are still members of
staff that need to have a bit more training. I just don’t want to go off the board,
because we’re still not up to the national expectation.
T/A1/2.3/5
The case illustrates well that conflicting or overlapping spheres of responsibility may provide a
hurdle to classroom impact, especially on the P3 route. The participant is responsible for G&T
in science teaching and the Deputy carries responsibility for G&T across the whole school,
and each promotes different criteria for identifying G&T children.
I
Is there somebody specifically assigned the job as a coordinator for gifted and
able?
T/A1
The deputy head who is also the assessment coordinator. She is very, very
good at assessment, absolutely fantastic. But the area of gifted and talented is
quite a grey area especially in a school like ours where we have an awful lot of
free school meals and special needs, very special needs children. The kind of
gifted and more able children, I’m not saying they get forgotten, but because we
have a large focus on special needs in a larger group children, it [G&T] was an
area that hadn’t been developed.
T/A1/1.2/5
I
Can I just ask two things? You’ve been talking about the criteria and how you
spot gifted and able children and you worked through that with your colleagues.
Was that specifically in science or was that across the board?
T/A1
No that was specifically in science, because as science co-ordinator I didn’t
really want to go into numeracy and literacy. But there was a lot of comment
saying this applied to everything. There were specific ones [criteria] for science
in relation to the actual skills. But I mean even I could see all this would relate
to numeracy or literacy. The numeracy and literacy co-ordinator is showing an
interest in that as well.
I
Then the second point is; would you expect that a consolidated listed
specifically for you and your colleagues, would it find its way into school policy
do you think?
T/A1
Yes, definitely. I think probably for the gifted and talented policy and maybe I
don’t know the assessment [policy]. And certainly for the science policy yes. It
will be going into that yes when we finalise it.
I
I’m wondering about the role of the co-ordinator for gifted and talented across
the school obviously and this is an exercise very useful within one subject area.
How does she feel about adopting part of it or generalising it; does she feel no,
her definition will still be the same: 5% top achievers and that’s it?
T/A1
Yes. I think as it stands at the moment. I will move forward with the science bit.
Because obviously it would be up to the ‘powers that be’ shall I say, whether
they adopt it across the board for different areas. That would be up to the
literacy, numeracy, the head, G&T coordinator. I mean the Head aware that I’m
doing this for science and he’s absolutely thrilled. And the G&T coordinator was
taking a lot of it on-board and saying yes, yes, yes. But time will tell. I’m hoping
so. And I think the staff will have a lot to do with that because I think the staff
do want to know, not just in science but in literacy and numeracy.
T/A1/1.4/2/4/6
The Deputy emphasises the differences between G&T in science and G&T more generally,
providing a delineation. In her view G&T identification is closely linked to streaming:
55
SMT/A1 I have the responsibility for supporting the staff in identifying which children are
G&T and in which areas they are G&T. I am updating the register every year.
I
That is a state requirement, isn’t it?
SMT/A1 Yes, it is. And {I’m responsible] for ensuring that the information is then passed
on to the county and to the Government. We look at which children we consider
G&T based on the criteria we’ve got. In the circumstances of our school we
have said we have said it is the top 5 to 10% of our children, and we do
recognise that some of the children that we would identify as G&T might not be
in a different school. Those children, for certain year groups, are given
additional or special teaching separate from their class. So in year 2, for
example, the children who are gifted mathematicians are given additional
teaching time so that they can develop the skills that they need to be achieving
the higher levels based on the National Curriculum. It follows the NC, but it is
done at a higher level, and is much more based on calculation strategies and
problem solving. When the children get to year 5, we split them by ability to an
upper and a lower group, so that the skills that are needed by the G&T children
in particular can be taught to a much more selected group. When they get to
year 6, we split them in three ways. So we have a G&T group, a group who are
average children and should achieve average levels, and a lower group who are
mainly special needs.
SMT/A1/5.1/4/6/8/10
I
OK. Then there will be some consequences [of the differences in criteria].
Because the school will draw up a list of G&T children, but in science there will
be a separate sort of list using different criteria …
SMT/A1 That’s fine. That is even better, because it is nice that there is something there
that will develop a particular subject. I think it is great. I’m very open to
somebody developing their subject.
SMT/A1/5.4/3/5/7/9
Eventually, progress towards classroom impact was only secured after agreeing to implement
course recommendations only within science teaching.
A last factor hindering classroom impact on the P2 route is the fact that a small minority of
teachers show resistance to any change, regardless of what or how it is being proposed.
I
What would be potential barriers to implement any of the things you have in
mind since you attended the course?
T/A1
Probably getting everybody to do it. I mean most people will, but .. I don’t know
how to put this politely. Some people are more open to working in different
ways, and to change, than other people are. And usually older… older
colleagues who are maybe near retirement, just kind of go ‘oh God something
else to do’, you know. But they do give it a go, when we did the actual G&T
assessment [prep for workshop]. So some people were really enthusiastic and
ran with it and thought it was fantastic, and some people just didn’t do it.
T/A1/1.8/9)
56
Case Study A2:
Course Participant:
School
T/A2
Townend Primary School
Also Interviewed
SMT/A2 Headteacher
A.2.1. School context
The large lower primary school (around 480 children on roll, 28 teaching staff) caters for
children of ages 5-9, and feeds to the middle school on the same premises. The catchment
area consists of a reasonably flourishing rural market town within commuting distance from
Kettering, Peterborough and Leicester. The percentage of children entitled to free school
meals is low, and so is the percentage of children with SEN. Almost all pupils are of White
British background and excellent support is provided for the few who come from homes where
English is an additional language.
In the last Ofsted report (2009) the school is consistently rated as good, and the staff feels
they work in an excellent school. The about 10-year old single story building is partly openplan and laid out attractively around several courtyards, including a PTA-sponsored computer
suite: “We are very well resourced, we do not want for anything. This is one of the reasons
why teachers stay here – we only loose them when they move to other areas or retire. They
know how good they have it here” (SMT/A2/4.1/4). The work atmosphere feels cheerful,
energetic and purposeful.
Ofsted (2009) reports that “pupils achieve well, as seen in the steadily rising standards that
are above national averages in reading, writing and mathematics” (p4). “The curriculum meets
all statutory requirements and contributes well to pupils’ good achievement, including for
pupils with additional learning needs and those with special gifts and talents“ (p6).
A.2.2. Choice of participant and CPD course
Each teaching staff member is entitled to go on at least one CPD course each year, selected
by themselves: “The SMT, they trust us” (1.1/1). The Head explains that, every year,
information on CPD courses is circulated to all staff, and they make a bid for courses they
want to go on. The SMT then meets to consider these bids. All major curriculum areas have
a designated coordinator (e.g. the G&T coordinator), and the need to refresh their specific
coordinator roles counts as an acceptable justification for a CPD choice, although some of the
agenda is set externally:
Then of course, a lot of it [CPD] is government imposed. We get a lot of things
thrust at us that we should be doing. G&T is one of these things. It has always
been there but now the government has blown it up so that it needs its own
action plan and gets a lot of attention during the Ofsted.
SMT/A2/4.2/4
Generally teachers are allowed to go on the course they select:
Well you have met T/A2, she is a first class teacher, so when she comes to me
and says ‘I have to go on this [course]’, there is no question: she goes.
SMT/A2/4.2/5
Even with the decentralised strategy for selecting CPD courses, the management is critical of
the usefulness of external CPD and emphasises the effectiveness of peer-learning through
internal CPD:
57
SMT/A2 We look quite carefully at courses, because - I will be quite blunt with you – I
always ask people, obviously, how was it? The answer usually is: a waste of
time.
I
Do you mean two out of three were a waste of time?
SMT/A2 Even more. I do not set great store by courses. In terms of CPD, we believe
this school is by far the best training ground. It may sound arrogant, but we
know we are a good school. Ofsted said reception is outstanding. Our
customers tell us we are good. And the reason that we are highly respected is
because of the people in the school. So instead of saying go on this course, we
say go and watch so-and-so. My CPD programme is releasing teachers to work
with others in the school, coordinators seeing their subjects being taught.
I
So, in terms of time, how many days per year do they get?
SMT/A2 They get a week in which they can take half a dozen sessions to see their
subject being taught across the school, for instance in the year below them, and
the year above them. Then I used to take their class for the week. I also
encourage them to walk the school. They start in nursery, and they spend 15
minutes or so in every year group. So they have something of an overview of
the whole school, and how people are operating.
I
Do they walk the school with a theme in mind?
SMT/A2 That is up to them. The main thing I want them to understand from that
opportunity is how good we are. To have trust in other people, because when
you are locked into your little room you do not have the opportunity to see that.
And too often they come back from courses and say: waste of time. T/A2 did
not say this about this course, though.
SMT/A2/5.3/6-14
Where possible, the SMT deliberately protects staff from new and additional curriculum
demands made by government agencies, and the associated CPD requirements, which as
greatly appreciated by staff members.
SMT/A2 We have always agreed that we’ll never jump on any bandwagon. We know we
are different to many schools. We prefer to wait a year or two, and see what
happens, whether or not it is going to last. As an example, we were one of the
few schools in this area to hold off the teaching of French, despite the pressure
that comes from the local authority to jump on the bandwagon straight away,
because the invitations to courses come, the thick booklets, the CD-Roms, the
training packs, the conferences. One of our concerns is the money that is
wasted with all the people outside of schools pouring work on the people that
are still in [schools].
I
Could you tell me about this?
SMT/A2 The final decision [on CPD] lies with us [school management]. We try to protect
our teachers. We are very well aware of all the publicity about teachers who go
off with stress. We had one example of that here, ten years ago. That caused
the school momentous problems, so we try to protect our teachers as much as
possible. I say, preparing lessons, teaching lessons, and marking the work is a
full-time job. Anything else is extras: resource us accordingly. The best
example is the teaching of French at primary level.
I
Yes, please tell me more about that.
SMT/A2 All the schools in our cluster, there about 13, caved in following the LEA
pressure: why do you not come to our training courses? They all went. We
said, no we do not have to do this till 2010. We have got four years – this was
2006. In my naivety, when I read all this about French coming in to primary
schools I was going to welcome that we were going to have a French teacher. I
58
love French, I have French friends, I think French rugby is great. And then of
course we were hit with the propaganda, the letters that said ‘train up your
present teachers’. That had not occurred to me: they were again putting more
work on existing staff. We got a letter saying the KS2 teachers had to go for 40
hours, four-zero hours, during that school year to be trained for primary French.
We did not go. We were the odd ones out. We were asked to come to a
meeting with the middle school next door. They are teaching French, we are
not helping them by not offering it here. During the meeting pressure was put
on us to train our staff [for French teaching]. We said ‘no, this might never
happen’. Now it HAS happened. Last year, we had a teacher with a spare day,
and she had O-level French, so she went on a training course, one course, and
she teaches French to our year 3 and year 4. We have not increased the
workload of our existing staff. We have given this job to XX as one of her days.
So we have stood by the staff in that respect.
SMT/A2/5.4/9/11/13
Meanwhile, the generous external CPD opportunities will cease starting this year (2009/10)
due to the introduction of Activity-led funding for primary schools, which results in a serious
budget cut and thus a total freeze on external CPD for staff and governors.
T/A2 the teacher who attended the CPD course on G&T children holds a science degree and
has thirteen years teaching experience, all at this school. She takes a year 2 group. Since
“responsibilities have been amalgamated to justify extra payment” (1.1/5), she has a Teaching
& Learning Responsibility including being the school’s science coordinator, the G&T
coordinator, convener of the Eco-action committee, and looking after Design & Technology
teaching.
The CPD course was selected in part because T/A2 has been “impressed” with the facilities
and the course providers of previous SLC courses she went on, and because the topic
combined a focus on science and G&T. Thus, she suggests the course was intended to
benefit the school rather than herself or her class, because of her roles as science and G&T
coordinator. (1.3/6/8) The Head also emphasises the impact on the whole school population
by saying: “I would take the class focus out of it, because if it [the course] benefits the teacher
or the school, or both, then it is going to impact on the children as well”.
SMT/A2/4.2/4
The CPD input served as a follow-up of a two-afternoon course on G&T in primary schools
organised by the County during the previous year, resulting in a G&T action plan and the
inclusion of several targets in the school development plan.
However, the previous year’s
course suggested selection criteria for registering children as G&T, with which the staff was
unhappy and long-established identification procedures were not changed in line with these
recommendations.
Well, on the last course I went on we talked about identification, but I wasn’t
entirely satisfied with what had been discussed, because I think the main thing
that came from that course was this sort of level of 5 – 10% and I think, and the
school certainly agrees with this, it surely depends on your catchment area.
And we’ve only got, I think it’s 3% of our children on the gifted and talented
register. What I liked about the course at the Science Learning Centre was that
it was much more about the characteristics of the children.
SMT/A2/(1.2/10
There was a clear expectation that the course would resolve the conflict on ideas about criteria
for identifying G&T children, not so much a conflict within the staff, but between the staff and
recent and simplified government guidelines. In addition, T/A2 expected to come back with
“ideas for classroom strategies to use with G&T children including ideas on resources, and
probably ideas for targets because we have to write targets for them every two terms”
(T/A2/1.3/12), two areas she was not paying full attention to during the time of the previous
course.
59
A.2.3. Achieved classroom impact
Table 6 summarises the classroom impact of the CPD through three impact routes, either
impacting directly on the participants’ own classroom (the P1 route), on the classrooms of the
participant’s peers (the P2 route) or the most elaborate impact route on all classrooms through
policy changes emerging from the CPD.
Table 6 : Classroom impact by impact route
P1
Impact route
on participant’s own
classroom
P2
on classrooms of
participant’s peers
P3
on all classrooms
through policy change
Nature of classroom impact
* NOTE: in current year there is no G&T child in her class!
(T/A2/2.11/3)
* More participatory, kinestatic starters in science,
(intended) e.g. icebreaker on materials (T/A2/1.4/1); (and
actual) e.g. acting out an electric circuit (T/A2/2.9/5)
* inclusion of more thinking space, e.g. open-ended
questions, increased thinking time, peer consultation
(T/A2/2.7/3)
* even greater emphasis on thinking-about-learning
strategies, e.g. self-evaluation traffic light system; PMI
(plusses, minuses, interests) for discussion of
experiences (T/A2/2.7/1)
* Adaptation of problem solving activities for G&T
(T/A2/2.1/8-2.2/1 and 2.7/3)
* share activities with peer Group 2 teachers for inclusion in
the teaching plan (intended) (T/A2/1.6/8)
* raise awareness with other subject coordinators in how to
consider G&T in their classroom observations
(T/A2/2.1/4)
* Reinforcement of school’s existing identification strategy
and criteria list for G&T children (T/A2/2.4/10)
* Additional refinement of G&T criteria check-lists to cater
for younger age range (intended) (T/A2/2.8/5-8)
* Refinement of G&T PST skills record T/A2/(2.6/1/3)
* No inclusion of G&T target in school improvement plan
this year (T/A2/2.8/2)
A.2.3.1 Classroom impact routes model P1
Table 6 suggests that a full term after the CPD experience considerable impact has been
achieved on T/A2’s own classroom (the P1 impact). This is despite of the fact that her own
classroom was not considered a priority impact target, and that this year there is no G&T child
in her group:
This year I haven’t got anyone in this class who is gifted and talented but there
are a few I’m watching, especially numeracy I’ve got some very strong boys in
numeracy. Last year I had A who was gifted and talented in science and
numeracy. I hadn’t had a child like him before. The year before I had literacy
gifted and talented pupils. So [this year] I changed some things that I did for A.
But obviously it depends on the class that you’ve got and the individuals within
that class because they are all so different.
T/A2/2.11/3
The considerable P1 impact seems mainly intended as a preparation for recommending (or
not) such innovations to peers, i.e. the P2 route of classroom impact:
T/A2
I liked a few of those activities but I haven’t had a chance yet. We’re doing
materials next term so there are a couple of things in there that I could try and
use, and if we like them in year 2 then we can pass them on to other year
groups to try with different subjects.
60
I
Would you normally follow that procedure?
T/A2
Yes, that’s usually what I’d do from a course, I try things out. I think most
people are the same. There’s certain things you can pass on that are general
to the school. When it comes to ideas, you’re better having tried it yourself and
if it works then… On a training day I can show them [colleagues] some of the
activities when I feel a bit more confident using them and that they work.
T/A2/2.10/10-11/1
The introduction of new activities in T/A2’s own classroom took the form of (re)-emphasising
several major strategies to promote diversity in learning, and adapt some of these for G&T
learners. All of these strategies were promoted, at the time, across the school as part of
exemplary teaching. These strategies included the use of kinestatic activities as lesson
starters as part of the drive to more participatory learning: the role playing of an electric circuit
was suggested at the course, and the outline for a mobile quiz on the characteristics of
materials was developed during the course. Other existing strategies have been reinforced,
such as the need for stimulating children, and the provision of room for reflection on learning
were specifically emphasised in the course as ways of stretching G&T children. Similarly,
problem solving tasks have been a recent assessment focus for the school. Some of these
tasks have carefully been extended in order to cater also for G&T children, an approach
illustrated by the course convener. Thus, in this case study the high level of P1 classroom
impact seems to guided by the strategy to insert a potential G&T aspect in teaching strategies
introduced anyway, in preparation for subsequent wider dissemination.
With introducing it to the school, obviously time is a factor that can be a barrier
[to classroom impact] because often it is easier to teach what we’ve already
taught and got in our planning files. But I think if it’s just sort of short activities
that can be slotted in, then it [change] is not too much of a problem.
T/A2/1.7/4
A.2.3.2 Classroom impact routes model P2
After one term the course has had limited impact on the classrooms of participant’s peers (the
P2 route) although this is the declared main impact route.
The school uses collective planning of termly teaching across each year group. During this
process some of the activities (see above) suggested in the course have been discussed and
included in the teaching plan across Year 2. This could still be seen as a try-out before
promoting more general use across the school as part of the accepted role of the G&T
coordinator. Thus in this case study, stronger P2 classroom impact is expected towards the
end of the year if an opportunity for sharing experiences during an inset session has been
made available.
Otherwise, T/A2 has provided some reinforcement of a G&T focus in on-going in-class support
by subject coordinators (other than science) including course-based guidelines for doing so.
T/A2 consciously uses the strategy of piggybacking the suggested G&T changes on to
strategies already promoted by other subject coordinators.
Other subject co-ordinators have their own agendas, don’t they? They’ve got
things on their development plan that they want to do and I’m giving them another
job to think about. There are just so many other things aren’t there? All vying for
your attention. This is just one extra thing that I’m putting on other teachers. But I
mean they are very good, they are very open minded. And some of these things
[novel strategies] have been done, so I just want to continue to build on those
[strategies].
T/A2/2.6/7
61
A.2.3.3 Classroom impact routes model P3
Decisive classroom impact has been achieved through the P3 route although not all due to
changes in teaching strategies or policies. For instance, one of the explicit expectations of
course participation was a resolution of the uncertainties about the identification strategies for
G&T children. A significant impact of the course includes the confirmation of existing
identification strategies:
I
Concerning the criteria, the checklist with criteria for G&T, did you change
anything after the course?
T/A2
No I haven’t.
I
Do you think it needs changing?
T/A2
Well, what I was given on the course I’d seen before. I have a couple of
examples of checklists, things about identifying them [G&T children]. Like that’s
from the QCA. We’ve looked at things like that in previous years, and the lady
before me who was the G&T coordinator devised this one, and everybody is
happy to keep that.
I
So what did you take away from the course?
T/A2
She reinforced the fact that we’ve got to look at ourselves as an individual school
and think about the children that we’ve got rather than worry about percentages.
I
You had done that already [laughs]
T/A2
Yes, I know what you mean. Really what I got from her course, it made me feel a
bit more confident about what we were doing.
T/A2/2.5/1-7
Although the existing check-list for identifying G&T children is considered “easy to use and
clear” (T/A2/2.8/8), T/A2 feels she wants to ‘hone’ the list, based on input from the course, for
the youngest children in the school.
In addition, the format for personal target setting has been revised in order to cater for G&T,
although this is not only based on the experiences in the course:
T/A2
I’ve updated the form for the PTS, because what I used before was sort of a
tippexed version of the SEN form. I tried to develop it, and as I used it more and
more I had an idea of what I actually wanted. So it is just more relevant. I’m
trying to make the targets more measurable, smart targets.
I
The changes in the form, were they informed by anything you picked up on the
course, or did they come from a different direction?
T/A2
It is difficult to say, isn’t it? Because I have been on others [courses] and I don’t
know where I’ve got ideas from. I think probably just from using them. They are
not that different, but there were things on here that weren’t relevant. And having
used them it helped me think about what relevant things would be.
T/A2/2.6/1-3
Meanwhile, the case study shows that after one term the school has reached the third step
amongst the five steps on the P3 route for classroom impact (agreement on selection criteria;
identification of G&T children; developing appropriate science activities; disseminating and
implementing these activities; monitoring and supporting the implementation).
62
A.2.4. Factors facilitating classroom impact of CPD on G&T
A.2.4.1 Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
Again, it seems obvious, but significant, that the potential for classroom impact along all routes
is increased if the participant has classroom-related reasons for going on the course, as
opposed to reasons such as satisfying curiosity, the intention to increase awareness or for
gathering information.
I wanted some ideas for classroom strategies to use with G&T children including
ideas on resources
T/A2/1.3/12
The expectation that the course would resolve the conflict on ideas about criteria for identifying
G&T children certainly facilitates classroom impact (through the P3 route), even though it
concerned not so much a conflict within the staff, but between the staff and recent and
simplified government guidelines. The course did provide the ‘conflict resolution’ on the
identification criteria for G&T children, without any need for follow up action since the course
confirmed the school’s existing policy. One could argue that this is impact-without-change.
I
Concerning the criteria, the checklist with criteria for G&T, did you change
anything after the course?
T/A2
No I haven’t.
I
So what did you take away from the course?
T/A2
She reinforced the fact that we’ve got to look at ourselves as an individual school
and think about the children that we’ve got rather than worry about percentages.
I
You had done that already [laughs]
T/A2
Yes, I know what you mean. Really what I got from her course, it made me feel a
bit more confident about what we were doing.
T/A2/2.5/1-7
A.2.4.2 Impact factors related to course characteristics
Unsurprisingly, classroom impact through all routes seems to be greatly dependent on the
type of materials, resources or strategies promoted or practiced during the course. The main
criterion seems to be the degree of match of the proposed resources or strategies with
existing school practice: do they use materials easily available? Are they practicable for use
in large groups? Do they fit with current lesson plans?
T/A2
Like we’re taking on a new phonics thing this year, and rather than buying we’re
sharing and making our own [resources]. So I mean that some of the things in
here [the course pack] we can make ourselves and don’t need to order. That is
certainly something to think about, to save money.
T/A2/2.9/1
I
Could you tell me why you want to focus on these particular activities, like the
practical activities and the starters?
T/A2
Mainly because I think it will interest the children more and get them enthusiastic
about learning that topic. I’m aware that with younger ones they learn in a much
more hands-on way.
T/A2/1.6/12
63
There are ideas there that you can adapt - which I like - to suit whatever lesson or
topic you’re doing.
T/A2/1.7/1
As this course targets primary science coordinators, its classroom impact (through the P2
route) also seems to increase if the course provides materials ready for dissemination with
peers, as illustrated below:
So the sheets that were in our pack, really colourful they were like rainbow sheets
- we already had those from the course I went on last year - and I gave those out.
There were the ones for the school as a whole which I’ve kept in my file. But
then those sheets were handed out to the staff so that if they wanted to they
could use them for staff evaluation and to give them ideas for things they perhaps
needed to develop.
T/A2/1.4/7
The impact of the course (here particularly for the P3 route) seemingly is also facilitated by
value congruence between the participant and provider, in this case in terms of the wholepupil approach to performance. Below is an example of value congruence in identifying
selection criteria for G&T children:
I
Now I am interested in your thoughts about the criteria for selection. I remember
[course provider] had quite clear ideas about that.
She said it’s quite
contentious …
T/A2
Yes, because people give you figures and she didn’t agree, did she? I mean
every school is different, you’ve got different catchments. Each cohort is different,
and I mean I don’t tend to measure… Last year we had I think it was 3% of our
school was gifted and talented and somebody said 5 to 10%. But I’m not going to
jump through hoops and find these extra children if teachers aren’t saying they
are standing out. Then I don’t agree. And [Course Tutor] I think, felt the same.
T/A2/2.4/3
The case illustrates the potential for classroom impact along the P3 route when the course
closely links with school management tools such as action plans and improvement plans.
I was really glad I came on the course because … We evaluated the action plan
from last year, and I had decided that I wasn’t going to write one for this year, so
sort of maintain some of the things we’d put in place and keep things ticking
along. And it [the course] did give me ideas that would be worthy of putting I an
action plan and sharing with the rest of the school. So hopefully it will carry on
moving us on with it.
T/A2/1.9/7
A.2.4.3. Related to characteristics of participant
None.
A.2.4.4. Impact factors related to the school implementation space
The potential for classroom impact along all routes seems to increase as the participant,
colleagues and management clearly agree on a criterion for success of the change: multisource evidence, some impressionistic, and less explicitly tied to achievement levels.
I
What about measuring success? What sort of evidence would you be on the
lookout for to say ‘yes, I’ve managed to do that’?
64
T/A2
Obviously we assess children on each topic and if we feel there has been an
improvement in results with children remembering more about a topic and also
just enjoying the topic as well, and that is obviously true observation. But we tend
to question them; we do sometimes do written assessments with the older ones.
But I think that is a major thing and obviously feedback from teachers on how
successful they think it was.
T/A2/1.8/6
There is a common awareness that the implementation space for innovations resulting from a
CPD course is limited within existing school practices. Overload, time shortage and innovation
fatigue are mentioned by both the change agent and the school management. Within these
circumstances a major strategy is mentioned for increasing classroom impact through the P2
route. Again, this strategy relies on ‘hiding’ innovations from the CPD course within major
changes already on their way within the school, as the last quotations suggest. It thus means
that classroom impact of the CPD course, ironically, benefits from a school environment where
other major changes are taking place simultaneously.
With introducing it to the school, obviously time is a factor that can be a barrier [to
classroom impact] because often it is easier to teach what we’ve already taught
and got in our planning files. But I think if it’s just sort of short activities that can
be slotted in, then it [change] is not too much of a problem. There are a lot of
things from different areas just thrown at them and you don’t want to be overbearing
T/A2/1.7/4
Other subject co-ordinators have their own agendas, don’t they? They’ve got
things on their development plan that they want to do and I’m giving them
[teachers] another job to think about. There are just so many other things aren’t
there? All vying for your attention. This is just one extra thing that I’m putting on
other teachers. But I mean they are very good, they are very open minded. And
some of these things [novel strategies] have been done, so I just want to continue
to build on those [strategies].
T/A2/2.6/7
The way we see it in the school is that the things we are putting on to place are
for all children but they also then cater for the gifted and talented, because they
are working at their level hopefully. The same with the problem solving approach.
We’ve got problem solving books for each of them [children], but obviously the
ones who are more likely to get on to them are the children who are very able.
So this is the sort of thing we’re hoping will stretch the more able because they
can work independently on things like that.
T/A2/2.2/1
This case study shows that several well-established management practices may support the
classroom impact of CPD, especially through the P2 and P3 routes. Firstly, there is an
expectation to disseminate gains at the course formally and informally according to the Head.
After attending a course, the teacher reports back at the next staff meeting, and
highlights some handouts which she thinks would be useful to everyone. We
don’t want to distribute all the materials they come home with – it will be too
overwhelming. Sometimes they give an input at a staff training day. Scheduling
such feedback on a training day for all CPD days attended by staff would be
impossible: there are only five training days and there are lots of things to do on
those days.
T/A2/4.2/2
Equally the school has the expectation to work gains form the CPD into the science action
plan, then into the school development plan. Such expectations facilitate classroom impact
through the P3 route.
65
Well, we did have an action plan last year as a result of the two day course I went
on. I went on teat course to find out more, get ideas and think about what we
could improve on and we devised an action plan. And actually there was one
point based on that on the school’s development plan as well which I was
pleased about. And based on the [RSCL] course I went on, I have to write a new
action plan now.
T/A2/1.2/8
A.2.5. Factors hindering classroom impact of CPD on G&T
A.2.5.1. Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
None.
A.2.5.2 Impact factors related to course characteristics
A delay in classroom impact results from the fact that primary CPD participants mostly are
subject or issue coordinators (similar to a secondary Head of Science), and thus their CPD
naturally results in P2 and P3 impact routes, as illustrated below:
I
If you think of your CPD course, you could see that as a contribution in three
possible areas: a contribution to your self-development as a teacher, or how it
could be impacting on what you do in class or, thirdly, how it would affect the
school. Which of those three areas did you want it to affect most?
T/A2
It was obviously mainly for the school because of my roles [as science and G&T
coordinators]. It fitted really well.
I
If I would push, would you think this particular course was mainly helping you to
be a better science coordinator or a better G&T coordinator?
T/A2
I think mainly for the gifted and talented.
T/A2/1.3/5-8
A.2.5.3. Impact factors related to characteristics of participant
The case shows some evidence that classroom impact through the P2 route seems to be
affected negatively by the participant’s perception of her role as coordinator. She clearly first
wants to try an innovation (e.g. introducing challenging activities) in her own class ‘to see how
it goes’ before recommending it to colleagues.
T/A2
I would like to try out some of those things, some of the ideas I made notes on
[during the course]. What I need to do really now is try them out myself and then
share things with staff in more detail. I said I would come back to them with more
detail of things they could use in the classroom.
I
Is that your usual strategy, that you try it out yourself in your class first, and then
you go to the staff?
T/A2
It is with things like activities, yes. I mean with sort of policy things, obviously I go
the senior management team, and then feed back. But if it’s activities, I want to
try it out in class first, because I think it helps if you can say ‘well this works really
66
well and I have tried it in a real situation’. They are more likely to think …, to
listen and take it on board.
T/A2/1.4/5-7
A.2.5.4. Impact factors related to the school implementation space
As mentioned earlier classroom impact may well be hampered by lack of time, overload and
innovation fatigue. There is acknowledged competition for time for different change agendas,
with priority given to subjects by which the school is being measured, i.e. numeracy and
literacy in primary schools.
I
Was there any activity in the course that you thought you wanted to use as an
activity at a staff meeting, or an in-service day?
T/A2
I didn’t think that, because there are so many subject areas, and in the last year I
did have time to do that on training days. It’s possible for the future, but not the
near future, because obviously there are so many other areas we have to cover
on training days. I don’t want to hog it.
T/A2/1.5/2/3
Other subject co-ordinators have their own agendas, don’t they? They’ve got
things on their development plan that they want to do and I’m giving them another
job to think about. There are just so many other things aren’t there? All vying for
your attention. This is just one extra thing that I’m putting on other teachers. But
I mean they are very good, they are very open minded. And some of these things
[novel strategies] have been done, so I just want to continue to build on those
[strategies].
T/A2/2.6/7
In this case study the conflicting spheres of responsibilities, e.g. G&T in science versus G&T in
whole school does not emerge since the participant is coordinator for science AND coordinator
for G&T across the school.
67
Course B: Introduction
Gifted & Talented in Science across the Secondary Years (YHC08020)
‘Science Demonstrations: Effective and Safe’.
Target Audience:
Secondary teachers, science coordinators/leaders for age group
Course descriptor:
You will gain strategies and experience of presenting an effective demonstration. The focus
will be on how more exciting experiments can be used to support the curriculum, generating
enthusiasm in your pupils and ensuring their engagement. The practical preparation of a
number of demonstrations from physics, chemistry and biology will be undertaken and
resourcing and safety issues will be addressed.
Outcomes for participants stated in the course literature were as follows:
Teachers will:

improve
skills
demonstrations;

extend (your) repertoire of science demonstrations at
KS3 and KS4;

understand
the
preparation
and
requirements of a good demonstration;

analyse safety issues and
practicals used on the course.
in
carrying
out
resourcing
science
planning
of
the
Summary of the course
Seven participants attended the course. Two were teachers, the other five being school
science technicians two of whom were working with the course leader on design of courses
(for technicians) at the Sheffield SLC.
The day began with an introduction by the course leader who introduced outcomes as above
and pointed out that the course had previously been facilitated by CLEAPSS. A course
evaluation tool called ‘In a nutshell’ (see appendix C, p119-120) was shown and discussed.
The tool is intended to help participants note on-the-spot points of interest and key learning
points that help them form action plans after completion of the course (submitted within six
weeks to obtain ‘impact awards’). Participants were asked to identify health and safety issues
of concern to them in demonstrated science practical work and a discussion of these points
followed. Slides, provided by CLEAPPS, were shown to illustrate common causes of accidents
in school science, myths about what is and is not allowed, the principles of risk assessment of
practical work and employers’ and employees’ legal responsibilities. Some examples of how
to deal with common emergencies in the school science lab were discussed and this was
followed by examples of how to incorporate risk assessments in schemes of work.
68
The rest of the morning was taken up by laboratory work (2 hours) in which [course leader]
demonstrated examples, mainly in chemistry/physical chemistry, and then participants
practised as many of these as was possible. Examples of demonstrations included:


Quick and easy crystals, rapid growth of large crystals of Copper (II) sulphate.
Dramatic diffusion (1): A visible gas, diffusion of nitrogen dioxide into an ‘empty’
gas jar.

Dramatic diffusion 2 (2): Speedy molecules, differential diffusion of ammonia and
hydrogen chloride along a perspex tube containing indicator paper.

Volcanoes. A safe way of showing the spectacular redox reaction of heated
ammonium dichromate (VI) in a conical flask.

Nylon rope trick: preparation of a polymer – details of the chemicals??
Demonstrations shown and practised in the morning were deliberately chosen to be relatively
easy and safe to carry out so as to give participants confidence. In the afternoon session more
risky and spectacular demonstrations were shown and practised and included:

Whoosh bottle: Ignition of propane 1-ol coated onto the inside of a large disused
water dispenser.

Cannon fire: Rapid oxidation of Hydrogen peroxide by Potassium permanganate
(V1) to produce a series of rapid mini-explosions.

Copper oxide and magnesium. Violent exothermic replacement reaction when dry
copper oxide and magnesium powder are heated together in a crucible.
Both case study participants became visibly more adventurous at carrying out demonstrations
as the afternoon session proceeded, especially T/B3 who repeated the copper oxide and
magnesium reaction several times increasing the reacted quantities each time (within the
allowed, risk assessed, limits).
The day closed with a list of websites and other resources of information about science
demonstrations, safety and practical work in school science.
69
CASE STUDY B3.
Course participant
School:
T/B3
Ringway High School
Also interviewed
SMT/B3 Deputy Headteacher i/c Professional Development
B.1.1. The School
Ringway is a non-denominational, 11-18 inner city school in West Yorkshire with 1534 pupils
on roll and specialist status in technology and languages. It has a large sixth form of 321
pupils and higher than average numbers of pupils with free school meals, who speak English
as a second language or with special educational needs. At its last inspection by Ofsted
(2007a), the school was described as providing ‘an outstanding education for its students …
achievement is excellent and standards are well above the average’. The sixth form at the
school is the highest performing in the city.
B.1.2. Choice/decision process for the participant’s CPD
T/B3 is a physics specialist in his first year of teaching and identified this course as matching
his CPD needs at this early stage of his career. T/B3 knew of the work of the NSLC at York
and had been exposed to the resources it contains and courses it provides as a trainee
teacher at York. As a PGCE student he was a registered user at the NSLC and so
automatically received course updates by Email and that is how he knew of this course. T/B3
approached his Head of Department who ratified his choice and communicated it to the
Assistant Head in charge of CPD who confirmed that T/B3 should attend:
As a non-scientist, having had that approved by his department, I was happy to
accept its relevance. That’s how we operate it. I can’t begin to be an expert for
every single department in the school … and I’m perfectly happy to accept it.
SMT/B3/1.3/9
… my understanding of this particular course was that it was very practical.
Therefore we would have expected improvements in terms of sense of health and
safety and the suitability of his preparation for such practicals. As a new teacher in
school we would see that as extremely relevant in terms of improving his expertise
generally.
SMT/B3/1.3/13
B.1.3. Participant expectations of the CPD (Documentary and interview data)
The comments above corroborate T/B3’s own expectations of the course in developing his
knowledge base, repertoire and expertise at carrying out science demonstrations and practical
work. For example at the first interview T/B3 said:
(I was looking forward to)...having the knowledge of what practicals there are
available, because I’ve got quite a limited knowledge because I haven’t done them
yet. I think as soon as you do them they become more imprinted in your mind.
You can remember – oh what can I do for this, oh I could do this practical, I’ve
done it in the past. It was really sort of (gaining) knowledge and skills.
T/B3/1.2/2
In addition T/B3 also looked to the course to provide confirmation for himself and his
colleagues of which practicals and demonstrations are allowed. For example he had been told
by one of the technicians that a demonstration of a collapsing (evacuated) can was not
70
allowed and by another teacher that a model smoking machine could not be used because of
the danger to pupils and the teacher of secondary inhalation of cigarette smoke. To a certain
extent T/B3 was concerned about the personal responsibility that communicating new
knowledge about legality of practical work might bring as this quote shows:
… (I wanted to find out about) the smoking machine and you know they (other
teachers) had concerns that it wasn’t legal to do it in the classroom. I wanted to
find out if it is this legal. They (other teachers) may not have necessarily wanted
me to find that it was legal because I think they had a strong opinion that it
shouldn’t be done.
T/B3/1.3/12
As well as improving these aspects of knowledge, of the range of demonstrated practicals
available and safety issues, T/B3 also looked to the course to provide ways of making his
teaching more engaging and so to enthuse his pupils. For example:
I think in the long term what I wanted to achieve is just engaging the pupils
more … I just wanted the kids to be more ‘wowed’. I think kids can get a bit turned
off when you sort of talk too much, because they (meaning educationalists?) are
always saying don’t talk too much, maximum talking time 10 minutes …. there’s
obviously kids that can learn from visual aspects rather than audio so they’ll learn
more from seeing it happening and it will stick in their head a little bit more.
T/B3/1.4/12 and 1.5/4
At interviews with the senior manager responsible for CPD in the school (SMT/B3/1) it was
clear that teachers attending courses are expected to share outcomes within their department
and as part of regular whole school events dedicated to professional development:
We have a very well established system of sharing good practice … that includes
any kind of CPD that we undertake for example, as part of our teaching and
learning drive we have a day or an afternoon every half term where the timetable is
collapsed and whole teams work together on various things connected with
learning which might be in individual departments or whole school. We use those
occasions to link across the whole school so that sometimes they’re group
activities or whole school activities but the idea is that we share good practice.
Our regular staff meetings also have a sharing of good practice section. Each
departmental meeting opens with a sharing of good practice and a celebration of
good practice as a matter of course.
SMT/B3/1.2/6
B.1.4. Participant intentions and/or action plans at CPD
A written action plan was not produced but an ‘impact form’ supplied by the RSLC was
provided for the researcher (see below) at the time of the first interview in July - this had not
been seen by the SMT member responsible for CPD though it was supposed to have been
countersigned by him before returning it to the RSLC so as to gain the impact award covering
part of the costs of the course.
71
Impact on
Impacts to date
knowledge
and skills
I found the course gave me a lot
more confidence in presenting
demonstrations I had previously
been unaware of or was not sure
how to run.
I am more aware of experiments
that I am allowed to do and have
used this to encourage other
members of staff to support me in
delivering them.
(As a physics specialist I would
have benefited from more physics
practicals)
With extra knowledge and
confidence on a couple of
occasions I have advised other
members of staff on different
approaches to experiments as well
as sharing the websites for future
use.
The biggest impact to date is
increased motivation of pupils from
seeing new and exciting
demonstrations. This has
encouraged more pupils to attend
science club.
practice
school
pupils
Rating
0-3
2
Evidence
1
We were previously discouraged to
perform a smoking practical but with
the extra knowledge I successfully
argued for it.
2
During staff meetings I have shared
what I have learned about good
sources of information (websites) and
practicals.
2
I used a number of the experiments
for the last science club of last year
and pupils have shown interests ion
attending science club this year.
I have used a number of he
experiments either in lessons or in
the science club.
The scale used to rate impact in column three is based on ‘0’ indicating ‘no impact’ and ‘3’
‘significant impact’.
B.1.5 Achieved classroom impact
P1
Impact route
on participant’s own
classroom
Nature of classroom impact
* Demonstrations previously thought to be banned were
carried out in class. T/B3/ 1.4.6
* Demonstrations used to provide a ‘visual hook’ to complex
or abstract concepts. T/B3/2.5/4
* Demonstrations used to enthuse pupils and increase
attendance at ‘science club’. (see impact award form as
above)
P2
on classrooms of
participant’s peers
* Examples of demonstrations and information on websites
shared with other teachers and the technician team.
T/B3/ 2.6/9
P3
on all classrooms
through policy change
* Made staff aware of practicals that are allowed under
health and safety laws. T/B3/1.6.3
72
So I did that (the smoking machine) with my year 8’s because it was a low ability
and what the technicians have done is .. they made a video of the whole thing
and they were saying - oh just show them the video, show them the video and
we understand that you could do it, so I thought, no we’ll do the practical even
though they didn’t want to do it … you’d rather see it actually working than
watching a video of it working.
T/B3/1.4.6
In a way this is a marker of T/B3’s new confidence and an indication that he now feels more
established and able to challenge established orthodoxies of practice in the department.
…where you’ve got a radio connected to a bit of circuit equipment, turns a radio
signal into a light signal so you can show the light signal to them then you put the
fibre optics into a receiver which is connected to a speaker. So they actually see
that the light is transmitting the information from one side to another.
T/B3/2.5/4
So it’s also to get the visual learners in as well and the kinaesthetics… if they can
get hands-on. I think it definitely helps them sort of remember back to - oh do
you remember when we saw that kind of thing, and then hopefully the edges of
the lesson around the demonstration or something will sort of connect to that and
sort of get the brain firing up or something like that.
I talked about what I did on the course at a staff meeting, so the department
meeting. Told everybody what I’d got, I made people copies of the experiments
that were legal so that everybody was aware about a few health and safety
aspects that were brought up on the course.
T/B3/1.6.3
It seems that impact was mainly via the P1 (personal route) and that the P3 (whole
school/department) route was barely significant as this quote from interview 1 confirms:
I think it (impact of the CPD) was probably from a base level…myself …. I think
the school as a whole was probably like the very smallest part….probably self
first and then as a result the impact on my class. The school part…that would
probably just be the sharing of the knowledge that I have now …
T/B3/1.1.17
B.2.0. Factors facilitating classroom impact of CPD on the use of effective
and safe demonstrations
B.2.1. Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
Personal gains of accumulating knowledge, expertise and skills at using demonstrations
matched expectations as did gains in knowledge about safety aspects of practical work.
I think it (the course) was pretty good. Obviously I saw a lot of practicals that I’d
never seen before and I have been using them a lot. For example, I’ve just
bombarded my technician with 10 different practicals that I want to do for science
club. The majority of those are from the course.
T/B3/1.2.4
73
It’s just been good to know that there is a demonstration there to show something
that normally you would be just speaking about. So you’ve got the background
knowledge to know that there is a demonstration to fit in somewhere. Because
often you can be planning a lesson and it could take you half and hour searching
around on the internet or something trying to find the right demonstration to fit the
subject.
T/B3/2.1.2
There was evidence of general impact in terms of T/B3’s confidence enabling him to challenge
what is said, by teachers and technicians in the department, to be allowed as safe
demonstrations to carry out in class. This helped T/B3 address concerns of other teachers
about the legality of carrying out certain practical activities:
Yes, I’m more confident in listening to other people’s advice but also thinking
maybe that’s not correct and maybe I can do this; let’s go and have a look at
CLEAPSS and see what they say. You know, be more confident in knowing what
I’m allowed to do kind of thing.
T/B3/1/2.8
Finally T/B3’s desire to use demonstrations to promote a ‘wow-factor’ in his lessons was
satisfied to a certain extent, though his frustration at not having enough examples in his own
subject area of physics tempered this (see later). In one example, of a lesson to teach about
invisible light used to carry communications, he demonstrated a fibre optic cable carrying a
radio signal. This also involved the head technician (an ex-electronics engineer) in providing
equipment which he had made.
Well it was internal reflection and how we use invisible light as can be used in
communication…I’d been talking about it but you know I’d tried my best to set up
little tasks for them (pupils) to… work through and to work out how optical fibres
work …but it wasn’t until they actually saw it working itself…You just shine a laser
down them (optical fibres) and show how the light… you know you curl it all up
and you show it still comes out the end. We’ve got a good one there as well
because the head technician …; he does make a lot of the equipment himself ….
an ex-engineer I thin …. you’ve got a radio connected to a bit of circuit equipment
and it turns a radio signal into a light signal so you can show the light signal to
them then you put the fibre optics into a receiver which is connected to a speaker.
So they actually see that the light is transmitting the information from one side to
another.
T/B3/2.5/2&4
There was evidence from comments made to T/B3 by his TA, who worked in the lesson in
which this demonstration had been used, that previously unengaged pupils had been
interested in the demonstration as this exchange shows:
I
You were telling me today about today’s lesson with fibre-optics. What about
engagement of pupils?
T/B3
I don’t know what evidence I could collect but … I suppose I did have a TA in the
lesson and she did comment that they were quite engaged when they saw the
demo …
I
Would that be the pupils she is working with?
T/B3
She was working with the whole class. So she sees me working with them in this
class and in another teacher’s class.
I
So somebody that works in your class quite regularly is seeing something going on?
74
T/B3
Yes. She has seen me teach these a few lessons last year and into this year.
Today she just made the comment, because they weren’t great today … and
she said when they were seeing the demonstrations and things like that they
were much more engaged.
T/B3/2.9/12-17 & 9/1-2
The school management’s expectation that teachers will feedback to their home departments
and in whole school sessions focussed on CPD was only partially met as this quote from the
second interview with the Deputy Head responsible for CPD shows:
Erm… he has not met the whole school expectation …not specifically because
obviously he’s worked within his departmental area …I know from departmental
minutes for example that that is fed through within the department….In terms of
whole school, not yet. but …I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t in the future.
T/B3/2.2.7
B.3.0. Impact factors related to the course characteristics and content
Covered elsewhere.
B.4.0. Impact factors related to the characteristics of the participant
As an NQT, T/B3 benefited from the school’s policy to ring fence development funds for
teachers in their first year. Bearing in mind the early stage of his career, the most significant
impact was on T/B3’s confidence. In talking with the Deputy responsible for CPD, it was
evident that some of this could be attributed to the course especially in providing T/B3 with the
professional authority associated with ‘validated knowledge’ (i.e. that which is supplied by
outside agencies such as the NNSLC) and through proven classroom implementation (the fact
that he had successfully taught using the recommended approaches). This exchange from the
second interview in October 2009 illustrates this:
SMT/B3 What’s significant about him is that his confidence, you know for somebody who
was an NQT last year… his confidence has really increased no end. Because
he feels, and you can see within the department, he is somebody who has built
up the respect of other people because he feels that he’s assured his classroom
practice …
I
Is that as a result of going on this course or do you think…?
SMT/B3 It’s very difficult. From observational things you know, you can see that certain
NQTs take longer to establish themselves within their departments. And he’s…
you know he’s not a terrific extravert in that sense in the way that some people
are. But his assurance is obvious and I think that being able to come back from
a course like this one is something which is going to ensure that other people
listen to what he has to say, and especially if he applies it in the classroom …it’s
perfectly obvious that he is applying things that he has learnt and it’s had an
impact on him in that sense. When I talk to him about it he’s enthusiastic but
also objective which is why he was quite frank about the fact that those
elements which were more suitable for chemists weren’t necessarily very useful
to him.
STM/B3/2.2/3/7&8
This new level of confidence and the importance of proving professional worth by
successfully attempted actions was confirmed at T/B3’s second interview. For example,
he described how he was advised by technicians that placing potassium permanganate
75
(VI) crystals into hot water to show convection was not advised mainly on the basis that
no other teacher had done this before. T/B3s ‘professional courage’ in going ahead with
what he believed was educationally valid and safe to do helped him gain the respect that
more experienced teachers take considerable time to establish. This exchange shows this
point quite clearly.
T/B3
Well the head technician is quite head-strong and is probably the most difficult
point to get past. He even said he disagreed with CLEAPPS and he was going
to phone CLEAPPS up and tell them they were wrong. So, you know I think
people who maybe set in their ways and said in the past to other teachers
you’re not allowed to do it. They’ll say to me I’m not allowed to do it either.
There has been one recently actually. I wanted to do convection currents with
potassium manganate but I was told I wasn’t allowed to do it because
potassium stains clothes.
I
You were doing it as a demonstration?
T/B3
Well I did want them to do it in groups. I didn’t think it was that big a deal as it
was just boiling water. You just put a piece of potassium manganate in the
corner (of a glass vessel) and I was basically told I wasn’t allowed to do that.
I
By a technician?
T/B3
Yes … No it was more... we’ve never done that in the past. That was probably
the biggest and it’s almost if you haven’t done it in the past then we’re not doing
it anymore.
I
So it’s almost like… I mean is that you and your age and the fact that you’ve
only been here, you’re now in the second year. Is that part of it as well? If
you’d been doing these things and had practice over 10, 20 years then you’d
establish that kind of respect.
T/B3
If I’d done it before you know, I don’t think there could be any argument about
doing it again unless something really bad happened.
I
So it’s like a precedent really?
T/B3
Yes. With the smoke machine I set the precedent that it can be done and it’s
allowed to be done and now I think the other teachers…I don’t think Mr X (the
head technician) had any problem at all getting it set up because it’s been done
and there is no reason it can’t be done again.
T/B3/2.4/1-8
B.5.0
Impact factors related to the school’s implementation space
As mentioned in the section on context, Ringway High School was rated in (2007) as
‘outstanding’ in all areas of its provision. It was particularly praised for the ‘attention given to
developing the skills of teachers with management responsibility’ resulting in ‘clear and
effective development planning’ (Ofsted, 2007a:6). One of Ofsted’s few recommendations for
improvement according to the Deputy Headteacher, though not available to the evaluation
team in the published Ofsted report of the school, was to develop consistency in the quality of
teaching and learning across all departments of the school. This has been translated into a
series of actions that define the school’s implementation space for professional development.
Actions include regular meetings of a ‘development group’ representing learning faculties of
the school at which development needs are reviewed and strategy planned, half-termly days
or half days dedicated to professional development and sharing of good practice, weekly staff
meetings that always include a chance to share good practice and departmental/faculty
meetings that begin with celebration of good practice as a matter of course. In addition,
76
individual teachers are required to self review their performance and self assess development
needs which are then communicated to, monitored and reviewed by each faculty head. In this
way space is created for individual needs to be recognised but at the same time in cognisance
of the school’s overall development needs. The financing arrangements for CPD are flexible
enough to rationalise and recognise both individual and school needs as this quote suggests:
The department head would always consider supporting the pursuit of that
particular interest once it had been presented and discussed. That might or
might not be through the ordinary capitation for the department and might very
well involve other members of the department in collaborative exercises,
because that’s how we share things in school. In terms of the possibility of
further funding for development that’s where my responsibility lies… That could…
I mean it would be forthcoming but it would have to be in sense presented to me
as something to be supported and that’s again through the normal channels….
Annually I bid for funding for staff development and we …it’s part of our policy for
CPD that where it’s appropriate … in line with the school development plan but
also for other reasons including personal development. We would aim to support
that wherever possible.
SMT/B3/1/1.4/6
In line with the school’s well developed processes of self evaluation and self scrutiny there are
intentions to provide evidence of impact and effectiveness of internal and external CPD. This
includes holding heads of department to account for the effectiveness of staff development
decisions and actions and the requirements for individual recipients of CPD to share outcomes
on a wider stage:
I
On the effectiveness side of things; what do you want to see in terms of
effectiveness and impact of CPD?
SMT/B3
We expect it to be measurable in terms of improvements in pupil learning
I
On test results?
SMT/B3
Of course that is going to be one of the measures that we use…further
development along those lines will depend upon efficacy as measured by a
variety of things. Some of them might be just observational….because once
again that is part of our process of self-scrutiny in the school.
I
So when you or somebody else goes to observe the teacher who’s been
involved with some CPD you’d want to be able to see if there’s any impact on
their classroom performance?
SMT/B3
Absolutely, yes. CPD is linked to our observational systems anyway. I mean
all teachers are observed as a normal part of our annual personal review
process. We have now developed and built up a lot of peer observation in
school as not so much as a political tool but a development tool and the
means by which we share good practice is achieved partly through that means.
So I would anticipate that T/B3 would, following the training of that kind, share
that with a colleague at least as part of that peer observation process.
SMT/B3
We have a system of quality assurance which operates on a basis of a wholeschool approach which involves our conducting annual departmental reviews
which are chaired by our deputy head with the head of department and
second in department. We have as well as that an annual examination
performance review for each department and there is once again, a format for
those reviews which includes the kind of development achieved by the
departments and by its individuals in relation to the departmental action plan.
So each department submits the action plan in advance of that review, it forms
the main body of discussion. The priorities for the ensuing year are
established and subsequent CPD is put in place in relation to that. We hold
heads of department to account and they are obliged therefore to hold their
77
individual colleagues to account, in terms of making things work. So there is a
very clear context for individual training activities of whatever kind … We
would look favourably at activities which will give the maximum impact across
a range of people rather than just for the individual but we are committed to
the development of individual teachers as well.
SMT/B3/1.5/5-10 & 6/1-2
Scrutiny extends to gauging the likely effectiveness of externally provided CPD opportunities.
Previous poor perceptions of CPD colour the expectations here:
Obviously we evaluate what we do in terms of CPD and there is no doubt in
my mind that a great many external courses are not cost effective and have
very little transferability in fact. And we are certainly looking for things which
will enrich the department and school rather than just the individual. I mean
we are looking for an ideal if you like and it’s not necessarily achieved
consistently but we aim to do it if we can.
SMT/B3/1.5/4
B.6.0. Factors hindering classroom impact of CPD on the use of effective
and safe demonstrations
B.6.1. Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
None obvious - but see B2 below
B.6.2
Impact factors related to the course characteristics and content
As a physics specialist T/B3 was disappointed by the fact that the course featured mainly
chemistry demonstrations:
The only area that I would have (to criticise) and I’ve put this on the feedback
(impact ) form was more physics related practicals maybe. Yes, I was hoping …
when I went that we were going to bring in physics practicals so to have that ‘wow
factor’. I know it’s easier with chemistry … everyone likes a bang and explosion.
Physics ones can be a bit more difficult I think.
T/B3/1.2/4
I have noticed on a lot of courses the demonstrations are quite often chemistry
based just because they are easy to make look big and wow. So if I was to look in
the future about CPD I’d be looking for a physics-based demonstrations course.
T/B3/2.10/2
This concern about personal gain in the specialist teaching area was echoed by the Deputy
Head, though recognising that the chemistry demonstrations seen would play a part in
development at department level:
I don’t know whether he mentioned to you that there were aspects to the course
which he felt were possibly more geared to chemistry and therefore possibly of
less practical help to him … but (these chemistry examples could have) quite a
significant impact on other people in the department.
SMT/B3/1/2.1/4
A factor that had a negative effect on T/B3’s ability to judge the classroom impact of this CPD
on pupils was the positioning of the course late in the school year. It may be that this limited
deepest, measurable impact to a few weeks at the end of the school year:
78
…. I think the trouble (with saying what impact there is on pupils) is with it being so
late in the year last year and then we had sort of the summer holidays … there has
not been that much time to …be an effect on any sort of results or anything.
T/B3/2.8/11
B.6.3. Impact factors related to the characteristics of the participant
Although T/B3’s relative inexperience could have been a hindrance, especially in promoting
the use of demonstrations to other teachers and the technician team, the confidence the
course gave him provided growth in professional kudos allowing him to achieve overall
successes in implementing at what was planned.
B.6.4. Impact factors related to the school’s implementation space
The implementation space for CPD outcomes includes the physical and human resources
available and the ‘macro’ strategic management processes and policies of the school
regarding CPD that impact ‘micro’ structural considerations such as timetabling.
In this case study physical resources included availability or age of stocks of chemicals to
carry out demonstrations seen on the course:
We tried the endothermic reaction … because I really like that one. We
couldn’t get it to work though because I think the chemicals were a bit old.
Even through we (myself and technicians) worked together on it and we got
the quantities correct and everything … we found that the chemicals were a bit
old.
I think the problem is not that many teachers use those chemicals so even
though I’ve come back and said I want to do this experiment… if the chemicals
aren’t there….
T/B3/2.2/1-5
As the school year proceeds new CPD opportunities populate both the school’s
implementation space and an individual teacher’s own personal PD implementation space
and compete with the development priorities from the ‘old’ course. In T/B3’s case this
involved attending a course for science NQTs at the NSLC just few weeks after the
demonstrations course at Sheffield:
I
Any further plans to disseminate from the demonstrations course?
T/B3
I hadn’t sort of… because I’ve been on a course since then and it was quite a big
course so…
I
What was that?
T/B3
That was the NQT summer school for the week at…York … actually last week of
term…so I think at the next staff meeting that’s going to be my focus.
I
That’s taken over and there has been some things that you’ve got from that that
you want to share?
T/B3
Yes.
T/B3/2.7/3-16
As stated previously, Ringway High has a well developed set of interlocking procedures for
staff development that shape its implementation space. Sharing good practice met on external
courses is a requirement but in this case, at the time of the second interview, topics of whole
79
school development for discussion so far had not provided complementary opportunities for
T/B3 to give meaningful feedback. This problem was recognised by the Deputy Head but
discussion led to an interesting exchange that broadened out to consider wider issues of the
generalisability of specific impacts of science CPD to wider pedagogical issues of practice in
the school as a whole.
SMT/B3
We’ve …introduced what you can loosely describe as a ‘show and tell’
exercise on our whole staff training sessions.
I
Has T/B3l been involved with that?
SMT/B3
He hasn’t yet because they’ve been … for a variety of different approaches –
some of them ‘using ICT’ some of them ‘using practical (teaching) skills’ and
so on …my guess is that there will be something that he can contribute in the
future.
I
I suppose the thing with this course …the demonstrations course, is that it’s
so specific to practical work in science that if you stood up and tried to explain
what you gained from this and what kind of generalisable messages there
might be for other staff – teachers of history and geography and so on, I’m not
sure it would work.
SMT/B3
Well it’s surprising just … there are broader things which people have
benefited from. Just by seeing how different teachers operate in different
circumstances and it has helped enormously because we are looking at the
way in which our lesson designs enhance pupil learning and it doesn’t matter
whether you are in a science practical or in an English group work or a drama
improvisation or whatever it happens to be. There are elements of that which
we think are reasonably transferable and it’s encouraged people to
experiment more which is great from our point of view.
I
So it might be more… rather than saying I’ve learned to use four spatulas of
potassium chlorate in a jelly baby experiment …I realised I can use the
smoking machine without it being banned … it’s actually, I’ve experienced
something about my plans for teaching and the position with which events,
spectacular events like demonstrations act as hooks for pupils’ learning.
SMT/B3
Absolutely …
I
…it’s better to use demonstrated practicals in one particular place in a lesson
or flexibly and so I think learning is improved, or the way I’ve evaluated it. Is it
those sort of messages which could be picked up by other teachers
SMT/B3
Absolutely and things like precisely what you are saying … but checking pupil
learning as a part of the process during the course of the lesson in various
ways. Whether that’s via mini-plenaries which occur part way through or ways
in which teachers can use the circumstances they are in to assess just what
pupils have picked up and where they need to put more teaching effort in and
it matters not whether that is in an experiment …. or elsewhere.
SMT/B3/2.1/4-7&2/1-5
80
B.7.0. CASE STUDY B4
Course participant:
School:
T/B4
Field Park School
Also interviewed:
SMT/B4/1 i/c Professional Development (Interview 1);
SMT/B4/2 Line Manager for Science
HoS/B4
Head of Science
B.7.1 The School
Field Park is a larger than average, non-denominational, 11-16 school with 1312 pupils on roll.
It lies to the north east of the Sheffield conurbation and has a significant number of pupils who
speak English as an additional language and well above the national average of students who
have learning difficulties or disabilities. Field Park is a specialist college for the Arts and
progress and standards in Arts subjects were particularly praised at the last inspection by
Ofsted in 2008 (Ofsted, 2008). Ofsted rated the school as providing a good general education
and outstanding pastoral care. ‘Although standards are improving they remain below average
and are particularly low in mathematics and English (Ofsted, 2008: 4). Leadership by the
(dedicated) headteacher was praised as was, management systems, ‘that support the
extensive programme of staff development’. Although teaching was rated as good and about a
quarter outstanding, inspectors commented that in the weakest lessons, ‘teachers spent too
much time talking and gave their students little to do’ (Ofsted, 2008: 6).
B.7.2 Choice/decision process for the participant’s CPD
The case study teacher T/B4 is a chemistry specialist also required to teach Biology at KS4
who was at the end of his NQT year at the time of the course. The school has a stepped, three
sphere management system overseeing and monitoring teachers’ personal professional
development in relation to a whole school plan that involves faculty heads, an assistant head
responsible for overall line management of a number of faculties, including science and a
deputy head in charge of whole school CPD. In this case, CPD choice arose within the faculty
sphere.
Well, if I’m being absolutely honest … they (science faulty) put a request in …then
on their request they link it (the course) to a science faculty priority or development
area, so it will have been linked to that but I can’t, without looking at the form (a
monitoring form provided by each faculty), say which it is. So it would have been
done within the context of a priority for science.
SMT/B4/2/1.2/2
The interview with the Head of Faulty showed more precisely how the need was identified and
the course chosen in terms of his monitoring of teachers’ personal development targets for
science.
I think one of the ones (personal targets) that T/B4 identified was that this course
may be of use to him because he felt he is not as confident in that area (practical
work) as perhaps some other areas. So it came from T/B4. Obviously… we were
trying to identify a course that would meet that need and there are lots of people
emailing us every week with all different packages but this one (from the RSLC)
looked suitable for him.
SMT/B4/2/ 2.1/6
81
B.7.3 Participant expectations of the CPD (interview data)
T/B4 was looking mainly for personal professional development rather than to contribute to
overall development of science in the department. He seemed to have lost some of the
enthusiasm for using practical gained through initial training and looked to the course to
provide examples of demonstrations that he could build more regularly into his teaching.
I think it (the course) was mainly for me …I was quite keen on trying new stuff
when I was doing my PGCE and I think obviously my timetable has shifted quite a
lot when I became an NQT, so there was a slight hesitancy in me doing
experiments all the time. So I think I think I stopped a little bit if I’m honest. I think
I just wanted to go back a bit so that’s one of the reasons why I wanted to come to
this course, to see that I can do demos a lot more regularly with the children.
T/B4/1.3/3
He also looked to the course to help with time management and safety issues and for more
general examples of practical work that could be done with whole classes.
Because I think doing experiments can be quite exhausting especially in a big
class and you need a lot of energy to get it going and we’ve only got a short space
of time. I think a lesson is 50 minutes. So to do quite complex experiments with 30
kids you need to be really organised and stuff and you need to be quite up to it and
obviously you need a lot of eyes in the back of your head to make sure everything
is going safely.
T/B4/1.3/3
He wanted to move away from using demonstrations as add-on activities to reward pupils’
good behaviour.
I mean sometimes … I do demos as a reward …you know if we do certain things
and the kids have done really well, I say, ‘well OK if you do this we can do a
demo’ … in a sense I wanted to pick up some quick little demos that the kids can
do… or I can do for the kids.
T/B4/1.3/5
B.7.4 Participant intentions and/or action plans at CPD
T/B4 did not record his intended or implemented actions and no action plan was submitted to
the RSLC. This was despite some time being given by the Head of Science to help T/B4 do
this before attending the course:
We sat down and went though what should be in the action plan (before the
course) because obviously for him to clarify what he is going to get from this
course and then how we would benefit. I haven’t actually seen his action plan
so … I presume he has submitted that?
HoS/B4/2.3/3
In the telephone interview a few weeks after the course, the main action that emerged from
the conversation was that T/B4 wanted to use more practical activities in science lessons and
less directed teacher talk.
82
b.7.5 Achieved classroom impact
P1
Impact route
on participant’s own
classroom
Nature of classroom impact


P2
on classrooms of
participant’s peers

P3
on all classrooms
through policy change

Implemented a few examples of demos met on
the course. T/B4/1.3/11
Better prepared for practical by consulting
technicians in advance. T/B4/2.1/8.
Forwarded information to other teachers.
T/B4/1.3/11
No evidence
Yes, I did the little volcano one (redox reaction of heated ammonium dichromate) ….
a couple of times because we’re doing about rocks and weather, so I thought that
was quite good. I’ve used the websites that… [Tutor] gave us on the course…. I’ve
actually passed them on to other members of staff. I don’t know if they’ve used
them or not.
T/B4/1.3/11
Well obviously I didn’t do any demonstrations today (in the lesson observed by the
researcher) as such, but I do usually because I have a good relationship with our
technicians and they are right next-door to me, so beforehand, if I am not familiar
with the demonstration, I have a practice run and we go through it together, that is
myself and the science technicians … So obviously when it comes to the lesson I
know what I am doing essentially and they have an idea as well.
T/B4/2.1/8.
83
B.7.6 The lesson observed - Friday 19th November 2009.
Y7 class at Field Park School.
This Y7 class is shared with another teacher and T/B4 teaches just one of their three science
lessons each Friday. The lesson was timetabled from 09.50 until 11.00 am. There were 30
pupils in the class.
T/B4 began the lesson by reading out the objective of the lesson, ‘to know how to extract juice
from red cabbage to make an indicator’ and the expected outcomes, ‘to be able to safely
follow lab rules’ and ‘to be able to work in teams and carry out an experiment safely’. These
appeared on a PP slide.
Pupils were instructed to make two columns in their exercise books, one to record the
examples of acids and the other to record examples of alkalis. A PP slide was used to reveal
examples and pupils responded orally and recorded their answers. T/B4 defined what is
meant by an ‘indicator’ and asked the class how dye might be extracted from red cabbage
leaves. T/B4 then demonstrated how this is done using a pestle and mortar. The equipment
was distributed by T/B4 to each pair of pupils at their benches. He reminded pupils not to grind
yet as he had not distributed cabbage leaves. He left the room to fetch the kettle to prepare
hot water, which was distributed by him to each pair after they had spent about 5 minutes
grinding the cabbage.
A pupil distributed 100 ml conical flasks to each group and T/B4 asked, ‘what needs to be
placed in this?’ T/B4 told the class not to do anything yet with filter paper, ‘As it is very
delicate’. Eventually pupils were allowed to fold the filter paper, place it into a plastic funnel
and add juice very slowly to it so as to filter their extracts.
After this, pupils were asked to write a method including words provided on a PP slide. T/B4
collected equipment (except for the still filtering cabbage juice) as they did this. As the bell
went, T/B4 told the class that they will use their indicator to test to see if substances are acid
or alkali when he sees them the following week.
B.7.7 Factors facilitating classroom impact of CPD on the use of effective
and safe demonstrations
B.7.7.1
Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
T/B4 looked to the course to renew his connection with practical work from PGCE training and
to gain confidence so as to embed and manage practical work as part of everyday science
lessons. Some evidence that T/B4 had changed his practice with regard to the second of
these came from the interview with the Head of Science, who said:
I would say yes (He – T/B4 - is using more practical work and demonstrations) in so
much as …he wasn’t the sort of person that never did any practical work, he always
realised the value of it and tried to do as much as he could … But … if I go past his
room now invariably they (pupils) will be doing a practical. If I look at the QAS
observations (observations recorded through quality assurance by senior staff) there
will be a practical involved, so I think in that respect the few instances where he
wasn’t sure what practical he could bring in, I think that has reduced that even more
now. I think it (the course) has benefited him. He says that he enjoyed the course
and it has given him a little more confidence, so I think it was good.
HoS/B4/2.3/1
84
There was also evidence of a rekindling of TB4’s preparedness to ‘have a go’ at using more
practical work and demonstrations that seemed to have been lost during his NQT year as this
quote from the second interview shows:
I think it has re-awakened me to go and do these things, which I was a little bit
hesitant about. When I started my NQT year, that is when you are a student you are
new to it so you don’t know any right or wrong, so it is basically trial and error, so I
think you are more eager and more aware so if it works its fantastic. So I think I am
going back to that phase now of not being hindered by pre-thinking that something
might happen and it is working I think.
T/B4/2.8/6
B.7.7.2 Impact factors related to the course characteristics and content
It should be pointed out that T/B4 was a PGCE student at the university that was the location
of this course and claimed that many of the (chemistry) demos seen on the course were
already familiar to him from his training. In spite of this, he seemed to be re-enthused.
A lot of the demos that we did ….quite a few of them I remembered doing when I
was a student at University as well as on my placement …but I had kind of forgotten
some of them so it was kind of refreshing in that sense…. I did the little volcano one,
I’ve done it a couple of times because we’re doing about rocks and weather, so I
thought that was quite good.
T/B4/1.3/9&11
Websites providing information on safety and examples of demonstrations seemed to
have been used.
I’ve used the websites that… the lady who was delivering the course gave out ….but
I’ve also used the websites … the practical chemistry ones … I’ve picked up quite a
few from there (Royal Society of Chemistry). I’d heard of it but I’ve never used it
before so that’s been quite good in that sense and I’ve actually passed it onto other
members of staff. I don’t know if they’ve used it or not.
T/B4/1.3/11
B.7.7.3 Impact factors related to the characteristics of the participant
In some instances T/B4 came over as rather conservative about his abilities as a teacher and
lacking in confidence and self esteem which could be seen as negative impact factors, though
his HoD did not have misgivings that these attributes affected his performance in the
classroom. Rather, he thought it was a question of T/B4 moving on to use practical work to
achieve better pupil rapport and so to make his professional life easier and more satisfying.
I think T/B4 was one of these people that realises that if you can make it visual, if
you can do stimulating demonstrations, then you bring the pupils right in with you
and I think T/B4 was aware that perhaps that was something that he could improve
himself.
I think his manner with the pupils has always been very, very good. He is always
relaxed and has a good rapport with the pupils, perhaps he felt that if he could
improve his practical exciting demonstration skills, the wow factor, if he could
increase that then that would make his job easier.
HoS/B4/2.1/8
85
Although there was weak evidence that transfer of course outcomes to other teachers
occurred (AI route – see table of achieved impact, xxx), the HoD seemed pleased to see that
T/B4 was now more likely to contribute in CPD time allocated to sharing examples of good
practice.
What we do at the faculty meeting is have a little agenda item called ‘Shared Best
Practice’ and people come along and share something that they have found from
some website or another colleague, something that works or is effective, something
that the pupils have enjoyed. So T/B4 has come along, I think more so since he has
been on a course like this, and said, ‘look I have found this, this is good’ or ‘we did
this’ … So I think he is more willing to share and to feel confident in what he has
done from before – I will definitely say that.
HoS/B4/2.4/4
T/B4’s renewed levels of self confidence translated to enthusiasm for using practical work and
demonstrations. This was strongest in the few weeks of the summer term that followed the
course.
I feel more confident, I will be honest with you. As soon as I came back (from the
course) I was raring to go, I was willing to actually try and do it very quickly, and I
was doing a lot, especially as we were breaking up for the summer holidays, so I
was doing quite a lot. I wouldn’t say I was hesitant in doing demonstrations in
general or experiments, but sometimes I think with just the time load, it takes a lot to
organise, and it is quite tiring as well. However, since I have been on the course I
have been doing more than before.
T/B4/2.1/4
B.7.7.4 Impact factors related to the school’s implementation space
Field Park has a well developed system for management of staff development, praised by
Ofsted, which operates in three spheres. Firstly needs identification by teachers with
monitoring of personal professional needs and allocation by faculties/departments (middle
managers), secondly management, allocation and monitoring of faculty CPD by line mangers
and finally overall provision and monitoring of CPD within whole school development by the
Deputy Head responsible for professional development. The school’s CPD policy in terms of
needs identification and matching of CPD opportunities was explained by SMT/B4/2, Assistant
Headteacher, who line manages the science faculty (so, in the middle sphere of CPD
management).
The Head of Faculty is expected to work with their staff to identify their teachers’
CPD needs and the Head of Faculty would have made a decision as to whether that
particular course was suitable for a particular member of staff at that point in their
career.
We have a quality assurance scheme in this school, whereby staff are observed and
as a result of the observation, many strengths are identified and, where appropriate,
some areas of development. So often …we say ‘even better if’ … so from the
lesson observations of any member of staff, there are usually one or two areas of
development or ‘even better ifs’ and … the middle-leaders role is then to match the
need with any opportunities for CPD which sometimes involves the appropriate use
of an external CPD course – but not all the time.
SMT/B4/2/2.1/4
An additional factor, important in understanding the school’s implementation space, is that
there is weekly provision of timetabled CPD time, explained by the Deputy Headteacher, with
overall responsibility for staff development.
86
We provide one hour’s timetabled CPD time every Monday … and these are above
the normal meeting schedules as well. It’s great that the staff actually engage in
these … but we then have a strand of options, I call them. CPD options that they buy
into. They do two out of three of those options. So for example we do something
around literacy, something around creative teaching and learning, leadership,
assessment, use of ICT in the classroom. So staff will lead on those aspects and
other staff will buy into the sessions. They then get a certificate that’s linked to a
PDR professional development record that’s then linked to performance
management. It’s about giving them some personalised CPD that they’ve chosen
but CPD obviously is related to whole college priorities so… it’s about raising
awareness. It’s about embedding skills and developing skills.
SMT/B4/1/1.1/14&14
It is clear that CPD time is managed to be synergistic with whole school development aims but
about one in every five sessions can be allocated to faculty/department priorities.
One in four or five (of the timetabled Mondays) something like that is allocated to
Faculties.
HoS/B4/2.5/10
It is worth noting that the school’s implementation space for CPD is also augmented by a
sophisticated system of professional coaching backed up by mentors working with NQTs in
the first year of their teaching. The system was clearly valued by T/B4. In his first interview he
said:
I did (make use of the teaching coaches) last year, yes … They can come and
observe you, see what improvements you can make or, if you want, in terms of best
practice, you can observe them. If they teach a similar class and you have any
particular concerns about certain pupils, how they are behaving in different
environment to yours, you can do that … I think it’s quite good, in a sense … When
I was an NQT I had a mentor as well as the teacher coach, it was a former teacher
at the school, quite experienced teacher and he looked after us. So we had a
regular session with him and he observed us and any problems or any concerns that
we had, we would deal with him as well and he might have passed it on. If you
didn’t feel that you could speak to the coach but……..I think it was really good. As
an NQT you get looked after quite well and that continues. As soon as you finish
your NQT they don’t drop everything and say, ‘now then you’ve passed NQT: cope’.
There are a lot of resources to help people here.
T/B4/1.2/11
As a ‘national challenge’ school, resources are available to support CPD ventures mainly by
deploying cover supervisors, one of whom has expertise in science.
We have the capacity within the school through employing six cover supervisors and
we link cover supervisors to science … for example we have a cover supervisor
who’s got a scientific degree in forensic science who has wanted to be a teacher.
We try and utilise the expertise within the school to provide the capacity (for staff
development). … Because we are a national challenge school our budgets are, at
this moment in time unless the government changes, fairly considerable and
therefore financially we are always in a position where, you know, if we feel that’s it’s
right for the school then we generally can try and find the funding for CPD.
SMT/B4/1/1.4/6
87
B.8.0. Factors hindering classroom impact of CPD on the use of effective and
safe demonstrations
B.8.1
Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
None evident.
B.8.2
Impact factors related to the course characteristics and content
The only hindering factor may have been repetition of demonstrations previously experienced
by T/B4 as part of his PGCE course but, as evidence in responses discussed in P2 above
show, it is unlikely these had any real negative impact.
B.8.3. Impact factors related to the characteristics of the participant
When asked whether T/B4 had felt restrained in implementing course outcomes, he a
T/C5itted still being hesitant - an example of a slight continuation of his lack of self confidence.
I think it is just my own hesitation basically …. Having 30 kids to be doing things all
at the same time.
T/B4/2.3/10
In the lesson observed by the researcher it was quite obvious that the practical work was very
much teacher directed and T/B4 was quite aware of this and expressed that he still wanted to
go some way to moving away from didactic approaches. His cautious but pragmatic optimism
being realistic about his progress in relation to his development needs is interesting and
honest:
I am reducing it (the amount I talk and lead) … but just going back to what we did
today … I think I just cant help myself … I am still doing quite a bit of talking I think,
a bit more than I should be doing, especially with the kids the way they were this
morning … so maybe I have not reduced it (teacher talk) as much as I would like but
we are getting there. I think it depends on the class as well in the sense that,
obviously you get vibes from different classes, so if I feel like, ‘they know what they
are doing they will get on with it’, … so when I explain something some kids do
literally ‘just get on with it. The ones this morning … I suppose I am still getting to
know them so I was getting some of the stuff for them …but then other kids will
know what they are doing, so you can be more like, ‘you get your stuff from there so
get started’ … then I can just go round and check … I am getting there … I cant say
that I have reduced it to an extent where I am hardly saying anything, but I think
slowly but surely...
T/B4/2.4/1
88
B.8.4
Impact factors related to the school’s implementation space
Within the school’s sophisticated structures for professional development there exists a feeling
that more space could be given for faculty/departmental priorities.
Now one of the things that we have just had a discussion with at the development
group, which is heads of department etc, was ‘should we spend more time within
faculties doing what we think would be best for our faculty than the whole school
approach’. Now that’s not to mean that there are not issues as a whole school we
need to look at (at department level) … but obviously as a faculty we could do with
more time and I think the recommendation from that little group is ‘could we use
more of that Monday day as faculty development?’ We have found that very useful
and people can then basically help each other more.
HoS/B4/1/2.5/10
89
Course C introduction
Three day course (secondary).
Inspiring Science Learning through Demonstrations. (NAC08133)
Course descriptor
Demonstration is an essential part of an effective science teacher’s repertoire. Demonstrations
can accelerate science learning as well as providing a spectacular and memorable experience
to motivate students towards science.
This in-depth course will give less experienced teachers confidence to demonstrate safe yet
spectacular experiments, and for more experienced teachers, a host of new ideas that can be
used as a regular part of the curriculum, as well as ‘specials’ for open days and science clubs.
The course will feature experts in the art of demonstration. Participants will have the
opportunity to develop their own repertoire of demonstration experiments, whether in Physics,
Chemistry, Biology or all three.
There will also be an opportunity to discuss related educational issues, such as effectively
managing demonstrations and using the enthusiasm created by demonstrations to take pupils’
learning further.
If you are looking for a quick way to enliven your teaching and to help other members of your
science department to do the same, this course is for you.
Intended outcomes
Teachers will:

demonstrate a range of approaches to make
science teaching more inspiring and
exciting;

decide when it is appropriate to use
demonstrations and how they can promote
deeper learner enthusiasm for science;

describe safety regulations and
management of pupils during
demonstrations;

put together a demonstration lecture for
special occasions;

plan how they can use demonstrations to
create an impact in their own school.
90
Summary of the course
Nineteen participants attended this three day residential course at the National Science
Learning Centre (NSLC) at York. The annexe on p. 117 shows the timetable and session titles.
Day one of the course (starting at 12 noon) involved a welcome and orientation to the NSLC,
sessions on demonstrations in biology, health and safety and ‘not often seen demos’, each
lasting 1.5 hours. Time for reflection on the day, including what implications there might be for
using demos in school, was provided as an evening session (6.30-7.00 pm).
On the morning of day two, more demos were seen for chemistry and the course leader ran a
session at which the pre-course task, to identify characteristics of outstanding and inspiring
demos, and the level of impact of CPD from this course were considered. In the afternoon
physics demos were followed by a lecture from the centre director on using inspiring demos.
This was followed by time for groups of participants to plan short presentations using demos
seen to the whole group for the final day.
The final day, Wednesday, began with a session at which participants were reminded of the
list of criteria constructed for effective and inspiring demos. Groups summarised their plans for
their inspiring demo presentations and received peer feedback. Two sessions either side of
lunch were provided for participants to give their presentations.
Case study teacher T/C5 was in of a group of three participants who used the context of a
fairytale about a wicked witch to demonstrate ‘whoosh bottles’ (propane ignited in a large
empty drinks bottle), stripping skin (from an orange using enzymes), fog (using dry ice) and
flame colour (using metallic salts). A plenary discussion showed how questions would be
framed to promote pupils’ concept learning.
Case study teachers T/C6a and T/C6b (from the same school) were part of a group of three
(all from north midland schools). Their demonstrations were not contextualised and included;
ignited methane bubbles, ‘whoosh’ bottles, the reaction of potassium permanganate and
aluminium powder and a small scale ‘chip pan fire’.
The course concluded with time for participants to enter action plans for work back at school
into the Rolls Royce portal system that can lead to an additional award of £1K of funding.
91
CASE STUDY C5.
Course participant
School
T/C5
Middleton Community School
Also interviewed
SMT/C5 Deputy Headteacher i/c Professional Development;
HoS/C5 Head of Science (interview 2).
C5
The School
Middleton is a slightly smaller than average, non-denominational, 11-16 school with 759 pupils
on roll. It lies to the north of a medium sized town in a semi-rural setting on the edge of an exmining village. According to Ofsted (in 2007) Most pupils are white British and the proportion
of students with learning difficulties and disabilities is below the national average, though the
proportion of students with statements of special educational needs is nearly double the
national average. At the last Ofsted inspection the school was rated as ‘satisfactory’ with
several strengths but with particularly low standards of achievement in English. Teaching was
found to be ‘variable’ and in the weakest lessons, ‘teachers tended to lead or dominate
activities too much’ (Ofsted, 2007b: 2). The curriculum of the school was deemed to be good
and management satisfactory. Ofsted commented that subject leaders are allowed
‘considerable freedom’ to manage their departments and that, ‘improvements have been made
following opportunities for groups of teachers to learn from each other in training sessions and
in mutual observations of each other’s work’ (Ofsted, 2007b:5). Following the last inspection
the school was encouraged to employ these strategies more consistently across the whole
school.
C.1.1 Choice/decision process for the participant’s CPD
The course was chosen by T/C5 in conjunction with the new Head of Science, HOS/C5, after
they had previously attended a course on ‘Gifted and Talented’ at the NSLC in April. Thus the
CPD was very much part of a burgeoning focus between T/C5 and the new Head of
Department to improve teaching and learning in the department.
The thing that made me chose this course really is … in April me and my colleague,
the head of department, we came on the gifted and talented course… We’ve rewritten a gifted and talented policy and things like that. So it just seemed that
these demonstrations would fit nicely and marry both things together.
T/C5/1.5/6-8
The Deputy Head in charge of CPD in the school was approached to agree to the request for
CPD and he was very much in favour – seeing T/C5 as a key player with potential to help
HOS/C5 bring about change.
Well we’ve had a new head of science, only been teaching for four years… and
she came in January and obviously has immense talent but still has a lot of issues
that she needed support in and we took the gamble that somebody like T/C5 who
was that good (as an inspirational teacher) and with that much potential we would
develop and go on … so she wanted to make an impact and she came in with this
idea and one of the ways was to use yourselves (The NSLC) as a way of going
forward.
SMT/C5/1.2/4
92
They identified this as a way in which they could do it. I looked into it and thought
this has got to be good … and yes, you know, you want to do it, you’ve got the
resources. It would have been churlish and nonsense to say no.
SMT/C5/1.2/10
The choice of whether to attend a one or three-day residential course was influenced by
financial concerns about rewards for the school and to implement change, staff availability in
terms of family/child care commitments and potential of the attendee to make an impact.
With one day and three day courses --- it’s the money involved. With the one day
one you get the impact reward which pays for the course and goes to some of the
cover, not everything, whereas if you go up to the York ones you get the impact
bursary… You not only get the course paid for, you get cover paid for, you get
money left over to actually implement stuff once you are back, so it’s that which
we also look at as well.
HoS/C5/2.2/2
One of the problems with residential courses …If you have family which a lot of my
staff has, both [Teachers] have young family and therefore can’t be away from
home on a residential course. Both myself and T/C5 could. Another teacher in the
department doesn’t like to be away from his wife so has problems with that one.
So it was who was in the department that would be willing to go on this
demonstrations course and T/C5 is a very enthusiastic member of staff who
actually does put things in place once she is back.
HoS/C5/2.1&2/18
C.1.2 Participant expectations of the CPD (Documentary and interview data)
Before attending the course T/C5 submitted a list of intended impact of the course as part of
her application to the NSLC and to qualify to apply for the ‘enthuse award’ that provides
funding. Her responses to questions on the NSLC proforma are shown below.
I relish this opportunity to attend a course to help make my teaching more inspiring
and exciting. It is easy for teachers to ‘stagnate’ and stick to ‘what they know’ so I
am very excited to see a range of demonstrations that can be used effectively in
the classroom to aid learning and encourage a better understanding … critical to
incorporate demonstrations in lessons as these are often to ‘wow’ practicals that
students remember long after leaving school … identify some exciting and inspiring
demonstration … carry them out safely … knowing when it is appropriate to use
these demonstrations.
… to raise enthusiasm for science. … to ensure our students become more
engaged within science lessons … demonstration of ‘wow’ experiments that could
be used at opening evenings … try and encourage future students to attend our
school.
If teachers are aware of the safety regulations and have experience of how to carry
out demonstrations carefully, then they will be much more willing and likely to use
them within their normal teaching lessons, which will help to encourage a deeper
learning and enthusiasm for science.
93
C.1.3 Participant intentions and/or action plans at CPD
An extensive action plan was produced during the three days of the course (see annexe, p.
115) and this was translated to the Rolls Royce website to enter a competition to win a
science prize of £1, 000 for the school as had already been awarded for a plan submitted by
HOS/C5 and T/C5 for the gifted and talented course at NSLC.
C.1.4 Achieved classroom impact
P1
P2
Impact route
on participant’s own
classroom

Increase quantity and variety of
demonstrations, particularly in physics
Nature of classroom impact
on classrooms of
participant’s peers



Survey of demonstrations being used by staff
3 Lunchtime training sessions for teachers
Booklets of demonstrations provided for
teachers and a GTP student with backup
pupils’ worksheets
Demonstrations week where all staff were
encouraged to use demonstrations in their
teaching

P3
on all classrooms
through policy change




Demonstrations used on a day for gifted and
talented pupils from Meadows and a
neighbouring school
Demonstrations used to provide a transition
event for Y5/6 pupils from local primary schools
Demonstrations used to enhance a six-lesson
transition scheme for primary schools
New initiative with the Institute of Physics (IoP)
to enhance practical work in physics lessons
C.1.5 Examples of P1 impact:
T/C5 stated at the first interview that she was using demonstrations far more and at the
second interview she said:
I think I am much more aware of the demonstrations that are available. I am now
in my 11th year of teaching and I think I have become a little bit more stagnant in
that …I did the demonstrations that I knew… Whereas after going on the course I
have definitely had my eyes opened and have seen a lot more things that I didn’t
know I could do. So it wasn’t that I was scared of carrying out demonstrations, it
was the fact that I didn’t know what to do for a lot of them. So yes … I carry out a
lot more demonstrations now.
Some lessons are theory lessons and there is no demonstrations that you can do,
but its nice that the kids are a little bit excited about it! We have also written it into
the ITT programme to do a demonstration afternoon, morning or whatever with the
student teachers when they come…
T/C5/2.5+6/8+4
It is worth noting that, even when asked about impact on her own practice, T/C5 mentions
wider applications and implications of CPD within the department, in this case to the
department’s programme for ITT students.
94
C.1.6 Examples of P2 impact
We (T/C5 and HOS/C5) did a little bit of a survey and came up with some of the
demonstrations (used at York) to see who had actually carried out these demos
before and it very quickly became apparent that myself and HOS/C5 had both
carried out these demonstrations in a class but not many other teachers …
T/C5/2.1/1
Yes, a lot of them (other teachers) were saying that they may feel safe doing it
(demonstrations) themselves but they weren’t quite so safe doing it in front of a
class. So that is the first thing that we did, we talked to …the technicians to get
quite a clear picture as to who was doing them and who wasn’t and we are looking
at the request sheets (to get evidence).
Then I did … a little bit of a lunchtime session where it was ‘come along, I will be
doing these demonstrations on these days, come along if you want to see it and
watch me do it, and obviously while the room is empty you can have a bit of a play
and do it yourself’. So different staff came to different ones, it wasn’t as though it
was a whole school inset where everybody came at once, different people came
and did different things. So we held 3 lunchtime sessions for staff to attend and to
look at the ones (demonstrations) that they wanted to do.
T/C5/2.1/9
We’ve done step-by-step how to sheets for the staff and I’ve also done worksheets
that go with the demonstration … so, as the pupils are watching them, they’ve got a
sheet that they can fill in afterwards.
T/C5/1.4/5
We did have a demo week where staff were encouraged to carry out
demonstrations if possible and we did find out that more people used them …
Feedback was very promising. All staff carried out demos during the demo week,
the fewest being 7 by one member of staff to the highest being 21. So we have
included things like ‘jelly babies’ to show respiration, we had the ‘whoosh bottle’ for
combustion, we did the custard powder, cannon fire to show energy changes, fire
writing, alkaline metals in water and wallpaper paste, the iodine clock. So we did
have a range of practicals and demonstrations that took place that week.
T/C5/2.5/2
C.1.7 Examples of P3 impact
We had 30 of our pupils and 30 of the pupils from [school] and they came along and
we did a G & T day. It was basically an open ended task but it was to do with the G
& T course that we went on (at the NSLC) but we also built in some of the more
exciting demos. So when they first got here we did the cannon fire and talked about
the noise and energy changes and then we gave them things to do.
T/C5/2.3/3
95
The motivation to use demonstrations from the course at a transition event for local Primary
schools was clearly part of a marketing and recruitment exercise:
. ..The fact that we’re in an area where there are several secondary
schools …pupils are choosing which schools to go to and our aim is to ensure that
pupils decide to come to us. The ones that aren’t in the automatic feeder schools,
the ones that are a little bit wider … we’re doing science days with those. Basically
to increase pupil numbers ….
T/C5/1.7/1
At the second interview T/C5 described how demonstrations from the course were selected
and used for this event.
We wanted an array of different things (for the Y5/6 event), so we wanted one
(demo) that was noisy, we wanted one bright and colourful and … one that was just
fun …So we just looked through what was available and also we had to budget it
because we only had a certain amount of money to buy things in … So we chose
things like the ‘mentos’ and the coke because that is pretty everyday things that kids
will have at home, so its just a wow kind of thing …We then chose a cannon fire just
because of the noise and especially out in the courtyard it really did bang and that
was quite dramatic. Then we chose a thermit because of the brightness of it being
dark (It was night time when the meeting took place after school).So we had only 4
or 5 different things and we did the whoosh bottle inside … Again we turned all the
lights off and heard this big ‘whooshing’ noise …We just wanted things that were
very quick, very snappy but would capture the imagination and let people think ‘wow
science is trying to be real fun here’.
T/C5/2.3/7
In addition to this transition ‘event’ the department had also been involved in a more extensive
scheme of teaching whereby pupils from the school’s feeder primary schools take part in a set
of lessons taught by the science department during their last year at primary school. Here
again demonstrations from the course were planned to enhance teaching:
We have just recently written a new transition scheme and we have got 6 feeder
primary schools that come in and they are coming in for 6 sessions over this year
and the theme is colour.
So our first lesson, when they came in, we did acids and alkalis. They have recently
been in last week and the theme again is colour but we did flame tests, we did like a
CSI ‘who burnt down the school?’ … They are going to come in and we have got
colour change pens in investigations which we are going to do, we have got
chromatography, looking at colourful reactions and then we have prisms. So we
have 6 lessons that are all being built around colour that usually start off by us
demonstrating, them doing something and then we finish the plenary with something
a bit more. So like when we did the acids and alkali the plenary was changing the
water to wine, which is something that you show them but we don’t tell them how
have you done that, then the task is when they come back ‘how is this, what has
happened?’.
T/C5/2.4/2
96
In addition to examples of implementation related to the NSLC course there was evidence that
course outcomes and impact of CPD stimulated the department to seek other providers to
help enhance practical work - in Physics, where there is no specialist teacher in the school.
We got in touch with the Institute of Physics and Denise and I went down to
Oakham in Rutland which is a private school and Helen Pollard was working at
Oakham but she works for the Gatsby project which is for the Institute of Physics …
and they have come up to the school to run training days for us free of charge to
train us up in physics and the students got involved with those. They are coming up
again to help us write the extension modules for physics to make sure we get the
correct physics practicals within that scheme, because we don’t have a physics
teacher.
HoS/C5/2.4/3
C.1.8. Factors facilitating classroom impact of CPD on the use of inspiring
science learning through demonstrations
C.1.8.1 Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
Most of the actions outlined in the last section are evidence that the course provided most of
what the department and T/C5 looked for and expected from the course.
One of the personal (P1 route) outcomes that T/C5 looked for was to enhance her own
teaching, particularly in her weakest subject – Physics. This exchange from the first interview
shows that the course provided what she was hoping for,
I
Did you have any sort of … ideas .. concepts …or science skills that you
particularly wanted to get clarified in your own mind as a result of going on the course?
T/C5
Yes, I wanted more physics. Physics is my weakest area.
I
So you wanted more physics. Was that the kind of ‘how to teach’ certain concepts
in physics or …?
I
Basically, just give me ideas that you know… that are exciting. Because when you
know your own subject it’s so easy to think up new things and ideas but something that
you’re not 100% sure of yourself, it’s just looking to things that are a little bit more exciting
really.
I
Do you think the course addressed those?
T/C5
Oh God, definitely, yes. Definitely.
I
In what way?
T/C5 I mean just the fact that a lot of the things that they showed are so simple and
things that actually do have in school, but you didn’t realise you could use them in those
ways.
97
I
Can you remember any examples?
T/C5 Well like the forces the… egg in the jar. The rice in the jar. Using the prism for the
spectrum rather than shining a ray box through it, you know on an over-head projector and
things like that.
I
T/C5
So lots of things that you could do practically that were easy to use?
Yes, that aren’t expensive and are very easy just to put into a way we can use.
T/C5/1.2/4-17
C.1.8.2
content
Impact factors related to the course characteristics and
At her second interview T/C5 explained why she thought a three day course had advantages:
We like York. We like the campus, the atmosphere … we just love it! Sheffield
tends to be one day and I think sometimes in one day you don’t get enough. You
go along you get a few ideas and then you are back to school the next day. At least
when you are on a residential you actually speak to other teachers and share ideas
and you bounce things around. I think you get a lot more out of it.
T/C5/2.8/7
As noted before, courses at York carry an impact award and there was evidence that this had
been used to support Physics demonstrations with the help of additional school-situated CPD
provided by the IoP.
We have just bought an air track, something that we have never had before … for
when we do momentum demonstrations at KS4 Physics. We have always talked
about air tracks but never had one so from that Impact Award we have now got a
fantastic brand new air track and we got someone in from the IOP to come in and
do an inset day with us to show us how to use it.
T/C5/2.8/11
Perhaps some of the most interesting comments relating to quality and impact of the NSLC
course were made by the Deputy Head who said, at the second interview:
The crucial thing … is that training is often poor …. Either teaching grandmothers
(T/C5) to suck eggs, it’s patronising, or you sit through 2 or 3 hours and get 20
minutes worth. The training that she (T/C5) went on brought back an enthusiastic
teacher bouncing - two thirds of the department have now been to a course at your
place (the NSLC) and they have come back bouncing.
It is quality training … which is why I said I wanted to see you because we have so
many courses and they are just reading a PowerPoint to you … God Almighty! …
Now we have people come back, who can be critical in the best sense of the word,
and they are coming back saying ‘this is good’. Somebody has done a good job
somewhere and needs a pat on the back!
98
It’s just damn good training and I think it is worth every penny… not that we pay
anything … I would make money available out of our budget for it and will do if
necessary because quality training is hard to find and that is the key thing.
SMT/C5/2.4/1-5
C.1.8.3
Impact factors related to the characteristics of the participant
It was clear that senior management in the school regarded T/C5 as a highly gifted
practitioner with personal and professional attributes and respect, making her more likely to
effect change in the science department and therefore worth the school’s ‘investment’ in her
CPD.
She is an excellent practitioner, so in terms of her own development she needed
nothing in terms of improving her skills other than what everybody does to improve.
But she was somebody who had a willingness and desire to try and improve her
skills, despite them being excellent and go and disseminate them to others and take
others along with her. She is also quite a forceful member and one would say an
‘Alpha teacher’ within the school and her ideas will help …others.
I think she is open to new ideas. As I say at the moment she is one of those people
who is a very effective teacher, she has good working relationships with students,
she has very few behavioural problems, she is a head of year. What I can see is
just making her more rounded and making her more aware of different ways of
approaching things.
SMT/C5/1.1/14+2/12+3/6
Though T/C5 was less forthcoming about impact on her own classroom the Deputy could see
evidence of change, particularly in chemistry lessons.
There is more confidence in T/C5 in certain areas. I would say in her ability to look
at the mystery part of it … I don’t know if that is what she did (on the course), but
she certainly seems more confident in chemistry … again, I am not an expert, its
ages since I did A-Level, that sort of stuff. But going in (to her lessons) …the last
three times …she has been doing chemistry and doing practicals with kids around,
whereas I haven’t noticed that before ….
SMT/C5/2.3/1
C.1.8.4. Impact factors related to the school’s implementation space
Like many schools, Middleton sets priorities for CPD related to its plans for whole school
development and in cognisance of national initiatives, yet seems more relaxed in its approach
and sensitive and able to respond to teachers’ individual needs.
To be perfectly honest … well obviously we have whole school issues such as
assessment for learning and all this sort of stuff …but really we try and respond to
staff need and staff ideas. So if people can take responsibility, I mean obviously we
guide them and try and offer them things, but the way we try to grow curriculum and
grow ideas is sort of increase people – so saying, ‘well, what do you want to do?’
99
As a curriculum deputy my idea is …to ensure that we were trained up to meet the
needs of the changing curriculum and staff are understanding of what is expected of
them. But in terms of the individuals and their own development, obviously you
guide them and have chats with them ….Normally, we do this in terms of
performance management and all this sort of stuff, but in terms of something like
this (course) it’s where staff say, ‘yes, I think this would be good for me, what do you
think?’. So we try to elect to have some ownership of what’s happening …
SMT/C5/1.1/10-12
When it came to supporting T/C5 in implementing change it was obvious that a relatively
hands-off approach might work best.
I
How would you support T/C5 in sharing her CPD?
SMT/C5
On this one the best thing I could do is back-off. So it doesn’t seem as if
it’s coming from management, I would think.
SMT/C5/1.11-12
SMT/C5’s confidence in T/C5 stems once again from his recognition of her qualities
allowing her to occupy the implementation space with little interference from the school’s
management.
I have helped her, but I certainly wouldn’t want to impinge on what she wants to do
at all. She is one of our exceptional teachers … she has worked here a long time
and is in charge of teaching and learning. We look at her performance every year
and she is an outstanding practitioner so therefore I offer advice but nothing else.
SMT/C5/2.1/4
C.1.9. Factors hindering classroom impact of CPD on the use of inspiring
science learning through demonstrations
C.1.10. Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
None evident
C.1.11. Impact factors related to the course characteristics and content
None evident
C.1.12. Impact factors related to the characteristics of the participant
There was no evidence that personal characteristics of the course participant affected
implementation of course outcomes but there were comments that some members of the
department might possess characteristics resistant to change.
We have, shall I put it… a few members of staff who are more didactic than one
would wish and hopefully we can persuade them of the benefits of different methods
of teaching and learning … I would call them curmudgeons’ corner.
SMT/C5/1.2/14+1.3/10
100
T/C5 also recognised this as a possible barrier to change.
The main barriers I would say is some staff not taking it on-board. Yes, some staff
stuck in their own ways that they want to teach. The old fashioned chalk and talk
and books. That’s the main barrier
T/C5/1.6/11
C.1.13. Impact factors related to the school’s implementation space
T/C5 intended to monitor teachers’ lesson planning to draw evidence as to whether more
demonstrated practical work was being used. This is perhaps the only enterprise resulting
from the CPD that she could not implement successfully. It may be that the school’s structures
for monitoring are not sufficiently developed to create a culture where scrutiny of lesson plans
is viewed as a supportive element of staff development rather than a judgement of
professional capability. Typically, T/C5 achieved her monitoring by other means!
…My other thing I wanted to do was to check who was doing what by looking at
lesson plans and lesson observations. That didn’t go down well in the department.
Many staff didn’t feel that they should have to submit a lesson plan to me because it
is their lesson plan and it’s their lesson. They didn’t want me to go in looking at
their lessons because basically ‘what right have I got to do that?’ So we had to
change that… it wasn’t that I went in and looked at their lessons but we looked at
the request sheets, who was ordering what and then we also went and looked at if
they ordered it but have they actually used it. So we looked at the stuff when it
came back to check if it had been used.
T/C5/2.2/2
101
CASE STUDY C6.
Course participants
School
T/C6A and T/C6B
Wentworth School
Also interviewed
SMT/C6A Assistant Headteacher i/c Professional Development;
SMT/C6B Deputy Headteacher and line manager for the science
faculty,
HoS/C6 Head of Science (interview 2).
C.2.0. The School
Wentworth is an average sized 11-18 school with about 1,000 pupils on roll serving a socially
mixed suburban area on the outskirts of a north midlands town. Students from ethnic
minorities form a much smaller proportion than is common in the area and the proportion of
students with learning or physical disability is lower than average. The school gained specialist
status for business and enterprise in 2005 and was last inspected by Ofsted in 2006. At
inspection the school was rated as satisfactory with effective strategies introduced to improve
the school and good capacity to improve further. Ofsted commented that progress between
KS2 and KS3 was better than between KS3 and KS4 particularly for boys (Ofsted, 2006: 3).
Slower progress was linked with, ‘students spending too much time listening to the teacher or
low expectations by teachers’. The school’s management systems were said to provide
accurate assessments of teaching quality and provide appropriate support to teachers.
C.2.1. Participants
This case study is different to others in the evaluation as two teachers from the same school
attended the course and both are the subject of study. T/C6A is the sole physics specialist in
the school and is in his eleventh year of teaching at Wentworth and T/C6B is a biology teacher
(who also teaches significant amounts of chemistry) in his sixth year. Both teachers have only
taught at Wentworth.
C.2.2. Choice/decision process for the participants’ CPD
The course was selected by T/C6B in conjunction with T/C6A and both then sought approval
and permission to attend directly from the line manager for the science faculty.
I found this course and it was for me and I talk with my colleague T/C6A and … I
said we need to go and I told my line manager, the deputy head and the head and
they said fine. The year 10 were on work experience and A-level and GCSE exam
as well (so) the best time to go on that course.
T/C6B/1.2/3
The Deputy Head had assumed that this choice had been made with the knowledge of the
Head of Faculty for science who acts as arbiter for science CPD (HOS/C6/SMT/A1/1.3/2), but
when he (HOS/C6) was interviewed this turned out not to have been the case. HOS/C6 would
have preferred CPD that addressed the gap in chemistry teaching in the department in a more
general way.
I
So normally when they (teachers in the department) come to you and say, ‘look we
have seen this course and this is really what we need’ what is your role then? To
approve it, to recommend it, fund it - how does it work?
HOS/C6 You have asked me the precise questions about a course where I wasn’t directly
involved. …normally that is what would happen … but NOT this one because the
102
information from the SLC was with a Deputy Head or an Assistant Head … it didn’t
come through me this one, it went straight through to the senior management of the
school.
I
So they (the teachers) went to senior management … to SMT/C6A and you didn’t
know about it? So it missed the link through you as head of science?
HOS/C6 Yes.
I
How do you feel about that?
HOS/C6 The honest answer is that I wasn’t very happy about it ... I was hoping you
wouldn’t know about that and I was not going to say anything unless you asked! I
wasn’t too happy because I wasn’t sure it was the right course for them. I felt the
chemistry course and the chemistry weakness was a better one to hit because it
has the demonstrations in it as well as the practical work.
I
I can see that …So if you were looking for one course at that particular time you
would have looked for something that was more all-encompassing and had different
elements of improving science teaching in it rather than one that was (just) about
demonstrations.
HOS/C6 Yes. With saying this they have gained a lot from this course, they have been
bringing in different things, so it has been of benefit because I have seen some of
the stuff that has been done.
HoS/C6/2.1/11+2/1-8
Following the NSLC course, IG did manage to work in his preferred way to secure funding
allowing teachers to attend additional CPD related to chemistry:
Usually I work with the members of staff and identify the weakness areas and direct
them onto courses if available or direct them onto other possibilities. For example I
have got T/C6B, T/C6A and Mr X out on the Royal Society’s 4 four day chemistry
course.
HoS/C6/2.1/8
It was clear that school management were prepared to invest in the more unusual
arrangement of a pair of teachers attending the same course as an ‘experiment’
(SMT/C6A/SMT/A1/1.2/6) and to create mutual support between participants in a change
environment.
I
So what would the expectation for teachers like these two, T/C6A and
T/C6B? …Would it be that they’d be enriched themselves or their classroom
teaching would be changed or for the school or a mixture of those things?
SMT/C6A They are two (different) practitioners … First of all I’d expect them to work
together. We don’t normally let two people go on the same course on the grounds
that we’d expect people to … in terms of efficiency … we’d expect people to
cascade information they’ve got …In this case … we felt it was appropriate for them
to come together. They’d be able to work together …back in school, and we could
see that would be perhaps a more beneficial use of the time and the funding really.
I
Is it something that you are interested in … having two together… although it’s
difficult to organise and a bit expensive, especially awkward on cover time … is this
something you wanted to pursue, a paired CPD?
SMT/C6A We did really. Encouraging staff to work together is certainly one of the things
that we want and I suppose it’s an experiment really. In the past people have gone
on their own, come back and either have been fired up and then tried to get other
103
people fired up or they’ve just kept it to themselves I suppose. The opportunity with
two people going from that particular area was an opportunity to say, ‘well, could
they work together and then try to enthuse and cascade to their colleagues within
that curriculum area’?
SMT/C6A/1.2/1-6
Senior management at the school had identified science as an area that required effort to
improve teaching and learning and consequently pupil engagement and enthusiasm and so
investment in CPD was part of this. At the second interview the ‘power of two’ in making
inroads in the department was again stated as being very important.
SMT/C6B Just over 12 months ago there was … a full scale evaluation of teaching when
we had LA advisors just before I arrived. LA advisors and so on came in.
SMT/C6A With their support, I mean it was something that we worked on with the LA …we
did several days worth of observations and gathered data, then fed that back to
the curriculum area leaders and they devised a plan and one of things that
came through was ...
SMT/C6B That we need to engage students more.
I
A particular need in science more than other departments?
SMT/C6B Certainly as much as … more so … Not sure. There certainly is a need for kids
to engage more and to be enthused more by the science teaching that takes
place.
I
So why these 2 particular teachers, were they seen as key players or was it
because they hadn’t been on courses before?
SMT/C6A I think they were volunteers really, I think if you are going to do something like
this it needs to be with people who are on your side to begin with, I am not a
great fan of saying, ‘right you need some help here – away you go’ so I think
they were willing volunteers….I don’t think they were seen as particularly the
weak links or were seen as the key players … they are not, they are both sort of
basic classroom teachers, not head of (a subject) or deputy within the faculty.
I
I think you told me last time when I interviewed CT … on the phone, that you
felt having 2 rather than 1 gave a feeling that neither of them were alone in this,
it was kind of a corporate enterprise.
SMT/C6B No, nobody could feel they had been picked on or had all the weight of
expectation on their shoulders. Also knowing how these things work, if you
come back as the lone voice of enthusiasm then you have got less chance than
if there is somebody else, a side-kick, who is going to say ‘yes that is right we
should be doing this’. So I think there was an element of mutual support there
for the two of them as well.
SMT/C6A & SMT/C6B /2.3/1-8
C.2.3. Participant expectations of the CPD (Documentary and interview data)
Both participant teachers completed pre-course information on intended impact of the course
as part of their applications to the NSLC. Their responses to questions on the NSLC proforma
are shown below.
T/C6A … would like to be a head of faculty and need to increase my expertise in
teaching and leading others on their teaching. … mentor and any new ideas I can
pass onto my colleagues would be beneficial. It is crucial that I incorporate recent
104
developments and ideas into my teaching. The course would help improve the
‘skills’ input to new schemes of work. The course will help my CPD.
… written in schemes of work. This will mean improved ‘teaching skills’ which lead
to learners achieving well relative to prior attainment. Our department is focussing
on a more skills based and creative curriculum at KS3 and KS4. The course will
support this. The college is incorporating the ‘Every Child Matters’ initiative. I
think the course supports the ‘Enjoy and achieve’ targets; if students are more
enthused by demonstrations they are likely to learn more.
T/C6B: The impacts should include raising my pedagogic knowledge and
performance; and improving the achievement and enjoyment of my students.
Expect to learn a range of tools and strategies to better implement into my teaching
and the learning of my students. I plan to use ideas from the course to develop my
practical and ICT skills and better enable blended learning of subject knowledge
and relevant skills. I hope to increase my own enthusiasm, interest, confidence
and motivation through enhancing my ability in the use of demonstrations
effectively. My performance management targets include: P3 Have an extensive
knowledge and well-informed of the assessments for the subjects/curriculum areas
they teach, including those related to public examinations and qualifications. Be
flexible, creative and adept at designing learning sequences within lessons and
across lessons that are effective and consistently well-matched to learning
objectives and the needs of learners and which integrate recent developments,
including those relating to subject/curriculum knowledge. The course should
provide plenty of stimulus for me to work towards meeting these targets.
The broader impacts will include improved teaching and learning through
demonstrations, practical and the enhancement of curricular development aiming
to implement current initiatives. At Wentworth School careful consideration is
given to all five of the essential outcomes as defined by ‘Every Child Matters; the
priorities of the School Development Plan are the personalisation of learning to
provide opportunities for all learners to achieve their potential; harnessing ICT; and
developing collaboration. To improve teaching skills which lead to learners
achieving well relative to their prior attainment, making progress as good as, or
better than similar learners nationally. Of particular relevance on a departmental
level is the completion of key stage three and four planning to produce a more
skills based and creative curriculum, which is assigned to priority number one of
the Every Child Matters agenda ‘Enjoy and Achieve’. This work is being revised
and updated continuously to incorporate more opportunity for formative
assessment, and meet the demand for personalised learning and a more flexible
curriculum. I have discussed with a senior colleague the opportunity to feedback
on to colleagues my experiences, research and reflections from my CPD.
As a physics specialist having to teach some biology to younger classes, T/C6A looked to the
course to help provide examples to enhance teaching in this area.
Well really (a priority of CPD) was my biology teaching … even though I’ve been
here for eleven years … it is pretty feeble really. So a lot of what we did with the
biology person (tutor on the course) I thought was useful …Demonstrations and
such. Most of them I’d never seen ... That was an area that I’ve always been a
little bit worried about.
T/C6A/1.2/6
T/C6A also hoped to obtain information about demonstrations and practical work on behalf of
a colleague who recently returned to science teaching and felt out of touch with recent
innovations and developments.
105
One person (a female colleague) said she’d like to know (about demonstrations) but
I think that’s from the point of view that she’s been out of science teaching, teaching
health and social care and stuff like that. So she’d be interested in new ideas
because she’s coming back into it. She’s the kind of person who’s always
interested in what’s done on courses …
T/C6A/1.4/2
For T/C6B there were expectations that the course would help provide more confidence to
apply ideas for demonstrations and to clarify what is allowed on health and safety grounds.
Confidence for the classroom … inspire … inspire the school …A priority to be honest. For
the confidence for the classroom to get more… like I get a pipe a flexible pipe today … I
model small intestine for example … just crazy …it come to my mind.
T/C6B/1.2/7
Like jelly babies as well and like some of them they say, they ban them, … I had a
discussion about using blood or fake blood like with sixth form and maybe to
clear …person who did the biology course cleared … you can use the blood for sixth
formers which wasn’t clear for the last three, four, five years..…Maybe it helps you know?
T/C6B/1.3/6
106
C.2.4 Participant intentions and/or action plans at CPD
It was possible to extract a rough, hand written draft of an action plan from T/C6A but he could
not type this using the Rolls Royce framework due to IT difficulties with the RR site. A typed
version of his plan is shown as an annexe on page 116.
At the second interview T/C6A’s intentions expressed at his first interview and through his
draft action plan, were listed and discussed. These were.

Show other science teachers examples of demos from the course.

Get feedback from teachers on their use of demos.

Include demos in my A-level Physics lessons.

Include demos when I have to teach Biology.

Suggestions of demos for a female colleague who has been out of science teaching
for some time.

Use demos to make KS3 lessons more engaging/exciting – (freshen up schemes of
work).

Improve (make more engaging) existing demos, e.g. Van de Graaf Generator.
T/C6B managed to produce a brief typed plan on the RR site. At the second interview T/C6B’s
expressed intentions were:

Train each science teacher to do at least one demo every half term.

Inspire other teachers to use demos.

Include demos as part of cross- curricular work (In his teaching of Forensic Science at AS
level)

Chance to be creative – e.g. linking ideas for demonstrations in one concept area with
others
C.2.5
Achieved classroom impact
The table below summarises the classroom impact of the CPD through three impact routes,
either impacting directly on the participants’ own classroom (the P1 route), on the classrooms
of the participant’s peers (the P2 route) or the most elaborate impact route on all classrooms
through policy changes emerging from the CPD. In this case impact routes for both
participants are combined. Individual outcomes are shown by initials.
107
C.2.5.1 Classroom impact by impact route
Impact route
P1
on participant’s own
classroom
P2
on classrooms of
participant’s peers
P3
on all classrooms
through policy change
Nature of classroom impact

Ideas used on the course now part of own
physics teaching (as observed) (T/C6A)
T/C6A.6/13; T/C6A/2.6/7+10
 Jelly babies demo used in biology teaching
about respiration T/C6B//2.4/1+3
 Ideas about tubing analogues for blood vessels
used (T/C6B) T/C6B/1.4/5 and T/C6B/2.4/5
 Attempts to use more class practical work in
chemistry (as observed and T/C6B/2.5/2
 Information from the course placed in a ‘shared
area’ for other teacher to access (T/C6A)
T/C6A/1.4/3
None evident
There were examples of impacts in participants’ own classrooms but only one (weak) example
of any impact on colleagues even though action plans and the first interviews revealed that
this. There was no evidence of actions that impacted department or school policies or
developments.
C.2.6. Examples of PI impact:
I mean it’s just basically impacted on me in a positive way. I just thought it was
really good and now I use a lot of the ideas that were on the course.
T/C6A/1.6/13
Yes, I am thinking that if there is not a practical for the kids to do, I am always trying
to think can I slot in some sort of demonstration - that is the mindset. I am always
trying to think can I slot in some sort of demonstration which is inspiring. So I would
say that is probably the main thing.
T/C6A2.6/10
The course helped me to carry on what I’m thinking, and doing what I’m doing
right…I began lots of things (trying to do practical work) … but like lots of things I get
wise and think silly … now can do more … I think.
T/C6B/1.5/3
One thing come to my mind (from the course) about small intestine … So I use
flexible pipe … one thing leads to other things … I get three different diameters (of
pipe) one for each one (type of blood vessel) … and a blocked one for the
cholesterol. Then after two lessons, I used to ask them (students) do they
remember anything about the thickness of the walls of arteries, after one (the old
style of lesson) they don’t. So by demonstrate …at least by three different
diameters of pipe, same size, diameters different, and about the capillaries …so
they can measure … the learning took place …
T/C6B/1.4/5
108
C.2.7. The lessons observed
It was possible to observe both participants just before interviewing them. Because of the way
the timetable is arranged in blocks each teacher taught the same Y10 set, T/C6B first for a
chemistry lesson followed immediately by T/C6A for physics.
Lesson: T/C6B
Y10 class (bottom set), 8.55-9.55.
20 Students – 15 boys and 5 girls. Topic: The limestone cycle.
T/C6B stressed that the lesson aim was to get students to do more practical for themselves.
He began the lesson by providing a handout of instructions for heating and slaking a limestone
chip so as to eventually produce calcium hydroxide solution (lime water) and he invited
students to let him know if any instructions were not clear. On the reverse of the handout was
a writing frame for students to record their observations during the practical work. Before
students started, T/C6B showed a PowerPoint slide summarising steps of the limestone cycle.
Animations were used to add terms, concepts, formulae and equations providing information
linked to each step of the practical to be carried out thus providing students with answers as to
the function of each stage of the practical (and negating the point of doing it?). T/C6B showed
students equipment to be used, which was provided at stations, one for each pair of students.
Due to bad behaviour, even after 15 minutes, only 6 of the 10 pairs had managed to heat
limestone. A girl was asked to leave the room (three times) for squirting water from a wash
bottle and she responded negatively. Eventually a Deputy Headteacher was called to remove
this pupil. After about 30 minutes it appeared that, whilst most of the 10 pairs of students had
heated limestone, few got beyond this and so only four of the ten steps of the procedure were
completed.
Practical work was stopped and exercise books distributed. Students returned to their seats to
copy a diagram of the limestone cycle from the board. Word and chemical equations were
added below the diagram which students also copied. About 8 minutes before the end of the
lesson T/C6B said he had not been happy with behaviour in the lesson and the failure of the
class to complete the practical work. The lesson finished with a cloze exercise.
Lesson Observed: T/C6A
Y10 class, 9.55-10.55.
21 Students – 15 boys and 6 girls. Topic: The wave formula.
This was the same group taught by T/C6A in the previous lesson observed.
T/C6A introduced the lesson, pointing to the aims – to ‘learn how to use the wave equation’
and to ‘know the difference between analogue and digital signals’. He distributed cards to
each table as a starter activity requiring students to match terms about waves with their
meanings or explanations. This activity was debriefed and then students were asked to come
to the front to observe a demonstration which T/C6A had seen on the NSLC course. This used
a microwave oven to heat a square slice of processed cheese so that hot spots of energy can
be used to calculate the distance for a ‘half wave’, thereby providing data to be substituted in
the wave formula and equations for calculating wave velocity (V) and wavelength (WL).
Unfortunately the patterns on the melted cheese did not show the required ‘hot spots’ and so
T/C6A resorted to ‘one I have obtained earlier’.
109
Following this T/C6A showed the class an OHT showing how data can be substituted into
equations to calculate V and WL. He calculated V for the cheese demo (22 x 107 m/s). A sheet
of calculation questions was distributed and students worked at these as T/C6A went around
helping them do this.
Classroom actions cited at interviews were supported by observations of teaching of both
participants; more successfully in T/C6A’s case than in T/C6B’s. Later, T/C6B admitted (not
recorded) that this was the first time he had attempted practical work with this class and had
used a different seating arrangement than the class was used to which may have resulted in
significant and disruptive poor behaviour.
C.2.8. Examples of P2 impact
The only example of attempted impact on other teachers in the department was provided by
T/C6A. At his first interview he talked about his attempts to help a colleague who had recently
returned to science teaching and wanted information to help enliven her teaching.
I’ve mentioned it (outcomes of the course) but it’s a matter of me getting the
booklet (of examples of demonstrations carried out on the course) to her, yes.
We were sort of planning to do it in a meeting but I’ve put stuff in my shared
area (an area in the science department) already but I haven’t had a chance to
talk staff through it.
T/C6A/1.5/3
C.2.9. Examples of P3 impact
There were no examples.
Evidence showing why P2 and P3 routes were not followed
For a variety of reasons, some discussed later, almost all of the post course intentions for
action listed by both participants, particularly for helping to disseminate examples of
demonstrated practical work amongst the department, did NOT take place. This exchange
with T/C6A, at his second interview, highlights the major reasons.
I
These are some of the things which you said you wanted to do (at the first
interview) and some of these also appear on your action plan which you sent
back to York. So you wanted to show other science teachers examples of demos
from the course –were you able to do that?
T/C6A
No, I haven’t.
I
What happened there then?
T/C6A
The time that we probably need for that has been taken by meetings so we
haven’t been able to get any time for our meetings. Curriculum area meetings
haven’t allowed us the time to do that.
I
So you were going to show these demos in your curriculum area meetings I
think … but you didn’t?
T/C6A
We have had zero time for that. One or two of the meetings have been taken as
whole school meetings as well so nothing at all yet on that sadly.
T/C6A/2.2/13+3/1-5
110
C.2.10. Factors facilitating classroom impact of CPD on the use of inspiring
science learning through demonstrations
C.2.11.
Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
T/C6A’s hope that the course would provide good ideas for biology demonstrations seemed to
have been met.
I thought immediately after coming back … even the dissection of the cod-head …
that kind of thing. I thought that would be something that would lend itself to one of
the classes I had …. I know that they’d find that interesting but having seen it done.
I thought it was something that I could fairly easily duplicate in the classroom.
T/C6A/1.2/10
T/C6B looked to the course to provide activities that would stimulate and engage his students
and certainly one example from the course seemed to have fulfilled this.
Yes … inspiring demonstrations … Like last week I tried jelly baby. It was lesson
four, was very hot …I told them (students) … look at the beginning of the lesson … it
was the end of the lesson it (the demonstration) it will come. I did it all … it looked
amazing … towards the end …15 minutes they were listening and at the end … last
ten minutes as well, all of them, they are working well.
T/C6B/1.4/1
C.2.12. Impact factors related to the course characteristics and content
In T/C6A’s case having to practise demonstrations on the course provided a way of
experiencing learning from pupils’ point of view. The actions and explanations provided by
other course participants that he observed provided ‘teaching tips’.
You know when we did it (carrying out the demonstrations ourselves) It put me more
in the position of how the kids see things … so it was helpful in that sense really.
Especially when I had to do that demonstration which I didn’t think went that well
myself … but you’d sit there and think … yes that’s what I need to be doing, that
person (participant) was good at theirs. So it was nicking ideas really from others….
Sitting there and watching other demonstrations and criticisms of my own
demonstration…It’s just this business of trying to improve and trying to engage kids
really.
T/C6A/1.3/7
111
T/C6A also felt the course provided examples of how to improve demonstrations he was
already familiar with.
Van der Graaf generator… The way it was done there was better, so would be
improved in school. It’s just better ways of doing things.
T/C6A/1.5/4
In the example seen in the lesson observed, T/C6A had found a way to use a demonstration
to make a rather dry mathematical lesson more interesting.
When I have done it (the lesson on the wave formula) in the past it has been a fairly
sort of dull mathematical lesson type of lesson … so it was an area where you try to
slot in a reasonable demonstration …. so that is the reason (I used the microwaved
cheese slice demo) really. So I wouldn’t have usually taught it that way at all.
T/C6A/2.1/2
T/C6B seemed particularly taken by the demonstration of the ‘screaming jelly baby’, originally
devised to demonstrate the extreme exothermic reaction of sugar heated in a stream of
oxygen from the thermal decomposition of potassium chlorate (please check I’ve got this
right!). He had chosen to use the demonstration to enliven his teaching of biology in the topic
of respiration (and diet).
… Jelly babies … I did use it in a different way. They (tutors on the course) used it
mostly for chemistry. I used it for biology. I linked it to diet . For example how
science works. I linked it with the amount of… from one jelly baby the heat getting
in, so for the children not to eat too much… and how…for science plus for life.
Things like that.
T/C6B/1/2.1
C.2.13. Impact factors related to the characteristics of the participant
There was only one example – from the second interview with members of SMT.
I think they (T/C6A and T/C6B) were volunteers … if you are going to do something
like this it needs to be with people who are on your side to begin with … I am not a
great fan of saying ‘right you need some help here – away you go’ …so I think they
were willing volunteers. I don’t think they were seen as particularly the weak links or
were seen as the key players… they are not… they are both sort of basic classroom
teachers not head of, or deputy, within the faculty.
SMT/C6A & SMT/C6B/2.3/6
112
C.2.14. Impact factors related to the school’s implementation space
At his first interview T/C6A commented on the openness of the science team and the SMT
particularly the newly appointed Deputy Head, AR, as key in helping implement outcomes of
CPD.
I think the main thing that would help (implement CPD outcomes) is the openness of
the science team really. It’s a matter of myself and T/C6B feeding back. So the
department wants to know what we were doing and so on. I think the main thing is
the support of the science team and also the…SMT/C6A and SMT/C6B …it’s
wanting to come up with new ideas and such like really.
SMT/C6B has always been supportive … anything new and such like. He’s been
here since Christmas. He is a supportive type of character really. So I think that in
the main there is probably a feeling that some schemes of work and such like need
re-writing and so on and freshening up.
T/C6A/1.1/10-16+2/2
T/C6B alluded to the SMT’s desire to see CPD efforts translate into improved pupil
performance.
Yes, I mean my line manager seems positive .. he’s the deputy head and …supports
CPD and they (SMT) want to move forward we want to increase the grades. Every
year for the last four to five years we increase it step by step.
T/C6B/1.3/2
The school’s commitment to CPD and its central place in whole school development was
explained by the assistant head teacher at the first interview. This extract shows how the
school views CPD as a formative process requiring dissemination and sharing of practice by
course participants, but one that avoids unnecessary bureaucracy.
I
Can you briefly sketch what you consider to be the school’s policy on
professional development? Is there a rationale for it, a central driving thing?
SMT/C6A It’s obviously everything we do. It’s going to sound clichéd but it’s that everything
we do is directed towards learning and teaching. So we obviously look for
CPDs that impact on classroom practice as well as information about new
syllabuses and so on. So in one sentence it would be that, we are looking for
things that improve practice in the classroom and improve teaching and learning
and ultimately attainment.
I
Is there a tradition in the school of sharing and reporting back to each other of
what’s happened on CPD?
SMT/C6A Err… I suppose there is yes. I mean at one stage we did try to formalise it and
got bogged down in a rather bureaucratic system. Which fell to bits because it
was paperwork that people didn’t do it …
113
I
Was that getting people to report back via written reports?
SMT/C6A At one stage I did try to get them (course participants involved in CPD) to send
me an evaluation … but I spent more time chasing it than I did actually getting it.
So in the end we stopped. And I’m not sure it’s necessary. If the course has
been useful we would expect people to feedback into their curriculum area….and
curriculum areas meet fairly regularly. There is a weekly meeting after
school …most of them are curriculum area …I mean sometimes they are pastoral
meetings but mostly those are curriculum area meetings. So we would expect,
and certainly under our current Head, we’re encouraging people to spend time in
those meetings discussing practice….and obviously if somebody has recently
been on a CPD course we’d expect them to feed that in at that point.
SMT/C6A/1.1/8-12
It is interesting to note that T/C6A hoped (expected?) that, with the support of the head of
science, weekly slots and in-service days for faculty focussed CPD would be the mechanism
though which course outcomes could be disseminated (cascaded) to other teachers. These
hopes were not realised.
The activities would be about me showing them demonstrations that I’m impressed
with …I’m going to try and initially do that in the science meetings. I’d mention it in
science meetings …
The in-service days, there’s none this year but there is for next year and hopefully
with the support of the head of science, that would be an intention really, I think that
would be useful really.
T/C6A/1.6/7+11
SMT/C6A also referred to the (financial) support that might be available to support outcomes
of CPD, though there was little evidence, in this case, that any additional support was
provided to purchase new equipment (see later).
I
How is the school able to support any changes in T/C6B and T/C6A’s practice?
I suppose that is more for SMT/C6B?
SMT/C6A It depends on what the support was. I mean if it’s in terms of practical
equipment whatever, then we’d have to look at resourcing it. If it’s about
enabling them on a timetable to perhaps observe each other and things like
that … I mean I can imagine the benefit of working together on something like
that enables one to say well, ‘I’m going to try out that stuff we were talking about
on the course’, or, ‘I have tried it out or I’m not happy with the way it’s going can
you sit at the back of my lesson and tell me what you think I’m doing wrong’.
It’s an almost action research type process to go forward.
SMT/C6A/1.4/8-9
SMT/C6A explained how Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs) might help provide support for
those teachers wishing to implement change as a result of CPD.
We have two ASTs in school. So I could imagine them either helping in some way,
being called in to have a look at what they (T/C6A and T/C6B) are doing and offering
some advice or possibly … and, if things are going extremely well, T/C6A and T/C6B
having something to offer to them to add to the menu of good practice of all teachers.
114
One of them runs something called the ‘Learning Clinic’ which is an informal group
of staff who meet and support each other. …it’s not part of any structure and quite
deliberately so. So if you go to members of the group and say, ‘look I’m having a bit
of trouble with 9L could somebody come and help me have a look at them and see
what I can do’ you’re not exposing yourself to anybody in the management team
because nobody on the management team is involved in running it. So it’s quite a
nice arrangement really …. I could imagine them (T/C6A and T/C6B) perhaps being
involved in something like that, or offering the things that they’ve learnt to that
developing menu of good practice that we’re trying to spread across the school.
SMT/C6A/1.5/3+5
C.2.15. Factors hindering classroom impact of CPD on the use of inspiring
science learning through demonstrations
C.2.16. Impact factors related to pre-course expectations
None evident
C.2.17. Impact factors related to the course characteristics and content
A kit of parts, provided by the NSLC, to carry out one of the demonstrations that SD was keen
to include in his ‘A’- level Physics teaching proved problematic.
I
You wanted to include some demos in your A-Level physics lessons …You teach
A-Level Physics?
T/C6A
I do.
I
So how has that gone – have you been able to do that?
T/C6A
Not for want of trying … the one that impressed me was the ‘Gaussian Gun’.
I
Yes you talked about that in the last interview.
T/C6A
Yes we just couldn’t get it to work with the stuff we had from the NSLC … and I
practised it because I thought it was something that slotted in nicely on the force
and mechanics that we did.
I
I don’t know the experiment … so what is the equipment you need to do it with?
T/C6A Magnets and basically a ball bearing and you have to have things at set places. If
you remember, (the course leader at the NSLC) … she gave us a bag with the
equipment in but you can’t get it to work with the kit that she gave us – I don’t
know why.
T/C6A/2.3/6-13
C.2.18. Impact factors related to the characteristics of the participant
The only example related to T/C6A, confirming what had been observed in his lesson:
Well what I would say, certainly with T/C6A … there is still a long way to go in terms
of him thinking laterally and thinking in a diverse way. He is still very much a
worksheet based teacher.
SMT/C6B/2.4/6
115
C.2.19. Impact factors related to the school’s implementation space
Negative impact factors mainly related to lack of available finance to purchase equipment and
support CPD and inability to provide the time necessary for T/C6B and T/C6A to disseminate
outcomes to other teachers as they intended.
I
Are there any other potential barriers to success in putting these things into your
teaching such as equipment costs?
T/C6A Yes, I think that may be it. It’s about the cash really…there may be a potential cash
issue ... My understanding is that any money that could come in (attached to the
course) would be for myself and T/C6B to have a say in …It would be us to have
some sort of control over it, wouldn’t it?
I
That’s up to the school to organise really.
T.C6.1/1.4.5-8
I don’t know what SMT/C6A told you when you interviewed him on the phone, but
basically the CPD budget in school is negligible.
SMT/C6B/2.6/12
Although T/C6A and T/C6B claimed to have asked for faculty time to be allocated to
dissemination of course outcomes, the Head of Science countered this commenting that
faculty time was under pressure from having to address whole school development issues. He
was clear that, in spite of these pressures, if approaches were made to him for communication
and dissemination of valid and important ideas and actions, faculty time could be provided to
do that.
I
So one of the things which both of them (the teachers) said they wanted to do
when I did the telephone interview with them and again they re-iterated it today,
was to be able to tell other teachers in the department about demonstrations,
have some time in departmental meetings to show demonstrations, have some
time to do training maybe for other teachers in the department on safety in
demonstrations, best demonstrations that sort of thing. Maybe help with writing
into schemes of work as well. All those were on their plans as well. Has that
actually happened in the department? Have they been able to do that?
HOS/C6 No. We had that in the faculty meetings last year (immediately following the
course), but we haven’t got it in this year and they haven’t said that they want
something in.
I
They haven’t said they want it in?
HOS/C6 No … because I would build it in there … I have now got 2 people who can
some good stuff for me haven’t I?
I
do
So when they came back from the course in June wanting to use some
departmental time …
HOS/C6 No, they didn’t say that to me … that they wanted that, it is normally built in, but
you are looking for examples of good practice to share with the faculty … I have
just got out of the habit this year that is the problem. That is my fault, not
theirs … but they haven’t said to me that they want to do those things, we can
always find the time for that … we will find the time for it.
I
So is it because of pressure of other things that has just hijacked that time that
might have been available do you think?
116
HOS/C6 It is pressure that has hijacked it from my side … I would imagine that it’s pressure
on them from their side as well … workload wise where they have not made it
occur so far in the faculty meetings. It’s just the pressure we work under.
I
Are there priorities in the school that force you to do certain things in the
department in meetings which – has the priority of the school shifted onto a
particular policy or initiative?
HOS/C6 We are looking at some areas yes. An express area we are looking at is the
quality of teaching and learning. As a school we have made a big improvement
in our 5 A-Cs but that has mostly been 5 Cs. So now we know we are not getting
the full achievement out of the students because we know they are better than
just 5 Cs …so now it’s the intention to improve the quality, so you move up from 5
Cs to 1 A, 2 Bs and 3 Cs and its that intention to look at that quality of teaching so
that you can then affect the quality of learning so you can affect those exam
results. That is what we have been focussing on.
I
So do you think the effective demonstrations …will help in being able to do that?
HOS/C6 I think it does yes. I think being able to explain the difficult science ideas in a way
which is visual, which is aesthetic, …is often done with them doing practical work
but if you can do it … quite often as a teacher you have to get that idea across to
them that they can’t do it individually. So you have to demonstrate, you have to
show them it. I think that is very important, yes.
HoS/C6/2.3/10-12 + 4/1-9
It was clear that SMT would facilitate plans even though T/C6A and T/C6B claimed they had
not yet been able to act.
They (T/C6A and T/C6B) have not approached us with a plan to do that …
which I think, clearly because we know about it now (that you the interviewer
has told us so) we would have been sympathetic to but that hasn’t come
forward and I would have expected to do something about this.
…I think the initiative would have needed to have come from them… obviously
we can go back to them now and say ‘we gather this hasn’t gone forward, what
would you like us to do to support you in that regard’.
SMT/C6A/2.2/2
There was recognition at the SMT interview of the problems of miscommunication and lack of
action resulting from the CPD – indeed real disappointment. Some possible solutions to
enable action were posited.
I think that is where the nub of the problem is … … I am saying I think the
problem is maybe a communicative problem or prioritising ….in the (science)
area, he (the head of science) has got his priorities laid out which may be
different from individuals ..
SMT/C6A/2.9/2
SMT/C6A For whatever reason it is not one that the curriculum area leader has seen as a
priority …SMT/C6B as the line manager could influence that and maybe if
T/C6A had come to you to talk about it there might have been some sort of
mediation and negotiation around that point.
I
Obviously it is not my job …to make the suggestions but this is what I am
picking up.
SMT/C6A In the end, the impact of any CPD is going to be …by the amount of time and
energy that people can put into it and if the department isn’t able to provide
117
them with the time then with the best will in the world they are not going to be
able to cascade it to everybody else in the area.
SMT/C6B It could have the impact in the individual teachers’ teaching but not actually go
beyond the two that attended …
SMT/C6/1 This is very much what we want people to be sharing … sharing their good
practice in every part of the school. Yes … it is disappointing that there has
been an investment of time and money in 2 people and that hasn’t been carried
forward.
I
So what would you expect to happen now as a result of further actions?
SMT/C6B I would think that it would be appropriate to speak with the head of science and
basically say, ‘what sharing of good practise is taking place’? The opportunity is
there, there are probably 30 odd meetings a year, 30 hours of time …
SMT/C6/1 and SMT/C6B 2.5/8-13+6/1
118
ANNEXE 1 TO CASE B (CASES 3 & 4)
APPENDIX C “Learning and Evaluation Tool – Nutshell”
119
120
Annexe to Case Study C5 Name: T/C5
1 - Action Point
4 - How you are going to get to it
(What you want to achieve)
To promote the increased use of
stimulating and engaging
demonstrations within the Science
department
1. Meeting with that the science technicians - to
discuss and decide which demos we could use
- taking into account resources and finance to
purchase new resources if needed.
2.INSET to share course information with the
rest of the department, Demo the demos to the
whole department with help from the
technicians, then make a departmental
decision as to which Demos should/could/will
be implemented into our schemes of work
3.Link into Gifted and Talented Primary
Transition project / open evening so that pupils
are becoming involved as soon as possible
4. Production of step by step 'how to' sheet for
each demonstration chosen to be implemented
and a corresponding pupil work sheet
5.Demo Week - where all science staff have to
carry out a set number of demos that week will ask for lesson plans to be provided and will
do class observations. Feedback session at
end of week to find out how
staff felt about it
6. Implementation of demonstrations into KS3
&KS4 schemes of work
School Name: Middleton Community School
5 - Timings and 6 - Resources required
(inc time, support and
Key Dates
intellectual)
1. ASAP - by
1. 2x1 hour sessions
26/06/09 at the latest
2. 1 hour session for
2. By end of term demos and 1 hour to
- 24/07/09
discuss which demos to
3. By end
use
September '09 ready
3. 2x1 hour sessions
for the open evening
4. depending on total
in Oct '09
number chosen 4. By end
estimate 1 hour per
September '09
demo
5. By Oct' half
5. depending on how
term '09
many observations I do
6. Start Oct'09
personally - will only
and ongoing as staff
observe half lessons
write the schemes
6. Various - but will
be dome as each
member of staff writes
the SoW
they are responsible
for
7 - Sources of Support
and Challenge
1.Myself (T/C/1), (SL)and
(CK) (technicians),
(NF) (head of
department)
2. T/C/1, NF, CK, SL rest
of science department
3. T/C/1, NF, (NK)(gifted
and talented co-ordinator)
(DR)(primary liaison)
4. T/C/1 NF and
volunteers from the
department to help write
them
5. All science staff,
T/C/1, NF, NK, and (RK)
(Deputy Head Teacher
and Science Line
Manager) to carry out the
observations
6. All Science teachers technicians to give
guidance as and when
possible.
2 - Success Criteria
I will gauge the success of the action plan by producing a pre and post questionnaire for the science technicians, to find out information about what equipment has been ordered
(and used) by which teachers. By doing lesson observations during the Demo week and by general pupil feedback - talking to several pupils at random and questioning them
about demonstrations they have enjoyed.
3 - Longer term benefits to pupils: Pupils will hopefully become much more engaged in their science lessons and will have an increased enthusiasm to learning. Pupils will
understand the health and safety issues surrounding science demonstrations and will become more confident in caring out their own investigations
8 - Monitoring (Finding out what’s going on)
9 - Evaluation (so what?)
THIS SECTION TO BE FILLED IN AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN
Monitoring will be carried out by a range of methods:
1. ensuring Demos are written into new schemes of work and are carried out, will check
by looking at the equipment request sheets and looking at the new schemes of as and
when they are written
2. Staff observations during Demo week to ensure all staff are carrying out Demos.
3.Speaking with the science technicians to ensure that teachers are carrying out demos
4.Speaking to pupils on a regular basis to check what has been happening in their
lessons
5. Taking photos of different staff carrying out different demos
10 - Progress Review Date: October 2009
121
ANNEXE to Case C6a/b
Session 5: Handout 2 Gap Task Action Plan (this will support TLA verification)
Name T/C6/1
School
Contact email address:
1. Action Point
(What you want to achieve)
4. How you are going
to get to it.
5.Timings
Dates
To deliver three new options
per half term
Feedback ideas /
intentions to science
department. Possibly
purchase
new
equipment.
October 09
December 09
Feb 10
April 10
June 10
July 10
and
Key
6. Resources required (inc. time,
support and intellectual)
7. Sources of support
and challenge
Time to meet
T/C6B to discuss implementation
Time to inset department
Full use of money from course to
purchase resources.
Support
NSLC
website
&
resources.
Departmental Money
from course
Dep Head challenge
Staff not willing to try
new approaches.
Preparation time
2. Success Criteria: check if teachers have delivered the lesson.
3. Longer term benefits to pupils; More interesting, engaging demos leading to better learning.
8. Monitoring (Finding out what’s going on) – asking teachers about delivery. Student response to demos.
9. Evaluation (so what?) THIS SECTION TO BE FILLED IN AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN
10. Progress Review Date: October 09.
122
ANNEX TO CASE C (CASES 5 & 6)
NAC08133-Inspiring Science Learning Through Demonstrations
Course Timetable Residential Period 1
Date
Time
15/06/09
Monday
12:00-12:30pm
Session
17/06/09
Wednesday
Deliverer
Room
Welcome
Andrea
Mapplebeck
TR
Inspiring Science
Demonstrations in
Biology
Jeremy Airey
Restaurant
Lab 1
12:30-1:30pm
1:30-3:30pm
LUNCH
1
3:30-4:00pm
4:00-5:10pm
BREAK
2
Health and Safety Issues
Simon Quinnell
Restaurant
Lab 2
5:10-5:20pm
5:20-6:30pm
3
Not Often Seen Demos
Simon Quinnell
Comfort Break
Lab 2
6:30-7:00pm
16/06/09
Tuesday
Title
Reflection Time and Time
in Resource Centre.
7:00-8:00pm
9:00-11:00am
DINNER
4
11:00-11:30am
11:30-12:30pm
BREAK
5
12:30-1:30pm
1:30-3:30pm
LUNCH
6
3:30-4:00pm
4:00-5:00pm
BREAK
7
5:00-7:00pm
8
7:00-8:00pm
9:00-10:30am
DINNER
9
10:30-11:00am
11:00-12:30pm
BREAK
10
12:30-1:30pm
1:30-2:30pm
LUNCH
10 contd
2:30-3:30pm
11
Portal Training and
Impact Action Planning
3:30-4:00pm
12
Plenary and Next Steps
RC
Restaurant
Lab 2
Inspiring Science
Demonstrations in
Chemistry
Lynne Cooper
John Walker
Pre-course Task and
Building Capacity
Andrea
Mapplebeck
Inspiring Science
Demonstrations in
Physics
Andrea
Mapplebeck
Restaurant
Lab 1
TR 2
An Inspirational Demo
Lecture
John Holman
Restaurant
Lab 2
Creating Your Own
Inspirational Lecture
Andrea
Mapplebeck
Simon Quinnell
Strategies to Promote
Pupils’ Learning After
Demonstrations
Andrea
Mapplebeck
Delivering of Inspirational
Lectures Part 1
Andrea
Mapplebeck
Helen Rose
Delivering of Inspirational
Lectures Part 2
Andrea
Mapplebeck
Helen Rose
Andrea
Mapplebeck
Andrea
Mapplebeck
Restaurant
TR
Lab 1
Lab 2
Restaurant
TR
Restaurant
Lab 1
Lab 2
Restaurant
Lab 1
Lab 2
ICT
TR
123
NAC08133-Inspiring Science Learning Through Demonstrations
Room Set Up and Resources
Date
Time
15/06/09
Monday
12:0012:30pm
Session
17/06/09
Wednesday
Room Set
Up
Resources
TR
Cabaret
ICT as usual
ICT as usual
12:30-1:30pm
1:30-3:30pm
LUNCH
1
Restaurant
Lab 1
N/A
N/A
3:30-4:00pm
4:00-5:10pm
BREAK
2
Restaurant
Lab 2
N/A
N/A
5:10-5:20pm
5:20-6:30pm
3
Comfort Break
Lab 2
N/A
N/A
ICT as usual
RC
N/A
ICT as usual
ICT as usual
6:30-7:00pm
16/06/09
Tuesday
Room
ICT as usual + 1 laptop/pair
participants
7:00-8:00pm
9:00-11:00am
DINNER
4
Restaurant
Lab 2
N/A
N/A
11:0011:30am
11:3012:30pm
BREAK
Restaurant
N/A
5
TR
Cabaret
ICT as usual
12:30-1:30pm
1:30-3:30pm
LUNCH
6
Restaurant
Lab 1
TR 2
N/A
N/A
ICT as usual
3:30-4:00pm
4:00-5:00pm
BREAK
7
Restaurant
Lab 2
N/A
N/A
ICT as usual
5:00-7:00pm
8
Lab 1
Lab 2
N/A
7:00-8:00pm
9:00-10:30am
DINNER
9
Restaurant
TR
N/A
Cabaret
10:3011:00am
11:0012:30pm
BREAK
Restaurant
N/A
10
Lab 1
Lab 2
N/A
ICT as usual + 1 laptop/pair
participants
ICT as usual + 1 laptop/pair
participants
ICT as usual + 1 laptop/pair
participants + 2 Digital
camcorders and tripods
124
12:30-1:30pm
LUNCH
Restaurant
N/A
1:30-2:30pm
10 cont
Lab 1
Lab 2
N/A
2:30-3:30pm
11
ICT
N/A
ICT as usual + 1 laptop/pair
participants+ 2 Digital
camcorders and tripods
ICT as usual
3:30-4:00pm
12
TR
Cabaret
ICT as usual
125
126
127
128
129
130