Teacher Professional Leave
Longitudinal Study 2010-12
Final report
Prepared for the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
March 2013
Contents
Section
Page
1. Executive Summary
2
2. Background and Methodology
5
3. Key Findings for the TPL 2010 cohort case study teams
8
3.1
Extent to which teachers have been able to continue the learning commenced through TPL
3.2
Changes in student learning outcomes as a result of learning commenced through TPL
3.3
Extent to which teachers are collecting and using data or evidence to continue to inform their
teaching practice
21
3.4
Factors which influence the sustainability of the learning
4. Key Findings for the TPL 2011 cohort case study teams
8
17
25
27
4.1
Extent to which teachers have been able to continue the learning commenced through TPL
27
4.2
Changes in student learning outcomes as a result of learning commenced through TPL
32
4.3
Extent to which teachers are collecting and using data or evidence to continue to inform their
teaching practice
35
4.4
Factors which influence the sustainability of the learning
5. Discussion
38
40
5.1
Impact of TPL on changes in teacher practice and the ability to continue the learning commenced
through TPL
41
5.2
Key factors which support teachers continuing to make sustainable changes to their instructional
practice and influence student learning outcomes
47
5.3
Other influences within the teacher’s operational context
50
6. Conclusion
52
7. References
54
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
1
1. Executive Summary
This longitudinal study of Teacher Professional Leave (TPL) participants across 2010-12 has found that
many teachers are continuing to make changes to their own teaching practice, and the teaching practice of
others to varying extents, and these changes are having an impact on student learning outcomes.
TPL allows teachers in government schools to access professional leave in order to undertake professional
learning focussed on high quality instruction in the classroom. Teachers from all government schools are
eligible to access TPL. It can be taken as a continuous block or spread over time during the year, or as a
combination. TPL funding facilitates access to reduced teaching loads, allowing teachers to leave the
classroom. Teachers may undertake TPL as an individual or as part of a team either from the same school
or from different schools within a regional network. TPL has been funded by the Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) since 2004.
Synergistiq1 was commissioned by DEECD to evaluate TPL during 2010 - 2012 to examine the impact of TPL
on improving the quality of teacher practice and improving outcomes for students. This report provides the
findings of the longitudinal component of the evaluation which followed up case study participants from
the 2010 and 2011 cohorts in the year/s subsequent to their TPL. It also makes some commentary
regarding the findings of the investigation of the 2012 cohort.
Participants from the eighteen case studies from the 2010 and 2011 TPL cohorts were contacted in Term 3
to arrange phone interviews with team leaders or another team member. A follow up survey with all case
study participants was also conducted. For the 2010 case study cohort, we conducted interviews with a
member of 17 teams in 2011 and 15 teams in 2012. For the 2011 case study cohort we conducted
interviews with a member of 12 case study teams. The response rate to the survey of all case study cohort
participants was low for both cohorts. The qualitative data provided through the interview process was
used as the primary source of data.
In reflecting about the kinds of changes they were continuing to make in their own practice, the main
themes from both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts were:






Greater awareness of their own teaching practice through use of e5
Reflection and peer observations and feedback
Changing their own practice through use of specific teaching techniques or resources relevant to
their teaching area
Using consistent curriculum and/ or assessments which guide teaching practice
Continuing to use the resources developed through TPL, and developing new resources
Continuing to use the strategies and tools developed through TPL in a curriculum area/ year level
or with their team.
Teachers also reflected their observations of continued changes to the teaching practice of others though
to a lesser extent.
Teachers in both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts articulated a similar range of examples of
improvements in student outcomes following changes to their practice as a result of TPL. These included:
1
Formerly Success Works Pty Ltd
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
2







Increased student engagement in learning activities/ less behavioural issues
Students more independent learners/ understand levels and set own goals
Students more confident/ motivated
Improved learning outcomes because students are learning at their level of need/ differentiation
Improvements in students’ vocabulary/ language skills/ speaking and listening skills
Improvements in outcomes in specific curriculum areas targeted in the TPL work
Improvements in student understanding of concepts and in thinking skills.
The extent to which teachers were able to observe change in student learning outcomes was dependant on
the extent to which other teachers were adopting or using the strategies, approaches and/or resources
developed through TPL.
It is clear from the evidence that changes to the program structure of TPL that have occurred over the
three year period, specifically the move to focus more explicitly on individual teacher practice, have been a
key contributor to the increasing ability of TPL participants to measure and link the changes to their
practice to improvements in student outcomes. For the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts, the most likely
area in which the learning through TPL continues is in their own teaching practice.
Each TPL cohort has expressed the importance of TPL giving them time. Time to research, to develop and
trial new strategies, to learn and experiment with measurement, to reflect on their practice and to work
with others as part of their investigation. Time or the lack of time has been noted as particularly difficult
for both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts in the first year post TPL. Time has also been cited as an
impediment for the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts in using data to inform their practice in subsequent
years. This reflects the less sophisticated approach to measurement when compared to the 2012 cohort.
Having a supportive culture in the school and other like-minded colleagues to work with also contributed
to the extent to which teachers felt their teacher practice was continuing to improve, more so than
continuing to work with their TPL team members in subsequent years.
Collaboration with other teachers over a longer period, as experienced by the 2010 case study cohort,
contributed to sustainable changes in teacher practice. Collaboration was supported by being able to share
learning with others and work with them to discuss, reflect and plan their teaching, particularly with other
teachers in their curriculum or year level.
Teachers whose learning through TPL was directed at teaching practice with specific linkages to
pedagogical content approaches, such as improving numeracy outcomes, were more likely to make the
linkages to student learning outcomes, as were those with access to professional expertise or guidance
which encourage teachers to refocus on “what the is student doing”.
With regard to measurement, both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts were found to be measuring the
extent of student learning outcomes more than measuring changes in their own teacher practice. Again
teachers from both case study cohorts tended to use more macro level measures for measuring changes in
student learning outcomes, along with observational evidence, teacher judgement and student feedback.
For the 2011 case study cohort the encouragement to use filming via the provision of flip cams was a useful
additional source of data collection for around one third of teachers who regularly filmed during their TPL
year. It was used to a lesser extent in the year following TPL.
Capability in measurement varied across the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts with the 2012 case study
cohort demonstrating much more sophisticated use of evidence collection and measurement, in particular
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
3
the ability to use data to inform teacher practice and to make changes in daily practice as a result. This
cohort is also better able to describe changes in their own teaching practice and the resultant changes in
student learning outcomes.
The longitudinal study has found that teachers able to continue the approaches commenced through TPL
were continuing to make changes to their teaching practice because they could see a reason to do so and
could see an identified need. This was particularly so where the school continued to see the approach as a
priority and where there was support from school leadership.
Other significant initiatives within the particular school also impact on the ability and extent to which
teachers continue to make changes to their individual practice. For some this means they are less likely to
say that particular changes they are observing are due "solely" to TPL. For many teachers however, they
can see that their work in TPL provided the impetus for further change for themselves, for students and the
school more broadly.
It is clear that the investment in TPL has had a positive impact for teachers, students and schools beyond
the year in which the TPL was undertaken. For many teachers and schools TPL has been influential in
changing the culture within schools, and embedding a focus on improved teacher practice leading to
improved student learning outcomes.
Finally, Synergistiq would like to again thank the participants in the 2010, 2011 and case study cohorts for
continuing to share their journey with us and to the 2012 case study cohort for participating.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
4
2. Background and Methodology
Our evaluation of Teacher Professional Leave (TPL) over 2010-12 includes an annual evaluation of TPL for
the 2010, 2011 and 2012 cohorts using case study methodology supplemented by online surveys. Our
evaluation also includes a longitudinal study of the 2010 and 2011 TPL case study cohorts, which is the
focus of this report.
Case study methodology and the longitudinal nature of the TPL 2010-12 evaluation allows us to follow the
learning journey of the cohorts of eighteen TPL case study teams during their TPL year and, for the 2010
and 2011 TPL cohort case study teams, in the one to two years following their TPL year. This enables us to
investigate the extent to which changes in teacher practice and associated student learning outcomes
achieved through TPL continue to develop and embed in the following years. In particular it allows us to
identify the factors which support, and which hinder, teachers to do this.
In 2010, our evaluation provided an in-depth look at the learning journey of eighteen TPL teams. Based on
our analysis of findings from case studies, survey results for the overall 2010 TPL cohort and our
understanding of identified success factors which support student learning outcomes through research
literature and previous evaluations of Teacher Professional Leave, we identified the following factors which
support teachers in their professional learning and which lead to changes in teacher instructional practice
and improved student outcomes:







Identified need – which focuses the professional learning
Leadership – which creates a vision around the identified need
Support – which allows effective use of TPL time
Access to expertise and additional resources - which supports further learning
Focus on teacher practice – which enables observation, reflection and changes in teacher practice
Sharing learning – which extends learning beyond TPL teachers
Longevity of outcomes – which embeds culture change and sustainability of outcomes.
Based on the findings from our annual evaluations in 2010 and 2011 about influencing factors and areas for
further investigation, the following evaluation questions were investigated in 2012 with the 2010 and 2011
TPL case study cohorts:

To what extent have teachers been able to continue and/or develop their learning commenced
through TPL, and what impact has this had on the ability to produce sustainable changes:
o
o


In their individual practice
In the teaching practice of others in their school or network?
What evidence is there that changes in teacher practice are leading to sustainable teacher and
student outcomes?
To what extent are the following factors present and how have they influenced teacher and
student outcomes?
o
o
o
o
Teachers have re-identified their need
Leadership and support (of team members, Principals and/or RNLs) continues
Access to professional expertise and/or additional resources
Ability to share learning with colleagues and in what ways did collaboration occur?
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
5


To what extent are teachers undertaking an inquiry cycle or collecting and using data or evidence
to continue to inform their teaching practice?
What are the factors supporting or inhibiting teachers using evidence?
The findings for this longitudinal study are drawn from analysis of qualitative and quantitative data. We
contacted all participants in the eighteen 2010 and eighteen 2011 case study cohort teams via email in
Term 3 to arrange phone interviews with team leaders or another team member, and to flag there would
be a short follow up online survey for all case study cohort participants. Phone interviews were conducted
during Term 3, with the follow up survey closing early in Term 4.
The discussion section of this report is informed by the findings of the longitudinal study and the Annual
Evaluation Reports for each of the 2010, 2011 and 2012 cohorts, including the literature review prepared
as part of the Teacher Professional Leave 2010: Evaluation Final Report, March 2011.
2010 Case Study Cohort
Our investigation of the 2010 TPL case study cohort in 2011 was informed by the findings from semistructured phone interviews with seventeen team leaders or another team member, supplemented with
results from an online survey of all 2010 cohort case study team participants. The survey had a response
rate of 47%.
Fourteen team leaders or another team member of the 2010 case study cohort participated in a telephone
interview in 2012. One team leader provided a written response to the interview questions as they were
unable to schedule a phone interview due to other work commitments. This provided a total of fifteen
responses or a response rate of 83%.
The overall response rate to the 2012 follow up survey of 2010 case study cohort teams was 26%. This
equates to at least one survey response from nine teams, which means that for nine teams a number of (or
all) team members provided information either via interview or survey (or both). It also means that the
phone interview is the only data source for six teams. While this low response rate suggests the
quantitative data should be treated with caution, it is still useful in conjunction with the primary source of
data which is the qualitative data provided through the phone interview process.
There was no qualitative or quantitative data from three case study cohort teams. Two of these were
teams which only provided one data source in 2011.
2011 case study cohort
Eleven team leaders or another team member of the 2011 case study cohort participated in a telephone
interview in 2012. One team leader provided a written response to the interview questions as they were
unable to schedule a phone interview due to other work commitments. This provided a total of twelve
responses or a response rate of 67%.
The overall response rate to the follow up survey of 2011 case study cohort teams was 32%. This equates
to at least one survey response from thirteen teams. There is only one data source used for seven teams:
an interview with the team leader only for three teams and survey response only from four teams. There is
no qualitative or quantitative data for two teams. One of the teams recording a “nil” response was a team
which had experienced a difficult TPL year in 2011 and did not believe their investigations would continue
in 2012 in any form.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
6
A comment on response rates
While a lower response rate in 2012 for 2010 TPL cohort case study teams was not unexpected, given that
we were following up two years out and some level of disengagement could be expected, we expected a
higher response rate from the 2011 TPL cohort case study teams. The lower response rate for phone
interviews, in particular, is unexpected.
Our evaluations of TPL in 2010 and 2011 have clearly identified “time”, or not being able to find time to fit
everything into a busy day, as being a factor which hinders teachers in continuing the learning commenced
through TPL. We therefore can assume that lack of time may be one of the contributing reasons for a lower
response rate. In 2012 teachers were implementing Australian Education Union bans, including a ban on
completing DEECD surveys. A number of teachers in our 2012 TPL case study cohort discussed
implementing union bans during our interviews and email responses regarding completion of the survey
for the previous years’ cohorts suggest that this may have been a factor in a lower than anticipated
response rate.
Structure of this report
Chapter 1 presents an executive summary.
Chapter 2 outlines the background and methodology to the evaluation.
Chapter 3 presents the findings for the 2010 TPL case study cohort across 2011 and 2012.
Chapter 4 presents the findings for the 2011 TPL case study cohort in 2012.
Chapter 5 draws together the analysis across the follow up cohorts and also provides some analysis about
the significant changes and impacts of TPL experienced across all three cohorts.
Chapter 6 presents the conclusion of our investigation.
Chapter 7 provides a list of references used to inform this report.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
7
3. Key Findings for the TPL 2010 cohort case study teams
In 2010 TPL gave teachers time to explore how teaching capability and teacher reflection on practice can
be improved using the e5 Instructional Model. As collaborating and sharing the learning with others is also
a key focus of TPL, many teams were using some of their TPL time to provide professional development
sessions within their schools on this framework. Teams were also required to produce an “artefact” as a
way of sharing their learning with other teachers within their school and/or network.
The findings below bring together data collected from the 2010 TPL case study cohort in 2011 and 2012.
3.1
Extent to which teachers have been able to continue the learning
commenced through TPL
In the 2012 follow up interviews, eleven out of fifteen interviewees referred to the work of their TPL team
as having a broader focus within the school, ie about whole school change, or change in approach within a
curriculum area or year level.
Eight out of fifteen interviewees said that the learning commenced, or the work commenced through TPL
in 2010 had continued, or that it had evolved into, or created the preparedness for other work within the
school, such as current work within the school on peer observations. A further interviewee commented
that the work now had links to a current focus on regional priorities.
Two interviewees commented that the work had not really continued in the school. Both of these
commented, though, that they had been able to continue the learning in their own teaching practice.
Some interviewees did not particularly comment on whether or not the work was being continued within
the school, but spoke about their individual teaching practice.
3.1.1
Individual teaching practice
Thirteen out of fifteen interviewees made some comment regarding the changes in their own teaching
practice as a result of the learning commenced through TPL. Ten of these said that they continued to use
the approach or strategies developed through TPL in their own teaching practice, and two additional
interviewees spoke about the school continuing to use the approach commenced in TPL. Two interviewees
were not in teaching positions this year as they had moved to leadership positions.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
8
Figure 1:
12
Improvements in own teaching practice
To what extent has your learning commenced through TPL led to
continued changes and improvements in your own teaching
practice?
10
10
8
8
6
4
2
0
1
0
Not at all
Only a little
Moderately
Substantially
Respondents to the survey rated the extent to which their own teaching practice improved or continued to
improve during 2012 as a result of the learning commenced in 2010 as depicted in Figure 1. The average
rating was 3.4 (out of 4) or “moderately”. Almost all respondents (95%) rated the extent of their improved
learning as either “moderately” or “substantially” in comparison with 86% in 2011. Due to the low survey
response rate, this data needs to be interpreted with caution.
The main themes in examples provided by survey respondents about the kinds of changes in their own
practice were:




Greater awareness of their own teaching practice through use of e5
Reflection and peer observations and feedback
Changing their own practice through use of specific teaching techniques or resources relevant to
their teaching area
Using consistent curriculum and/ or assessments which guide teaching practice.
This tends to support responses from interviewees, and is also consistent with the kinds of changes
reported by the 2010 case study cohort in 2011.
The most common themes in the interview responses were that teachers were continuing to use the
resources developed through TPL, and were continuing to use the strategies and tools developed through
TPL in a curriculum area/ year level or with their team and this meant that their teaching practice had
continued to change. Teachers were also developing new resources. Some teachers noted that there were
other things going on in the school, so changes in their teaching practice may not have been just through
having the TPL experience.
Case study: Changes in teaching practice improving student learning outcomes
I’m still in the Assistant Principal role and numeracy is part of this role too. Most certainly the learning from
the TPL is still around. Changes to my practice have still been massive.
When I went into TPL I’d gone down into the primary area in our P-12 school, which was all new to me. To
have the time to work with the primary staff, learning the skills for early years was massive, and it’s been
fantastic for my development. I can work out “Why is it this child can’t see this?” Now when we go to
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
9
demonstrate concepts I do it various ways, particularly visually – and breaking it down for them – rather
than dry notes. And I still do project-based work and they love it still.
Our students are going to come through stronger in numeracy. Our numeracy is testing very well. We’ve
even had comments from our previous regional leaders about how our numeracy results had improved.
We’re still doing the project-based work in numeracy in P-6 which specifically started with our TPL. In our
team meetings we still have a share about what they’ve done in the classroom which has been really
worthwhile to keep those discussions going – on where we can better things. We’ve had different focuses
since then as well which I’ve shared through the meetings – such as open questioning, which has fed into
our project-based work. At the moment we’re trying to improve our roving skills when children are working
independently, improving what we’re looking for specifically when roving – which flows on from the
project-based work as well.
[Interviewee from a 2010 P-12 school TPL team]
The other most common theme was that teachers were continuing to use self reflection to make changes
to their own teaching practice. These teachers continued to find the e5 framework useful, with some of
them using the e5 framework to continue to make changes to practice. Others were using the e5 framework
for planning activities, including for supporting differentiated curriculum.
Case study: Using e5 to support changes to individual teaching practice
This year I am doing reading recovery plus I have literacy intervention for Grades 3-6. I am able to use e5 on
an ongoing basis even with these groups. Last year I had Grade 2, and I used e 5 for planning day topics,
using an inquiry based approach. But we developed a focus on “engage” and “explore”. We had made up a
grid in our TPL year to plot activities related to writing. I still do my learning and planning through the
proforma I developed in that TPL inquiry.
I just used “engage” in first term, and it fitted in rather neatly. I plotted through the five domains in a
recent activity. I used our TPL e5 resources entirely last year, except for maths, as a planner. It’s brilliant.
I am using the same tools this year, with “engage” and “explore” mostly. My students in Grade 5 have
experienced a lot of failure, so I am working in ways of stimulating their interest. The planning tools help to
order their thinking. I also use some downloadable booklets from NSW Education Department, which fit in
well with e5.
We talk about how to give feedback to others. The one thing I found with e5 is that speaking and listening
skills come to the fore - you rely on getting feedback from children and that changes your teaching.
I can see now after three years, that speaking and listening is the one thing that weaves its way through all
the domains - teacher talk - how you express yourself and expectations of language children use - if you
heard your language coming back at you then you know the children are learning and understanding.
I don't have my e5 black book out all the time but I do refer to it and check how I am going.
I've become far less teacher oriented - at the start of TPL I had wanted to be the director of each group, I
wanted to be giving children choices about their activities. When I first started it was a bit of a schmozzle,
with my (then) 3/4 of grade. It's like losing control a bit, and it felt like a mess, I didn't enjoy it at the time
but it meant I had to work on the bits that were working well and what else I needed to change. The
students were being engaged in lots of different tasks. The classroom used to be noisy but not now, now it
is busy but not noisy. Last year the room I had in the new building was great for teaching like this. I could
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
10
use different furniture to change the environment in the classroom and that helped the students to
approach different activities in a different way. I got some good writing implements for them so they could
work out when to use the good stuff.
It's raised my expectations of students and what they could do. I see activities now as more of a starting
point for the next thing rather than a finite piece of work which is how I used to see it.
[Interviewee from a 2010 primary school TPL team]
The kinds of changes described by teachers to their own practice through continuing to use the strategies,
approaches and/ or resources developed through TPL were:





In continuing to use differentiated learning or targeted interventions to teach to student point of
need; in the ways they structure and scaffold lessons
In their use of instructional language and use of open questioning
Having a better understanding of how to demonstrate concepts and using a variety of ways to do
this
Through using more purposeful tasks for students
In using activities for students as starting points to engage them in their work.
Other changes described in interview responses were that having the TPL experience in 2010 meant
teachers now saw themselves differently and had sought other opportunities, such as leadership roles, and
that their enjoyment of teaching had increased.
3.1.2
Teaching practice of others
Thirteen out of fifteen interviewees were able to draw the linkages or comment on changes in the
instructional practice of other teachers in their school as a result of the work the TPL team had commenced
in 2010. As indicated in the previous section, interviewees commented that the TPL work had led to
further work or to other strategies being implemented in the school which teachers were using to improve
instructional practice. Two interviewee respondents also said that it would be difficult to attribute change
to TPL alone, because of other initiatives within the school which would have influenced teacher
instructional practice.
Interviewees who had been part of network teams in 2010 were able to able to speak about their
individual teaching practice and what was going on within their own schools, but were not able to
comment on changes for other teachers in the network as the TPL work had not continued in that sense.
Two of the 2010 case study cohort network teams mentioned maintaining (irregular) contact with
members of the original team through the network.
Two out of fifteen interviewees said that they had not really been able to observe changes in the practice
of others due to either changes in the school or in their own role.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
11
Figure 2:
Improvements in teaching practice of others
To what extent has your TPL experience led to changes in the
teaching practice of others in your school?
9
8
8
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
1
0
0
Not at all
Only a little
Moderately
Substantially
Unsure
Survey respondents rated the extent to which the teaching practice of others had improved or continued
to improve during 2012 as shown in Figure 2. The average rating was 3.2 (out of 4) or “moderately”. Over
four fifths (84%) of respondents rated the extent of improvements for others as either “moderately” or
“substantially” compared to 73% in 2011.
Additional comments reflected that change had occurred because a whole faculty/ team or whole school
curriculum approach had been developed and was continuing (ie a maths approach); or peer observation
and feedback processes had been adopted. Again, while this data needs to be interpreted with caution
due to the low survey response rate, it supports the findings of the qualitative data.
Four out of fifteen interviewees said that their TPL in 2010 had a whole school focus on implementing e 5.
One interviewee said that the whole school was continuing the work of building teacher practice around e 5
which involved peer observation and feedback. Two other interviewees said that their schools were either
continuing or now using peer observation and feedback, but that they were using other protocols for this
rather than e5. The fourth interviewee said that the work had not been sustainable as a whole school
approach but they continued to use e5 framework to inform their own practice.
Seven other interviewees said that their TPL in 2010 had a broader school focus, such as introducing
strategies for teaching in a particular curriculum area or particular grade levels. The extent to which this
work had been able to continue had an effect on the extent to which interviewees were able to see
changes in other teacher’s practice.
Case study: Curriculum and year level approach to changes in teaching practice
Maths inspired us to be part of the network TPL in the first place. As a result we have done professional
development in the school in the scaffolding numeracy approach we were going to use – we did this in
2011 and are continuing in 2012, running scaffolding numeracy through Grade 4 to Grade 6. We have six
teachers, plus four extra teachers and use other specialist staff in the school. The extra teachers mean we
can make the groups smaller and use more targeted intervention with the students. We have found that
small one-to-one approach works more effectively.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
12
We are continually retraining staff to get them on board. Teachers are saying they thought they were a
good teacher, but are now questioning themselves and the way they are teaching. It’s about making
thinking visible for the student and the teacher to overcome the hurdles the student has had in the past.
Teachers are developing and learning what the unit is actually about. It has been a win for us at this
school.
We have been successful in maintaining movement – we have done some evaluation. It is an extra 100
minutes with extra teachers.
We have a couple of new teachers on board which is fantastic. Probably the beauty of it is working in
teams so much. We have a graduate teacher this year who is working with another teacher and is now
saying there are students we need to move, so is able to recognise and see where students are in the zones
of proximal development. They are fluid groups so students consistently move on.
There is another leading teacher on board now. The discussion around it is good. We don’t teach in
isolation. There are eight zones with two teachers in each grade. We put someone less experienced in with
a more experienced teacher so they are able to learn why they are doing things the way they are – team
teaching within the zones. So, yes, it’s sustainable although I have to continue to drive it for it to be done.
I am back teaching again [A/g Assistant Principal last year] – which makes it much easier to keep it going. I
had some teachers say to me yesterday “It’s the first day back at school, do we have to do scaffolding?”
and I say “yes”. If we don’t keep doing it we lose the momentum. The issue is that to teach it teachers
have to lose their grade to take it, and they get a mixed bag. For reporting purposes it makes it harder.
But that is why it is good to have the discussion around it and why it needs to be ongoing so that teachers
are able to build relationships with the students.
While we have high scores in NAPLAN and VELS it is hard to say if that is a direct result of teacher practice
or scaffolding. Scaffolding number tests show growth at the end of the year. We have a statistician come
in regarding our NAPLAN scores and he says whatever we are doing we should keep doing because we are
value adding. High performing schools are always going to be high performing schools because of the
students they have – but our results are showing growth - it goes up to 9, 12 and 18.
Students know their VELS score. At this school we say to them, this is the evidence I need to see for you to
move to the next level. The students know what they have to do; know the next stage of learning. The fact
is we are getting better as teachers in explaining what students need to know, and what they need to do to
move forward is more visible here now.
[Interviewee from a 2010 network TPL team of primary school teachers]
The five almost equally common themes in interview responses regarding teacher observations of changes
in other teacher’s practice were:





Other teachers using strategies, approaches and techniques developed or introduced through TPL
Other teachers use resources developed through TPL
Using the e5 framework, peer observation and reflective practice
Working collaboratively / team teaching
Working with others in the curriculum area to continue the approach and build on progress.
Other teachers were using the strategies, approaches and techniques developed or introduced through TPL
or were using the resources developed through TPL and their practice was changing as a result of this.
Some interviewees commented that these changes were happening for teachers within their team, within
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
13
their curriculum area, or for teachers at a particular year level. Some interviewees commented on changes
being slower for other teachers who had not had the TPL time because they had not had the time to
immerse themselves in the learning or the time to implement or to access the additional professional
learning. Interviewees also noted that while other teachers were encouraged to use the strategies,
approaches and the resources available, the extent to which other teachers adopted them could be varied,
with some embracing change and others less so.
Ways in which teacher practice was changing varied depending on the type of resource they were using or
the strategies and approaches which had been implemented through TPL. The most common interview
responses were around teachers having a clearer understanding about students’ levels of learning need
and being better equipped to address the need through providing a differentiated curriculum, through
structuring and scaffolding lessons, or through streaming of classes. Interviewees also observed that other
teachers were clearer about learning intentions and were teaching more explicitly.
There were several ways in which other teachers were now using the e5 framework to make changes in
their own teaching practice. In three cases, all teachers at the interviewee’s school were now using the e 5
framework as part of the school’s performance and development or professional learning process. Other
interview responses indicated that changes in teaching practice were happening as a result of peer
observation, feedback and reflection, and that other teachers were now reflecting more deeply on their
own practice.
Case study: Using observation and reflection to support changes in teaching
practice within the school
Our TPL was network based, so it has not continued in that sense. However, at a personal level it is
happening for me and others in my school. We are ensuring that teacher practice is focussed, and that we
use the e5 language and differentiated learning. It has extended beyond maths (which was our focus for
TPL). What we identified during TPL was that teacher practice is the key.
At my school, we are continuing an expectation of learning about your practice as a teacher, making sure
teachers are clearer about their learning intent, based on a clear knowledge about the students’ level of
learning needs and where they are at. Within my school, I think the changes are very sustainable. The
school is strategically planning for it. I am a leading teacher and I have one day a week out of the classroom
to do this. So I am observing teachers, modelling teaching. My focus is on changes to teacher practice
which lead to improved student outcomes. I am structuring and developing whole school activities that
continue on from TPL, using the e5 framework and other frameworks.
I am doing the Eleanor Davis program. As part of the program, I have a leadership challenge. So I am
putting in place a new format of classroom observations, identifying areas for focus of teacher practice. I
am involved in observation discussion and making it more friendly, more hands on and evidence based.
The teachers get feedback from the principal, their team members and self reflection. It has really
heightened a focus on teacher practice. I have aligned our school’s theory of action, e5 framework and
other frameworks to identify areas of strength for teachers, and they can use these frameworks and
research to inform what they do.
I am seeing deeper reflections about learning. For some teachers it's about thinking back to what
happened, not making excuses like "I was a bit tired that day", but really thinking about why that worked,
or why it didn't work as well as the teacher had hoped. I can see they are using the language and the
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
14
frameworks of e5 and theories of action, and they can question their own practice and make the changes,
set new goals.
I think that is happening more across the school. I see this in teachers’ maths journal for example. I can see
that their reflections are a lot deeper.
What we are doing now, is not related specifically to TPL, but TPL took us to the next level. Without TPL, it
is a bit hard to know, but I don't think we would be where we are now. We had time to focus in TPL and the
network discussion, involving other teachers was incredible. I was able to highlight what I was learning as I
was going, I could drip feed my learning to others at our school. The whole staff was learning alongside me.
It meant we didn't have to start at the beginning the next year, or at the very end of TPL to somehow show
people what we had learnt. It would have put us 12 months behind if we had done it that way.
[Interviewee from a 2010 network TPL team of primary school teachers]
Opening up the classroom doors and sharing best practice through peer observation was one of the ways
in which teachers were working more collaboratively. Teacher collaboration was commonly described in
interview responses as a way in which teacher practice was changing as well as a way through which
teacher practice was occurring, ie it was occurring through team teaching which enabled new practice as
well as the opportunity to learn from others, and through other teachers now using resources developed
through TPL such as common curriculum or teaching strategies.
Teacher collaboration was also occurring through teachers working with other teachers within their
teaching team or curriculum area to continue the approach commenced through TPL, build on progress or
look at other areas or ways in which teachers could look at improving student learning outcomes. Teachers
were using data and feedback from students and peers to inform this further work.
Case study: Teacher collaboration supports changes in teacher practice
Our network TPL was looking at ways to engage students in what they were doing in mathematics and
using pre-tests regularly to find out what knowledge students had and for teachers to use the results from
these as a basis for teaching.
Within our school that methodology has been introduced to all staff in the mathematics area. I had a
discussion with a new staff member yesterday about pre-test results in trigonometry and what the
implications for that group of Year 9 students were. The teacher expressed that it was a valuable way of
identifying where the students were at in their learning. For instance, we were able to identify that there is
a key part of trigonometry which is actually pre learning very few students seemed to have. It also
highlighted some fundamentals they still did not have, such as rounding off decimal places.
The two teachers taking Year 7 last year to continue the work commenced through TPL have remained in
Year 7. The key thing is that they were in Year 7 last year with four classes, and wanted to remain in Year 7
this year and build on the progress. There has been innovation from one of them who is keen on recording
in digital form so we can monitor the students’ progress more easily. This teacher has developed a
spreadsheet and colour coding and has shared that with us.
I think we don’t use the pre-testing in every topic as yet, but certainly for the topics we do use them for,
the staff have found them a helpful starting point and are able to build on from that. Staff confirm how
successful they are. There are a couple of teachers who do not take a lot of classes, their main teaching
might be science for instance, with one class in mathematics. It is less effective with them.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
15
However, one of the parts of the Professional Learning Team process is for teachers to discuss what they
are doing in class: what strategies they are using and the effectiveness of the strategies. To encourage
other teachers to try the strategies we say “Let’s all try that in the next two weeks.” So there are a couple
of people doing it and then others are encouraged to do it based on feedback from the core group. We will
always be in this situation because we have teachers who might just take one mathematics class, or take
one class for a semester.
These meetings also provide us with feedback. Our Year 10s are doing trigonometry at the moment. Year
9s are just starting that work. So the Year 10 teachers have identified an area that Year 10 students have an
issue with and through the Professional Learning Team we are able to say “Let’s try and address that in
Year 9”, so in trigonometry I have advised staff to work on ideas of similar triangles. This year we are also
using the Australian Curriculum which we are finding supports the approach developed through
Professional Learning Teams on providing extension opportunities for more able students.
[Interviewee from a 2010 network TPL team of secondary school teachers]
Three out of fifteen interviewees also commented that there was less resistance now within their school to
the change process which had commenced through TPL. In each of these cases, the team in 2010 had
worked on strategies to change the culture of the school by opening up the classroom doors and
encourage sharing around teacher practice.
Case study: Changing school culture around teacher instructional practice
The focus of our TPL in 2010 was working in faculty teams and developing and documenting curriculum for
Years 7 and 8 and trying to get staff on board. We first needed to look at “what” we were teaching before
we could look at the “how” we are teaching. Different faculties had different levels of difficulty developing
this and so had different levels of success.
In my faculty, it was really valuable to have curriculum documentation at Years 7 and 8 and clear learning
tasks that all teachers are completing and common assessment tasks.
There is a lot less resistance. One of the aims of our TPL and curriculum development was to provide a
common teaching and learning experience across year levels in the school. There was a lot of resistance at
the time– teachers felt that their creativity in teaching was being chipped away, and that they were being
devalued as professionals.
In our faculty this is no longer an issue. Teachers are happy to accept learning tasks and assessment tasks.
Every semester teachers get resources. They expect materials now and welcome them. I think it is because
teachers are constantly busy. Consistent curriculum and resources has led to a huge reduction in the time
teachers need to spend on planning activities. Teachers can concentrate more on what they are doing in
the classroom. It links in nicely with the “Powerful Learning” – thinking about framing questions for higher
order thinking and for harnessing learning – it is more about the “how”. We are not so much talking about
it in the language of e5 but now in the language of “Powerful Learning.”
We are doing paired observations for teachers to look at evidence of this. Teachers are also surveying
students for their effectiveness around questioning. It makes people stop and reflect on what they do and
gives people the chance to look at what others are doing. We are not good at opening up the classroom
doors in this school, so it had to be mandated before people would do that. With the paired observation
people could choose who to buddy with to reduce the fear factor.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
16
We are also having some in-school learning on the areas of powerful learning. We have a session a
fortnight led by teaching and learning leaders around an area of powerful learning. It is an introduction to
theory and then teachers are asked to trial in classroom and reflect and share. It is only just starting but is
getting people to trial and reflect. There is a strong focus on the “what” we are doing and the “how” we
are doing it in our classrooms. Teachers have accepted that the “what” we deliver needs to be common.
We said at the start of our TPL that in order to focus on the “how”, we needed to have common curriculum
and assessment so we knew what we were teaching.
[Interviewee from a 2010 secondary school TPL team]
3.2
Changes in student learning outcomes as a result of learning
commenced through TPL
Four out of fifteen interviewees said that it was difficult to know whether changes in student learning
outcomes were due to the work commenced in TPL. Most felt that the work was likely to have been a
contributing factor, but that it was difficult to give a tangible piece of evidence.
Too many variables to really tie in the TPL exercise to this. Did it start to empower
teachers? Is it bigger than that – greater responsibility to create a successful school –
building social capital in communities? Has this translated in community? Anecdotally,
yes, slowly.
Interviewee response
Other interviewees commented on other initiatives going on within the school as also being a contributing
factor to improvements in student learning outcomes. In total, thirteen out of fifteen interviewees were
able to describe changes in student learning outcomes.
Figure 3:
Improvements in student learning outcomes
To what extent have the changes commenced through your TPL led
to improvements in student learning outcomes in your school?
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
Not at all
Only a little
0
Moderately
Substantially
Unsure
Survey respondents reported the extent to which the changes commenced through their TPL led to
improvements in student learning outcomes in their school as shown in Figure 3. The average rating was
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
17
3.1 (out of 4) or “moderately”. Almost three in four respondents (73%) rated that the changes had led to
improvements in student learning outcomes as either “moderately” or “substantially” compared to 62% in
2011.
Survey respondents were asked to provide an example where changes in teacher practice have led to
improvements in student learning outcomes. The examples provided tended to be about the changes
teachers had made in their practice. The most common responses were around teachers having a
consistent approach in a curriculum area or year level to implementing an approach or strategy, or using
consistent curriculum, and having consistent approaches to teaching and assessment tasks; and teachers
working collaboratively to discuss effective teaching strategies, to group students according to learning
need, to plan activities and to evaluate learning. Specific examples of how these changes in teacher
practice were leading to student learning outcomes tended to be where a curriculum specific strategy had
been adopted by teachers with the aim of improving results in that area and results had improved, or
where strategies used by teachers were enabling students to understand their own learning needs and
what they needed to do to make progress.
Interviewee respondents gave a range of examples of improvements in student outcomes following
changes to teacher instructional practice as a result of TPL. The most common themes in the responses
were:







Increased student engagement in learning activities/ less behavioural issues
Students more independent learners/ understand levels and set own goals
Students more confident/ motivated
Improved learning outcomes because students are learning at their level of need/ differentiation
Improvements in students’ vocabulary/ language skills/ speaking and listening skills
Improvements in outcomes in specific curriculum areas targeted in the TPL work
Improvements in students’ understanding of concepts and in thinking skills.
Some interviewees were only able to comment on the learning outcomes of their own students, while
others who were working with other teachers were able to comment more broadly. Again, the extent to
which interviewees were able to observe changes in student learning outcomes was dependent on the
extent to which other teachers were adopting or using the strategies and approaches and/or resources
developed through the TPL.
Case study: Implementing developmental curriculum as school priority
When we took our TPL in 2010 it was really to implement a developmental curriculum approach for Grades
3-6 and the e5 had to be part of it because that was a requirement. This year I am the developmental
curriculum support teacher within the school and I have one and a half hours each week to focus on that
which is good. I was moved to Grade 6 this year and am working with the other member of the TPL team
again who was moved to Grade 6 last year.
Data from last year shows that in the Grade 4 attainments most made progression of more than 6 months
– this shows some progress has been made.
Informally student engagement is incredibly high. I have been at this school for six years and this year, for
the first time, we have had a year group really settled and feel part of the school. We don’t have to send
children out of the classroom – they are still disruptive in the playground – but in class they are a lot more
settled.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
18
We are also measuring through the Attitudes surveys. Our Grade 5s last year were not doing the
developmental curriculum approach and their results in the Attitudes to School Survey last year were not
good. This year we want to see an improvement in Attitudes for Grade 6. Attitudes and engagement were
a big issue at this school. Without doubt engagement is much higher than it used to be.
The biggest learning this year has been for some students who came in with the attitude that they are
smart and school does not challenge them, but when they are doing their individual projects we really see
they can’t work on their own. On the whole I am seeing that students are good at organising, self reflection
and on understanding why.
We are monitoring literacy and numeracy assessments – we have stepped it up a bit and are doing a mini
assessment as we go rather than just testing at the end - so are noticing that students are doing quite well
and are quite motivated. We offer clinic groups – part of the developmental curriculum approach is to not
separate students out and have a reading group and so on because students will have different aptitudes in
each area. So we offer clinic groups which can be either optional or compulsory. When we offer extension
maths it will fill up in five minutes. So we can see the students are motivated and willing to learn in maths.
We are doing algebra and calculating the area of a triangle – things they would not usually do till high
school – they are enthusiastic to try.
With my students this year, I taught them in Grade 3 in 2009. Some came into Grade 6 not achieving well
or disengaged - withdrawn and sullen. Last year some had a teacher who is not keen on developmental
curriculum. Now there is no one in the class who is not on board. Two needed work – they came with the
attitude that they were too smart for school and ready for high school. There has been a big change in
attitudes.
When I was doing the reporting I looked at the results for last year – some have made huge progress to
June. Obviously some aspects of reports are teacher judgement, and one of the teachers is not here
anymore so I could not discuss it. But there were big improvements.
Reflecting on last term, three quarters were able to manage their time well. There were quite a few who
did incredible projects, and who knew how to get help and find resources. Others got to the end of their
projects and said my work is not really at Grade 6 standard. This was positive in that they were able to self
reflect and self assess. One of these was one who at the beginning of the year was too smart for school –
the work was too easy and they said they were bored. I told the student that it wasn’t just about being
intelligent – it’s about being able to organise yourself and motivate yourself. This student was not doing
the homework. I said here are your homework results, so they knew they were not working as hard as
they could be. Now when we are doing the projects this student is so excited and really on board with it.
Having two teachers is a lot easier – we are always having discussions about observations. It is a way of
having moderation and a second opinion on teacher observations.
I think the biggest thing is the personal learning for students. How they manage themselves; how they use
resources; manage time and self and through the quality of their work.
[Interviewee from a 2010 primary school TPL team]
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
19
Case study: Changes in student engagement and student learning outcomes
The leadership position on literacy has changed focus (someone who was not involved with TPL). They’ve
shifted the focus and coaching doesn’t seem to be at the core of what they’re doing.
There’s no doubt I still use it in my classroom, and in my curriculum area and with my colleagues. The way I
begin my lesson, the way I scaffold the lesson, the way we read and read aloud. We question what we’ve
read, what we do with it afterwards. The instructional language I’m using.
Every year is different with the cohorts of students. And often you’re starting from scratch. Every year I see
the same changes, the confidence to attempt words they didn’t know, being engaged with the reading
activity, being able to use the vocabulary later – and pretty much every year that happens because they’re
a new class and haven’t been exposed to it previously – often because they are high end senior and we
didn’t target that group – or they’re Year 7s.
Certainly the way they repeat to you what they need to do, that gradual release of responsibility – they’ll
tell me what they need to do. I’ll prompt and they’ll tell me. And the really quiet shy students are the ones
to put up their hand to read shows their confidence.
And when you put them into their activities its complete silence because they’re not lost, and the work is
getting done. We’re getting a lot more understanding and work done. And from my perspective, I’m not
repeating myself twenty-five times because we’re all clear.
The high achieving students, you can’t gauge with them. But certainly the students who are weaker,
they’re able to pass. They’re able to tackle and approach the work. And also the submission of work – the
amount that comes in – is higher. There’s absolutely a higher pass rate.
There’s usually a pattern to the areas they aren’t able to approach, and it’s normally a skill that is missing –
and so I know what strategies they need to learn to be able to have the skill in their repertoire. And there’s
usually a pattern in the lower-end students, and that usually tells me what I could have done better in my
instruction.
For example, in one particular topic, some of the questions required inference – and they didn’t have the
skills to do inference. Unless the information was point blank they weren’t able to explain it and apply it
into a new context. And I realised that pretty quickly and it informed my next class, teaching inference and
how you approach it.
[Interviewee from a 2010 secondary school TPL team]
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
20
3.3
Extent to which teachers are collecting and using data or evidence
to continue to inform their teaching practice
Figure 4:
Use of data to inform teaching practice
To what extent has your learning through TPL contributed to your
ability to use data or evidence to inform your teaching practice?
9
8
8
7
7
6
5
4
3
3
2
1
1
0
0
Not at all
Only a little
Moderately
Substantially
N/A
Survey respondents reported the extent to which their learning through TPL contributed to their ability to
use data or evidence to inform their teaching practice as shown in Figure 4. The average rating was 3 (out
of 4) or “moderately”. Almost four out of five (78%) respondents rated that TPL had contributed to their
ability to use data to inform their practice as either moderately or substantially. This question was not
measured quantitatively in 2011.
Additional comments provided by survey respondents suggest that some felt they were now more aware
of using data and confident in interpreting it, while others felt that they were using data prior to TPL and
the experience had not contributed further to their ability to do so.
In response to the question “Are you measuring the changes in your teaching practice or the changes in
practice on student learning outcomes?”, all fifteen interview respondents described how they or the
school were measuring the changes in student learning outcomes and six interviewees spoke about the
ways in which either they or the school were measuring changes in teaching practice.
3.3.1
Measuring changes in teacher practice
Six out of fifteen interviewees described the ways in which they were measuring changes either in their
own individual teaching practice or the ways in which changes in teaching practice were measured more
broadly. One interviewee said that the school was expecting changes in teaching practice, but was not
measuring it.
The most common theme in the ways in which changes in teaching practice were being measured was
through classroom observations and feedback using e5 or other evidence based frameworks. Teachers
were also measuring the changes in their own practice as part of their personal development planning and
through Professional Learning Team meetings. Teachers were measuring their own changes using e5 and
self reflection and through using, and observing other teachers’ use of, teacher journals.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
21
Other ways of measuring changes in teacher practice were teacher attitudes through the Staff Opinion
Survey, and changes in the leadership style in school and the structure and purpose of meetings, which
reflected change in the culture of the school since 2010.
3.3.2
Measuring changes in student learning outcomes
All fifteen respondents described the ways in which either they, their teams, or their school measured
changes in student learning outcomes.
The most common theme in the responses was through informal and formal assessments throughout the
year. Assessment data included:









NAPLAN
On Demand testing
Attainment of VELS progression points
Pre and post testing
Online adaptive tests
Other standardised testing throughout the year
Informal assessment throughout the year/ project work/ class work/ worksheets
VCE data
GAT predictive and mean study scores.
The next three most common themes were:



Observational evidence/ teacher judgement
Student opinion / student attitudes to school survey
Student feedback on learning.
Interviewees said that in addition to using formal data, they were able to see changes in student learning
outcomes as a result of their changed teaching practice through observational evidence and through using
their professional judgement as a teacher.
Case study: Changes in student behaviour
Student engagement in general drove our TPL in 2010 which was about the Year 7 learning journey and
addressing transition issues. That and teacher isolation behind closed doors, which was about increasing
collaboration and reflection as well as team teaching.
We had our Year 7 night the other week - as part of Grade 6 transition – some our Year 9s hosted the night.
One of the early things we said was that we wanted Year 7 students to take on the challenges of Year 9.
In 2010 the Year 9s were shocking - they had no public speaking, and were speaking inappropriately. The
take-away we wanted the Year 7s from that year to take was to the ability to work together, to speak
publicly; the social skills as well as the skills of speaking and planning. When the Year 9s ran it this year, it
was fantastic. They were the skills we wanted to take them away from Year 7. And the students organising
this night weren’t the top students.
I thought “we’re going to claim some credit here”. It was a key outcome we wanted. It was a nice feeling.
And the Year 9 teaching group have commented that they really like the group this year – they certainly
notice a difference with the students who struggled with the team teaching in Year 9 previously.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
22
I do think the approach we take in Year 7 has some bearing on that. Perhaps that team teaching has
instilled in them that they are part of a community.
[Interviewee from 2010 secondary school TPL team]
Eight of the eighteen 2010 TPL cohort case study teams had a specific focus on the e 5 domain of “engage”
in 2010, and had been looking for improvements in student engagement. Interviewees were measuring this
through the Student Attitudes to School Survey and student opinion surveys as well as through
observational evidence.
3.3.3
Ways in which teachers are using data or evidence to continue to inform
their teaching practice
Eleven out of fifteen interviewees described the ways in which they used data or evidence to continue to
inform their teaching practice. Two interviewees did not comment on this and two further interviewees
said that they were not doing this in relation to the work commenced through TPL.
The two main themes in the responses were that teachers were using data or evidence they had collected
to determine the students’ point of learning need and to group students according to that need; and that
teachers were then able to focus their teaching to student need. Examples given were of using testing to
identify gaps in student knowledge or skills, misunderstandings and levels of competence; working with
other teachers to analyse data and group students accordingly; and in planning activities. Teachers were
using the knowledge they had gained or the strategies or resources developed through TPL to focus their
teaching. This included the use of a differentiated curriculum, streaming students or activities to extend
students’ learning.
Case story: Using evidence to inform teaching practice
I have the same group for the third year in a row – Year 5, 6 and now 7. With our focus on open
questioning when I used to give it to them they’d be done in 15 seconds or wouldn’t understand, whereas
now they realise they have to spend more time to solve it in different ways. It was like the project-based
stuff, previously they didn’t know where to start. Particularly the ones I’ve had for the 3 years, whereas the
ones I didn’t have last year didn’t go as far.
The groups I’ve had the students understand their VELS levels, and have an idea of how far ahead they can
get within a semester – and when they set their goals they use their VELS levels as part of their goals. And
they understand that numeracy is beyond just maths.
With the On Demand testing they are keen to get the results back. And with our On Demand testing we
colour code the students about whether the student is 6 months ahead, or 6 months behind – and when it
comes to numeracy they’re mostly 6 months ahead or in the normal band. And normally the ones in the
red are the new students or the ones who weren’t here. Whereas if we compare that to our literacy it’s not
as good.
Staff do the testing differently and across different units, but I always pre and post test. We have
Mathletics as well in which they have tests, but it doesn’t give as good data. The SMART tests online we’ve
also been using this year, which are diagnostic tests. We also do our Online Numeracy Interview P-4 which
gives a nice idea of where the students are at twice a year, which helps before you get to your On Demand
tests.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
23
We also trialled fractions and decimals online interviews during TPL but it just took such a massive amount
of time. We’ve been experimenting to copycat the questions but put them in more of a quick test format,
but you can at least get some data from it.
In terms of my teaching, having the data helps finding where misunderstandings lie – particularly the
diagnostic testing. It tells you what the students are not understanding and gives you a guide of how to
address it as part of the SMART test from the DEECD maths domain page. And then I can group students
based on that, and teach what they need by focusing on those certain things. Other staff are doing the
same. In TPL we started grouping students, we’d never done it before. We did almost separate lesson plans
for each group as part of TPL, but now with the open questioning it’s brought it back towards whole lesson
plans – we were finding the planning was huge when you had to plan separately for the various groups.
[Interviewee from a 2010 P-12 TPL team]
Interviewees also responded that collecting data or evidence also enabled them to measure growth in
student learning and that this reinforced the teaching strategies being used. Listening to student feedback
on their learning was another way of using evidence to inform teaching practice.
Interviewees were also using self reflection in a purposeful way to make changes to their practice.
Feedback on the use of teaching strategies through peer observation was another way in which they were
using evidence to make changes to their practice.
Using curriculum team meetings to discuss student learning outcomes was a useful way for developing
strategies to address gaps in learning in specific year levels.
3.3.4
Factors which are supporting or inhibiting teachers using data or evidence
Interviewees were asked whether there were any factors which were helping or hindering them in using
data or evidence to inform their teaching practice. The main theme in the responses was that interviewees
found the e5 framework useful for either informing changes to their own teaching practice or for use in
providing and receiving peer feedback and for coaching other teachers.
Time was the next major factor identified in responses and time, or lack thereof, was a factor inhibiting
teachers using data or evidence to inform teaching. Interviewees spoke about it being hard to find the
time within a crowded curriculum and a busy teaching day, or forms of testing being time consuming, and
results not being immediate. Factors which helped with managing time constraints were being able to use
online testing which was quick, or using other resources which made data more accessible and immediate
for teachers.
Interviewees also spoke about TPL getting them started in using data in areas they needed to focus on and
some said that they had done further professional learning to improve their understanding and use of data.
Having other teachers willing to try strategies and provide feedback and data and consistency in staff were
factors assisting the use of data to inform change. The counterpoint was staff not willing to change. Having
the time to work with other teachers implementing the changes commenced through TPL such as through
team meetings was identified as a real support for continuing to use data to inform change. Again, the
counterpoint was not having the time allocated for this, as well as the difficulties of getting staff outside of
the curriculum area to participate fully.
Changes in school priorities or not having a whole school approach to using data was identified as making
the use of data and evidence more difficult.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
24
3.4
Factors which influence the sustainability of the learning
Eleven out of fifteen interviewees said that the changes had been sustainable within their schools,
although three of these noted that changes within the school had, or could, impact on this. One
interviewee was unsure whether the changes would be sustainable within the school due to forthcoming
changes in the school structure, but tended to think it would be. Two other interviewees said changes had
been sustainable in their own classrooms, but were unsure if they were elsewhere. One said yes for
themselves, but not within the school.
Survey respondents were asked to list up to five key factors which have helped them continue the learning
commenced through TPL and make changes to their teaching factors. The most common themes in the
responses were:










Working collaboratively with other teachers
Having a whole school approach to the initiative and consistent direction
Ability to use the strategies/ techniques/ resources developed through TPL in their teaching
Support from school leadership and administration (including resources and time)
Continuing to work with or be supported by other members of the TPL team
Having e5 as part of whole school understanding/ using in performance and development plans
Continuing to use the e5 framework to inform their own instructional practice
Professional development/ external expertise
Access to other resources
Use of data to inform teaching.
Interviewees were asked about the factors that influence their ability to continue their learning and to
make sustainable changes in their teaching practice. The most common themes in the responses for the
factors that support this were:











Support from school leadership (including allocation of resources)
Time for collective planning and sharing with other teachers implementing the work commenced
through TPL (time for team meetings, coaching and modelling for others)
Working within a team and sharing
Whole school approach; whole school priority
Their position/ role within the school
Relevant professional development / mentoring coaching
Having the resources developed through TPL
Peer observations and feedback
Collegial support
Timetabling/ making time in the day
e5 framework.
Interviewees tended to focus on the factors which helped them. The main factors for change not being
sustainable in their teaching practice were:




Change in school priorities
Lack of collegial support
Lack of leadership support
Not having time scheduled for team meetings and sharing (including for PLT meetings)
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
25


Lack of administration/ timetabling support
Not having time.
Factors are similar to those identified in 2011, but there are some differences in the relative weighting or
importance of some factors. For instance, in 2012, the 2010 TPL case study cohort spoke about using the
resources developed, or continuing to implement the approach commenced during TPL. They tended not
to name this as a factor which supported them to continue to change their teaching practice in 2011.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
26
4. Key Findings for the TPL 2011 cohort case study teams
For the 2011 TPL cohort there was increased clarity around the need for teachers to focus their
investigations and learning around their own teaching practice through using an “Inquiry Question”. The
majority of teachers participated as part of a TPL team.
The findings reflect data collected from the 2011 TPL case study cohort in 2012, the year after their
participation in TPL.
4.1
Extent to which teachers have been able to continue the learning
commenced through TPL
Three out of twelve interviewees commented that the learning commenced through TPL was about
developing a school wide approach, or had led to a whole school approach. Two of these said that this
work had now also led to another new approach within the school.
One interviewee said they had been able to continue their learning through using the evidence based
approach they had been working on implementing through TPL although they had moved schools. Their
new school had adopted this evidence based approach as a whole school approach.
Eight out of twelve interviewees said that the work they had commenced as part of their TPL was
continuing this year or that their learning was continuing.
4.1.1
Individual teaching practice
Ten out of twelve interviewees said that they had made changes to their teaching practice and that they
continued to use the approach or strategies developed, or what they had learnt, through TPL in their own
teaching practice. One interviewee said that it was difficult due to only having one day in class and one
interviewee was now in a coaching role.
Figure 5:
Improvements in own teaching practice
To what extent has your learning commenced through TPL led to
continued changes and improvements in your own teaching
practice?
14
12
12
11
10
8
6
4
2
2
0
0
Not at all
Only a little
Moderately
Substantially
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
27
Survey respondents rated the extent to which their own teaching practice improved or continued to
improve during 2012 as a result of the learning commenced in 2011 as shown in Figure 5. The average
rating was 3.4 (out of 4) or “moderately”. Nine in ten respondents (92%) rated the extent of
improvement to their teaching practice as “moderately” or “substantially”.
The main themes in examples provided by survey respondents about the kinds of changes in their own
practice were through using techniques, tools or resources developed through TPL; and through using self
reflection and professional discussion to reflect on practice.
This tends to support responses from interviewees.
The most common themes in the interview responses were that teachers were continuing to use the
strategies and tools developed through TPL in a curriculum area/ year level or with their team, or were
continuing to use the resources developed through TPL for lesson planning and this meant that their
teaching practice had continued to change.
Case study: Using ICT to support changes in teaching practice and improve student
engagement
I think that personally it’s been a good learning curve for me. My teaching has improved in classroom
teaching and in using technology in teaching. I have come to realise that in special needs teaching
technology is one of the ways to go to achieve the best learning in classroom.
They have their iPhones, their iPods, their iPads etc, so they are engaged with that and they feel they are
part of what everyone else outside is doing. They are just like the teenager next door. And with iPads it is
fantastic. It’s amazing to see how students pick up skills that quickly. And transfer them from one tool to
another.
We have a bank of about forty iPads, and we have a set of six in the classroom every morning. So I might
say to one student to do some work on the iPad while I work with other students. So they are useful for
managing the needs of students. The down side is trying to find applications which are the most useful and
most beneficial for the students. A lot are targeted to lower primary students and our students are
secondary students operating more at the upper primary end.
The use of the interactive whiteboard has improved my teaching skills and learning outcomes. I can program
at individual rates. Each of the students is on individual learning plans and progress at different rates.
For instance, I might be working on Number from 1 to 10 with one student and at the same time a different
level of concept with another student through using the Mathletics program. Through TPL and networking
we started using the Mathletics program and have renewed our subscription because the program was so
successful.
Initially I tried to do a lot of work with hands on tasks. Pen and paper and hands on tasks. But I found with
the introduction of the interactive white board the students were more engaged. It is more visual, they are
able to come up to it to move things around to complete activities. Because it is more visual they can
understand where they are making mistakes and see the successes when they complete something.
A lot of the students have problems with fine motor skills so it is difficult for them to do something like an
activity book or sheet, or even to manipulate blocks and beads. The interactive white board is interactive
and visual and it engages them a lot more I think in my teaching.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
28
It’s been a good introduction to technology and good for the school.
[Interviewee from a 2011 special school TPL team]
Teachers were also adapting the approach to different cohorts of students or a different school, or
extending the approach to other topics in the curriculum area.
Case study: Adapting teacher practice to different cohorts
I guess because we did the play based learning, a lot of it was going out checking out schools, training and
implementation, so this year has been fine tuning. It gave me a much deeper understanding to do it
properly, and this school here is all doing play based so I have come in and it’s been great. We get
mentoring every term from the external experts on the developmental curriculum. They also have a
Facebook page, email etc, and a website. It’s been really great.
It’s a totally different cohort, we have a huge English as a Second Language (ESL) population here, at least
half of my grade come from families who don’t speak English at home. It’s totally different measurement,
we still do records but they need the oral language skills. You see the self directed learning, and the
students coming to school to enjoy it. The real life learning. The traditional teaching approach doesn’t
allow you to know what they did in the morning, in that way you can measure everything a lot more and
make it real. We are using a lot of the same measurements, plus additional things like the AEDI social
emotional survey.
I am absolutely seeing the outcomes, their language is improving so much. It’s slower but its happening.
I’d think once you’ve done it you can’t go back. It’s a hell of a lot more work, it takes a hell of a lot more
energy, it is so time consuming. But you know it is right and it is going to work. It gives you the time to get
to know the students.
I’ve ended up with six different groups, it informs everything you have to do to personalise learning.
We are doing a concert here at the moment, including song and dance pieces. And with preps that can’t
speak English very well, that’s a lot of work. We have had to cut out investigations during this time as we
can’t fit everything in. We are now seeing that students are more fidgety, unsettled, it’s hard to get them
to sit still and engage.
When they do the investigations as part of the developmental curriculum they get all that physical stuff out
of the way and then are happy to get to the formal learning. They can’t sit still and they can’t talk when
they want to talk, so it can be a bit harder then to do the formal learning.
I knew all of this from the reading and research, but to actually live it is a different thing.
[Interviewee from a 2011 network TPL team of primarly school teachers]
Some teachers noted that there were other initiatives being implemented in the school, so changes in their
teaching practice may not have been just through having the TPL experience.
4.1.2
Teaching practice of others
Eight out of twelve interviewees said that they had observed changes in the teaching practice of others in
their school as a result of the work the TPL team had commenced.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
29
Three interviewees said that they had not really been able to observe changes in the practice of others. In
two of these cases while the teachers were working with other teachers, it was not clear the extent to
which other teachers’ practice was changing as a result. The third interviewee had participated in TPL as
an individual and said that it would probably “have been a bigger impact if it had been a team project and
there were more people part of it.”
Figure 6:
Changes in the teaching practice of others
To what extent has your TPL experience led to changes in the
teaching practice of others in your school?
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
9
6
1
0
Not at all
Only a little
Moderately
Substantially
Unsure
Survey respondents rated the extent to which the teaching practice of others had improved or continued
to improve during 2012 as shown in Figure 6. The average rating was 2.9 (out of 4) or “moderately”. Three
in five respondents (60%) rated the extent of improvements for others as moderately or substantially.
Additional comments reflected that change was occurring because other teachers within a team or
curriculum area were using strategies or resources developed through TPL or were adopting the practices
which interested them. Some respondents commented that they were modelling approaches to other
teachers.
Three out of twelve interviewees said that the work commenced through TPL had been intended /adopted
as a whole school approach and this had led to changes in the teaching practice of others. One other
interviewee said the practice of teachers they worked with was changing as a result of the whole school
implementing the strategy, rather than through their TPL learning.
The main themes in the interview responses were that other teachers were using the approach
commenced through TPL, or that other teachers were using the tools and resources created by the TPL
team. Where the approach introduced through TPL was a whole school approach, interviewees gave
examples of other teachers using the approach in their everyday teaching or tailoring it appropriate to
subject area.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
30
Case study: Whole school approach to changing teacher practice
Just a reminder about our TPL context – our TPL was a whole school project. It has continued this year. In
some respects the literacy strategy we started with has morphed and we are now looking at broader issues
into teaching and learning.
From our last year literacy strategies I see them in use daily in the school. People are using them in
different ways – tailoring them so they are appropriate to the area and using the strategies most
appropriate for them.
People are more careful of what they ask students to read. For instance in the past they might have
suggested a particular article say on the internet. Now the teacher will read it first and think about the
number of words in the article that their students may not understand. There is a lot more discussion
about reading. Teachers will say, let’s talk about words you did not understand. When you change the
mindset of teachers there is significant impact on potential learning outcomes for students.
From a systems point of view, evidence has also been incorporated into performance review, so there is a
bit of carrot and stick in there. The whole school has decided we are going this way, so it is up to the
system to value work in this area.
I am a big fan of the way we have gone about doing the TPL. What we originally applied for and ended up
doing were different, but what the school has gained and what we have gained has been valuable. For us it
has been the leadership.
Our ability to move the school a really big distance was due to TPL. For us, TPL allowed us to move the
position of the balloon. If you move a balloon just a little bit it will move back to its original shape; you
need to move it a lot to change its shape. That is really evident here and that’s how you know. Ask people
that have been here for more than 5 or 6 years and they will say it is not like that anymore. TPL is one of
the things going on.
[Interviewee from a 2011 secondary school TPL team]
The other main theme in interview responses was that teachers were talking to other teachers about the
approach developed through TPL or modelling it, and that they were finding other teachers receptive to
new approaches and new practices.
Case study: Using evidence to demonstrate changes to other teachers
It’s been really positive. The big things from TPL – obviously the initial focus on developing those resources
around the particular pedagogical approach – but probably from there it’s more the collaborative model of
professional learning that’s come out of it. This year between our school and the other school we did our
TPL with, we’ve had a program of joint professional learning.
Across our school the way our staff are planning and utilising the resources to implement the specific
literacy approach in their everyday teaching, some to greater extents than others. For myself and the other
TPL teacher it’s definitely changed the way we teach. I think that when I see our students discuss their
books, just the conversation they’re using and the language they’re using. The students are looking for and
ask for, the sentence starters. And other students will verbalise it – that’s a remembering question, or an
analysing question.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
31
There were two things out of TPL. One aspect was developing those resources, but the tangent has been
the culture of joint professional learning, which has come about because of TPL.
Teachers have seen value in using the approach. They see that it works and has an impact on the students.
That’s been the big key to its ongoing success. People were seeing that it was beneficial. New staff at the
other school – their students are wanting to use it and encouraging them to use it! People saw the
engagement of the students during the reading tasks, the quality of the responses, the quality of the
discussions they’re having with their peers. We filmed students’ conversations and shared with the other
staff and are evaluating the impact – we had filming from earlier on in the year, and then had filming from
later in the year. And we could track the journey and the growth as a staff group. We’ve continued using
filming this year. For the other staff they can see the benefit because they can see the growth. The filming
has been an important part of getting that message out – filming can have such a big impact because you
can reflect on what’s been happening – it’s stops it being skewed into what you think has been happening.
Especially when you share the video with others, and they pick up positives you didn’t notice, or areas you
can get better in, particularly with some students or particular groups of students.
[Interviewee from a 2011 network TPL team of primary school teachers]
4.2
Changes in student learning outcomes as a result of learning
commenced through TPL
Ten out of twelve interviewees described changes in student learning outcomes as a result of their TPL.
Three interviewees said that there had been other things going on within the school which may also have
led to improvements in student learning outcomes, so improvements were not attributable to just their
TPL.
Figure 7:
Improvements in student learning outcomes
To what extent have the changes commenced through your TPL led
to improvements in student learning outcomes in your school?
12
10
10
8
6
6
5
4
2
3
1
0
Not at all
Only a little
Moderately
Substantially
Unsure
Survey respondents reported the extent to which the changes commenced through their TPL led to
improvements in student learning outcomes in their school as shown in Figure 7. The average rating was
3.1 (out of 4) or “moderately”. Almost two-thirds of respondents (64%) rated the extent of improvements
to student learning outcomes as “moderately” or “substantially”.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
32
Survey respondents were asked to provide an example where changes in teacher practice have led to
improvements in student learning outcomes. The examples provided tended to be around the use of
differentiated instruction to address individual student need and support success, improvements in
student learning outcomes in the specific curriculum areas targeted in the TPL work (ie literacy or
numeracy), students being more independent learners and being better able to understand levels and set
own goals, increased student engagement in learning activities and improved social skills. Examples were
also given of improved collaboration between teachers leading to improved student outcomes through
teachers sharing strategies and resources, team teaching and sharing student learning data.
Interviewee respondents gave a range of examples of changes in student learning outcomes resulting from
teacher participation in TPL. The most common themes in the responses were:





Improvements in outcomes in specific curriculum areas targeted in the TPL work
Increased student engagement in the subject matter
Students being more independent learners/ understand levels and set own goals
Improvements in students’ language skills/communication skills
Students more confident/ motivated.
Case study: Improvements in numeracy outcomes for targeted students
To a degree our need is directed by the school data, which has changed, as well as the perceived need in
the classroom. And I think we’ve done a good job of it. The most recent school data shows we are doing
reasonably well at the junior years in numeracy now. Over this year and next year the focus will be on
extending it into the later secondary years.
We’ve created concrete resources underpinned by the approaches so I think in three years time at least
most of the teachers will have been influenced. And they will do some learning themselves and can
customise the resources to what works for them – I think you’ll be able to see that evidence in a couple of
years time.
In terms of the discussions we have now, teachers are talking about their teaching a lot more than last
year, and particularly two or three years ago. Certainly the Professional Learning Teams have supported
that, but also the ad hoc and informal discussions are occurring about the teaching – teachers trialling the
new units and whether it worked or not, etc. And they wouldn’t have done it without the resources being
there. And then being able to extend on it. And we’re modelling it too.
The data shows we’re adding value. Our students are achieving at or beyond an expected rate of
improvement. Rather than being at the expected level – we’re adding at least twelve months of
development, and generally more than twelve months of development. I’m not sure if it’s different from
previous (prior to TPL I had little involvement with the junior end of the school) but I think it is. We’re
happier with where we’re getting with our students.
Test score wise I think there’s been some improvement. Attitudes to learning and confidence to learn has
been the big improvement. If we look at NAPLAN results exclusively you might see some small
improvements. But I feel the students are much more confident for Year 9. I’m really interested to see how
they go as they progress.
I guess when we look at our numeracy results compared to our literacy results, our numeracy results are
now tracking higher and faster – and the gut feeling is it’s about the differentiation within the class that’s
allowing that growth – the “math approach”.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
33
It absolutely feels like a reward for our work. Those moments with the class – a student saying last year in
primary school I wasn’t allowed to do the same maths as everyone else, but you let me do whatever maths
I choose and I’m enjoying it. And at the other end, a student who’s always been good, but as a real
algorithm approach but can’t explain how they are getting the result, and now can do an in-depth
explanation of how they are getting the answer. This student now has a thirst for difficult problem solving.
I really feel if that can continue for that for them, they are going to do really well in the senior years
because they are not tied to getting things right or wrong; but are tied to learning. I tend to believe a
significant issue in our school is the confidence and motivation to learn, and I feel like this approach
addresses that.
[Interviewee from a 2011 network TPL team of secondary school teachers]
Case study: Improving communication to improve student learning outcomes
Our TPL focussed on increasing personalised learning for students, and we created a personalised profile
proforma which we have used this year with all the new prep students, and all new students. Parents,
allied health and other supports and teachers have completed the profile. With this input, teachers are
more aware of learning styles and the child’s interests. This helps build a personalised program on
interests. It has been positive in prep classes where it has been routinely implemented.
For example, I worked in a classroom with a student who is non verbal. As a result of communications and
assessment, we started a communication system for the student using picture exchange. This is where we
use symbols for communication, so the student can show the symbol to communicate. This is where the
profile is good for high support needs student; it is difficult for us to determine independently strategies
which are most likely to work.
Through the profile we knew this student loved Hi5. The student’s mother sent in their favourite Hi5 cds
and books and these were the first pictures we introduced for picture exchange. Now we have a system on
the student’s iPad which is voice activated to use at school and at home – they know to flip pages to
communicate. The child can use it for communication with their parents about what they have been doing
at school – things like “I went to swimming” or “I ate lunch”. It has given the child a voice. The student’s
frustration levels have reduced and they also have some control of learning. I have been in the class where
there was another child being very disruptive. The student used the picture exchange to show the teacher
the bus. The teacher said that it was not time for the bus yet. Then the student used it to indicate going
home. They were using it to communicate that they wanted the other child to go home.
Communication is now functioning, which is a huge learning outcome – life changing. If we didn’t have
input from parents through the profile it would be hard to start this process.
[Interviewee from a 2011 special school TPL team]
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
34
4.3
Extent to which teachers are collecting and using data or evidence
to continue to inform their teaching practice
Figure 8:
Using data or evidence to inform teaching practice
To what extent has your learning through TPL contributed to your
ability to use data or evidence to inform your teaching practice?
14
13
12
10
8
6
5
5
4
2
2
0
0
Not at all
Only a little
Moderately
Substantially
N/A
Survey respondents reported the extent to which their learning through TPL contributed to their ability to
use data or evidence to inform their teaching practice as shown in Figure 8. The average rating was 2.8 (out
of 4) or “moderately”. Almost three-quarters of respondents (72%) indicated that their TPL learning had
contributed to their use of data or evidence as “moderately” or “sustainably”.
Additional comments provided by survey respondents were mixed. The most common themes in the
responses were that teachers were already competent in using data prior to TPL, were using data prior to
TPL but had learnt about other ways of collecting data and analysing it and now understood the value of
using data.
With this new approach, data is still used as it has always been, but as a result of this new
approach I now have a much richer knowledge of the student's overall developmentsocial, emotional, cognitive and physical. This data is in the form of rich and detailed
anecdotal notes. This data is able to be effectively collected as my new teaching practice
and pedagogy allow me the opportunity to spend consistent one on one time with each
student in my class. This data is invaluable to plan future learning for each student and
also for reporting to parents in interviews and in reports.
Survey response
In response to the question “Are you measuring the changes in your teaching practice or the changes in
practice on student learning outcomes?”, eleven out of twelve interview respondents described how they
or the school was measuring the changes in student learning outcomes and five interviewees spoke about
the ways in which either they or the school were measuring changes in teaching practice.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
35
4.3.1
Measuring changes in teacher practice
Five out of twelve interviewees described the ways in which they were measuring changes either in their
own individual teaching practice or the ways in which changes in teaching practice were measured more
broadly. One of these continued to measure their own practice but was no longer using filming this year
due to time constraints. Two interviewees said that they were “not really” measuring changes in their own
practice. Other interviewees did not specifically comment on whether or not they were measuring changes
in their own practice.
The most common themes in the responses were that interviewees were using filming of classes for self
reflection and through peer observation and feedback. Teachers were also measuring changes through self
reflection and using a journal, and through the performance and development process.
4.3.2
Measuring changes in student learning outcomes
Eleven out of twelve interviewees described the ways in either they, their teams, or their school measured
changes in student learning outcomes. Two of these were measuring student outcomes in relation to their
TPL work but said that they were not able to measure comparatively due to changes in their role or school.
Three interviewees said that they “not really” measuring changes in student learning outcomes in relation
to their TPL work, although they had observational evidence of changes in student learning. One
interviewee was not measuring changes in student learning outcomes because they were not sure how to
relate it to their TPL inquiry.
The most common themes in the responses were that teachers were measuring changes in student
learning outcomes through informal and formal assessments throughout the year. Assessment data
included:







NAPLAN
Attainment of VELS/ABLES progression points
On Demand testing
Online adaptive tests
Informal assessment throughout the year/ project work/ class work/ worksheets
Other standardised testing throughout the year
Individual student goals.
The next most common themes in the responses were:




Observational evidence/ teacher judgement
Student opinion / student attitudes to school survey
Student feedback on learning
Filming of classes.
Interviewees said that in addition to using formal data, they were able to see changes in student learning
outcomes as a result of their changed teaching practice through observational evidence and through using
their professional judgement as a teacher.
Responses suggest that some teachers were more actively measuring changes in student learning
outcomes than other teachers.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
36
4.3.3
Ways in which teachers are using data or evidence to continue to inform
their teaching practice
Ten out of twelve interviewees described the ways in which they used data or evidence to continue to
inform their teaching practice.
Teachers were most often using the data to help them plan to differentiate teaching according to students’
needs. This included using data to identify gaps in student knowledge, to group students according to need
and ability and to help set individual learning goals. It allowed teachers to plan better to meet these needs
using a variety of teaching resources or strategies.
Teachers were also using the data to inform discussions with other teachers about next levels of student
learning. Teachers were doing this in professional learning teams or in teaching teams. Schools used
NAPLAN data and triangulation at a more strategic level.
Case study: Using evidence to inform teaching practice
Our TPL team was focused on implementing developmental curriculum through inquiry based learning in
flexible learning spaces for curriculum Level 4. Although there have been changes, with one member of
the TPL team moving to another year level and now having a new graduate in the team, we are still
implementing the approach. We’ve spent this year consolidating at Level 4. The external expert on
developmental curriculum has used us as a study class and comes in to fine tune and ask us aspects of our
approach. They are coming in again next term with other schools to watch our approach.
We have a new cohort, obviously. We’re flexible and we do tweak and change according to our cohort, our
class sizes and other variables. It’s manageable and it’s working well for us.
Most students testing have improved literacy and maths on the ALPOS testing. Most students seem to like
the program. They run their own learning. They check the noticeboard on the way in. They run their
diaries. They check in to see where they’re at. It’s constantly improving.
We observe a lot of change in the students. We see the students’ work improving. They are presenting
better quality projects, and more ICT. We’re now getting into iPads and iMovies, etc. Before it was just
slide shows and powerpoints; they are really expanding their ways of presenting and researching. They
write their proposals, they establish their proposals, they link to learning intentions, they make the
product, and then they share it in the expo.
ALPOS has helped us. We group across the whole level. We have about six to eight groups. So the ALPOS
English and Maths has helped us to regroup. Sometimes we can’t get the staffing to run that number of
groups, but that’s okay. We can now gear more towards where the children are at.
As a team, we get together and work out how to help students move from one level to the next. What’s
working here and what’s not – we discuss this in our fortnightly meetings. From the results we group the
children according to need and ability. We structure their learning in response. In reading we have levels
from C to H. Each group has a certain concept or area of need that we cater for. So I suppose there are
certain strategies that we work at with certain levels. We use these strategies to move them on to the
same level.
[Interviewee from a 2011 primary school TPL team]
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
37
Teachers also used pre and post testing or other assessments to track student progress along the
curriculum.
4.3.4
Factors which are supporting or inhibiting teachers using data or evidence
Interviewees were asked whether there were any factors which were helping or hindering them in using
data or evidence to inform their teaching practice.
The main theme in the responses was that lack of time or time constraints was an inhibiting factor for using
data or evidence to inform teaching. Interviewees spoke about it being hard to find the time within a
crowded curriculum, or within busy teaching day, to use data or evidence as well as they could.
On the counter side, factors which helped with managing time was the next most common theme in the
responses, with interviewees noting the usefulness of on line testing because it is quick and easy to
administer and the immediacy of the results enables teacher responsiveness. Being able to prioritise time,
and prioritise data collection by the usefulness of the data, were also factors which helped teachers
manage time and use data and evidence to inform practice. Interviewees noted that while NAPLAN results
were useful at a strategic level, because results are delayed and the triangulation process slow, they were
less useful for informing classroom teachers about current class needs.
Having time to reflect on teaching practice with others was a factor supporting teachers in using evidence
to inform their teaching practice. This included time for peer observations and feedback, and meeting time
which included time for reflection and discussion with other teachers. Interviewees also found self
reflection useful. Filming classes for teaching practice and student learning assisted with both self
reflection and in reflection with others.
Having the TPL time to develop the resources used in teaching practice and to help structure their own
teaching differently meant that teachers were more able to “do” than having to spend time learning how
to use the approach, resource or tool:
The learning was so deep and for so long, and we underwent such a transition ourselves
that we feel confident about it. We feel quite experienced in it now. .. because TPL is so in
depth its just so much more comprehensive [than a one day PD) trialling things you are
learning as you go, it allows for real changes in the way we work professionally.
Interviewees found that competing priorities within the school, and no longer working with other TPL team
members made it more difficult for them to use data or evidence in relation to the work commenced
through TPL.
4.4
Factors which influence the sustainability of the learning
Ten out of twelve interviewees thought the changes through their TPL work were sustainable. Two
interviewees did not comment. Two interviewees spoke about the changes in their own teaching being
sustainable, while seven interviewees spoke about the changes more broadly being sustainable. One
interviewee felt that, at this stage, sustainability was dependent on the leadership of the TPL team keeping
it going.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
38
Survey respondents were asked to list up to five key factors which have helped them continue the learning
commenced through TPL and make changes to their teaching. The most common themes in the responses
were:






Working collaboratively with other teachers
Support from school leadership and administration (including resources and time)
Seeing the benefits for students
Continuing to work with or be supported by other members of the TPL team
Ability to use the strategies/ techniques/ resources developed through TPL in their teaching
Professional development/ external expertise.
Interviewees were asked about the factors that influence their ability to continue their learning and to
make sustainable changes in their teaching practice. The most common themes in the responses for the
factors that support this were:








Collaborative sharing/ modelling approaches with other teachers
Time for collective planning and sharing with other teachers implementing the work commenced
through TPL (time for team meetings, coaching and modelling for others)
Ability to use the strategies/ techniques/ resources developed through TPL in their teaching
Relevant professional development / mentoring coaching
Having the in depth knowledge gained through TPL to make changes to practice
Support from school leadership and administration (including resources and time)
Position / role in school
Teachers can see the benefits of the approach for students/ self.
The main reasons 2011 case study cohort interviewees gave for change not being sustainable in their
teaching practice were that it was:



Harder without the TPL time
Harder if they were no longer in the classroom teaching
Hard to access relevant professional development.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
39
5. Discussion
This chapter briefly discusses the similarities and differences in the findings for each of the 2010, 2011 and
2012 TPL cohorts in the year of their TPL, and for the 2010 and 2011 TPL case study cohorts in the years
following TPL. Before doing so, it is important to note that there have been differences in the structure of
the TPL program for each of the three cohorts.
In 2010 TPL had a specific focus on the e5 Instructional Model and many case study teams were using some
of their TPL time to provide professional development sessions within their schools on this framework. For
some cases study teams the sole focus of their TPL was “implementing e5” and increasing the focus on
instructional practice within the school in a way that challenged the existing teaching culture within the
school. The team based nature of TPL meant that most case study teams were involved in implementing
broader change within their school or part of their school, such as through a focus on improving literacy or
numeracy in response to NAPLAN data for a particular year level; or introducing new approaches to
instructional practice, such as through new curriculum or consistent curriculum and assessment tools to
address student engagement. Sharing with others was also a key focus and, as part of this, teams were
required to produce an “artefact” which would share their learning with others in their school and/or
network. Many teams found this took their time and energy away from what they wanted to achieve
through their TPL time.
In 2011 participants were required to develop an “inquiry question” designed to help them focus on
addressing needs in their own individual classroom practice. As in 2010, most of the case study cohort had
applied for TPL as a team in order to address a broader school or network issue, such as improving literacy
or numeracy outcomes; or to implement a new curriculum approach within an area of the school. While
most of the case study cohort were able to successfully use the focus on individual practice to look at their
own needs first within the broader investigation, the shift for teams from having a team focus for their TPL
to an individual focus created significant tension for two of the case study cohort teams. The e5 framework
continued to be a key part of TPL and participants were provided with flip cameras to assist them in
measuring changes in their teaching practice or in their classrooms. Participants were no longer required
to produce an “artefact” as part of sharing with others.
2012 retained the inquiry question and most case study participants were successfully able to balance and
link the needs in their individual teacher practice with the needs of their curriculum area/year level or
school need. As for the 2010 and 2011 cohorts, the focus of inquiry for 2012 case study cohort teams
tended to be around improving student learning outcomes in a particular curriculum area such as literacy
or numeracy; making changes to teacher practice to better engage students in their learning, such as
through introduction of new curriculum approaches, or using new technologies; and through
differentiation of learning for students. The main difference for the 2012 cohort was the specific focus on
using an “inquiry cycle” in PLATO which made explicit for participants the need to use evidence to inform
their inquiry and make changes to practice, assessing the impact of the changes using evidence, and using
this evidence to inform further inquiry.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
40
5.1
5.1.1
Impact of TPL on changes in teacher practice and the ability to
continue the learning commenced through TPL
Impact on teacher practice
A comparison of average ratings for the extent to which TPL had improved their teacher practice for each
of the 2010, 2011 and 2012 TPL cohorts indicate that the 2010 TPL cohort and the 2011 TPL cohort rated
these extents similarly, even allowing for differences in the rating scale between the 2010 evaluation and
the 2011 and 2012 evaluations. The average rating for the extent to which TPL had improved teacher’s
knowledge and skills and ability to reflect on their teaching performance was around “substantially” and
classroom practice and teaching performance between “moderately” and “substantially”.
The average rating for the extent to which knowledge and skills and ability to reflect on their teaching
performance was the same for both the 2011 and 2012 cohorts (3.8 and 3.7 out of 4, or “substantially”).
The 2012 cohort average rating for improvements in classroom practice and teaching performance was
slightly higher than that for the 2011 cohort (3.7 vs 3.6 out of 4).
The rich data from the case study methodology allows us to explore the quantitative data in more depth.
In 2010, nine of the eighteen 2010 TPL case study cohort teams discussed being more aware of their
practice, or improving their ability to reflect on practice.
In 2011, thirteen of the eighteen 2011 TPL case study cohort teams described specific changes in their
teacher practice made as a result of their TPL learning. Ten described that they had improved their
reflection on their practice.
In 2012, sixteen of the eighteen TPL case study cohort teams described specific changes in their teaching
practice, with the other two 2012 TPL case study teams also saying they had made changes. Sixteen
described having undertaken reflection as part of their TPL, with twelve of these doing so regularly.
These differences between case study cohorts suggest that the changes to the structure of TPL to assist
teachers to better able focus on their learning need within an identified need for their school or network
and to develop strategies for their own learning before addressing the broader need has influenced
teachers’ ability to make changes to their own practice. It also suggests that the explicit focus on using an
“inquiry cycle” and being more explicit about the use of evidence to inform learning, has also influenced
teacher’s ability to change practice, or to recognise changed practice, in the 2012 TPL cohort.
Teacher ability to reflect on their teaching practice was similar for the 2010 and 2011 case study cohort
teams, suggesting that the focus on the e5 framework supported teachers in making this change to their
teaching practice, regardless of whether the focus of their TPL had been to address a school / network
need as a team, or to address their own classroom teaching need first. Again, the higher number of 2012
case study cohort teams describing an increased ability to reflect on their teaching practice suggests that a
more explicit focus on evidence has contributed to an increase in reflective practice.
Differences between the extents to which the 2010 and the 2011 and 2012 cohorts rated the
improvements in aspects of their own teaching practice may also reflect that the 2010 cohort had less TPL
time available than the subsequent cohorts because of the additional time spent delivering in-school
professional development on the e5 Instructional Model and the requirement to develop an artefact.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
41
Findings for both the 2010 and 2011 TPL case study cohorts show that the learning commenced during TPL
has largely continued into 2012, although to a varying extent. Interviews with team leaders or team
members and survey results suggest that for both cohorts the area in which the learning through TPL was
most likely to continue was in their own teaching practice.
A comparison of ratings for the extent to which their own teaching practice improved, or continued to
improve as a result of participating in TPL, suggest that the 2011 case study cohort were somewhat more
able to report continued improvements in their teaching practice. In 2011, 86% of the 2010 case study
cohort survey respondents rated the extent of their improved learning as either “moderately” or
“substantially” in comparison with 92% of the 2011 case study cohort in 2012. While there needs to be
some caution in the comparison of survey results because of the different response rates of the different
cohorts in their first year post TPL, this generally fits with the case study data which suggests that the 2010
case study cohort found it difficult to continue the work commenced through TPL the following year
without the allocated TPL time.
In 2012, however, almost all (95%) of the 2010 case study cohort rated the extent to which their individual
teaching practice improved, or continued to improve, as either “moderately” or “substantially”. This
suggests that either teachers are now able to better reflect on the changes on their teaching practice since
2010; are better able in the second year following TPL to continue to make changes to their teaching
practice; and/or that teachers whose practice had improved were more likely to respond to the survey.
Case study interviews suggest that it is more likely to be the first two explanations, with interviewees in
general seeming more positive about the impact of their team’s work through TPL on their own practice
and their school in 2012 than in 2011. Interviewees were also generally more able to describe the links
between their TPL in 2010 and their teaching practice in 2012.
The range of responses from both case study cohorts suggest that teachers who had been able to make
changes to their own practice through using specific teaching techniques or resources relevant to their
teaching area were better able to describe both the changes in their own practice and the impact these
changes were having on student outcomes. Teachers in both case study cohorts most commonly said that
they were continuing to use the strategies and tools developed through TPL in their curriculum area/ year
level with their team, or that they were continuing to use the resources developed, and that this meant
their practice had continued to change. For many teachers, changes to their own teaching practice were
also described in the context of working with other teachers within their curriculum area or teaching team,
or members of the original TPL team to continue the approach commenced through TPL, or continuing to
change their teaching practice to address student need in that area. This suggests that while it was
important during the TPL year for teachers to have a focus on individual teaching practice which linked to
their pedagogical content knowledge in order for them to address their own needs first, making changes
that were addressing a broader need within their curriculum level, school or network and which could be
shared with other teachers created a level of support post TPL which has influenced their ability to sustain
these changes. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.2 on factors for sustainability.
In the year following their TPL, 73% of the 2010 case study cohort and 60% of the 2011 case study cohort
rated the extent to which the teaching practice of others had improved or continued to improve during the
year following their TPL as either “moderately” or “substantially”. In 2012, the second year post TPL, 84%
of 2010 case study cohort survey respondents rated the improvement either “moderately” or
“substantially”.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
42
Again, differences in response rates means a direct comparison between cohorts in the first year post TPL
is not possible but, again, tends to be supported by the case study data.
The 2010 case study cohort teams tended to have a broader focus within the school which was about
whole school change or a change in approach within a curriculum or year level, which meant working with
other teachers to share their learning or developing resources which would guide the teaching practice of
others. More broadly for some teams it was about starting to change the culture of the school and to start
to focus on teacher instructional practice.
The 2011 Evaluation Report of the 2010 Case Study Cohort found that whether or not the TPL case study
cohort teachers continued to work with other teachers in their TPL team was less of a supporting factor for
the TPL work continuing than having a culture in the school which supports changes in teaching practice
and having other like-minded teachers to work with to progress this. Having collegial support, as well as
leadership support, to continue the work was important for all teams reporting continued changes in
teaching practice in 2011. Case study findings for both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts in 2012
suggest that this remains the case.
Both case study cohorts reported that changes in the teaching practice of other teachers were occurring
because these teachers were using the strategies, approaches and techniques developed or introduced
through TPL or were using the resources developed through TPL. The extent to which the instructional
practice of other teachers was changing was varied. In both case study cohorts, where the approach
introduced through TPL was a whole faculty/ team or whole school curriculum approach which remained a
priority for the school and was continuing, teachers were able to see changes in the instructional practice
of others. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.2 on factors for sustainability.
As indicated above, teachers in both case study cohorts commonly spoke about working collaboratively
with other teachers within their school to continue the approach or to continue to develop resources for
other teachers to use. Findings suggest that for some of the 2011 case study cohort “collaboration” tended
to be more at the sharing stage, which might reflect the focus in the TPL year on their own practice. The
2011 Annual Evaluation Report noted that teachers who were able to link their own need within a broader
school or network reported that their teaching practice and student learning outcomes had improved to a
greater extent to those who were unable to do this. Findings also suggest that, for the 2010 case study
cohort, collaboration with other teachers over a longer period of time tended to indicate that changes in
teaching practice through approaches adopted through TPL were sustainable.
Findings suggest that teachers from both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts tended to measure
changes in their own teaching practice to a lesser extent than the changes to student learning outcomes.
Findings show that in the years following TPL, participants in 2010 case story cohort teams were continuing
to use e5 as a planning and reflection tool and that self reflection, peer observations and feedback were the
main ways in which they were measuring changes in their own practice and making changes to teaching
practice. Reflection, peer observation and feedback were also the main ways in which teachers were
measuring changes in the teaching practice of others, with some schools having formal peer observation
and feedback mechanisms. The 2010 case study cohort described the e5 framework as one of the factors
which enabled them to continue to make changes to their instructional practice.
Findings show that a similar number of 2011 case story cohort participants were measuring changes in
teaching practice. These tended to use filming to inform self refection and for peer observation and
feedback as this was the mechanism by which they were measuring changes during their TPL year. As flip
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
43
cameras to encourage filming had been an initiative introduced to TPL in 2011, and the 2011 Annual
Evaluation Report found that for teachers who used filming and filmed frequently, filming contributed
significantly to changes in teacher practice, a greater prevalence of 2011 case study cohort teachers than
2010 case study cohort teachers continuing to measure changes in teaching practice might have been
expected. Impediments to measuring or using data and evidence will be discussed further in the section
“Measurement” below.
5.1.2
Impact on student learning outcomes
A comparison of average ratings for the extent to which TPL had improved student outcomes for each of
the 2010, 2011 and 2012 TPL cohorts from the respective year’s Annual Evaluation Report indicate that the
2010 TPL cohort and the 2011 TPL cohort rated these extents similarly, even allowing for differences in the
rating scale between the 2010 evaluation and 2011 and 2012 evaluations. The 2010 cohort reported that
the extent to which TPL had improved student engagement and wellbeing was on average “moderate”.
The same average rating was given by the 2011 cohort. Both cohorts rated the extent to which TPL had
improved student learning outcomes an average of “moderate”.
The 2012 cohort rated the average extent to which improvements in student engagement and wellbeing
and student learning outcomes had occurred slightly higher, between “moderate” and “substantial”.
The case study data allows us to explore this in more depth. In 2010, fifteen of the eighteen 2010 case
study cohort teams described changes in student behaviour and attitudes as a result of the changes in their
teaching practice. Eight case study cohort teams described improvements in student learning outcomes.
In 2011, thirteen of the eighteen 2011 case study cohort teams described improved student behaviour. Ten
case study cohort teams described improved student learning outcomes as a result of changes in their
teaching practice.
In 2012, sixteen of the eighteeen 2012 case studies described improved student behaviour and seventeen
described improved student learning outcomes.
Similar results across all three case study cohorts for improvements in student behaviour reflects that
levels of student engagement with learning was an important measurement across all three cohorts,
especially for teachers who were using their TPL to improve student engagement in learning in a particular
year level or curriculum area. “Engage” was the e5 area which two thirds of 2010 cohort case study teams
focussed on and “engage” and “explore” were the most common focus areas for 2011. Teachers were
using the Attitudes to School data as one of the ways of measuring student engagement with learning, as
well as teacher judgement based on classroom observations of student behaviour.
The higher number of 2012 case study cohort teams reporting improved student learning outcomes
suggests that this cohort were better able to make the link between their own teaching practice and
student learning outcomes, were better able to measure changes and better able to inform their own
practice.
As noted in the literature review conducted as part of this evaluation, research literature finds that in order
for teachers to make a difference to student learning outcomes, their professional learning must focus
explicitly on the links between particular teaching activities and the student outcomes desired. This
requires teachers to understand the links between particular teaching activities, the way in which students
respond, and what their students actually learn. It requires checking in to see whether changes in teaching
practice are leading to improved outcomes for students.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
44
Teachers in all three cohorts using data such as pre testing to identify student need and follow up testing to
measure change were more likely to be able to describe student learning outcomes.
In the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts, the ability of teachers to identify student learning outcomes was
varied. In part, this may have been due to the focus on implementing e5 in 2010, which meant that some
2010 case study cohort teams were focussed at looking at teacher practice through peer observation and
self reflection, rather than making, or being able to make, the link between changes in practice and student
learning outcomes. Teachers whose learning through TPL was directed at teaching practice with specific
linkages to pedagogical content approaches, such as improving numeracy outcomes, were more likely to
make the linkages to student learning outcomes, as were those with access to professional expertise or
guidance which encourage teachers to refocus on “what the student is doing”.
Although the 2011 case study cohort had flip cameras to film what was happening in their own classrooms
for reflection and feedback, the extent to which this cohort measured student learning outcomes was also
varied. The 2011 Annual Evaluation Report found that that a third of the case study cohort had undertaken
pre-testing, and noted it assisted them to target and scaffold the learning to student need, but that there
was a considerable gap between the collection of evidence, and the measurement or demonstration of
improved outcomes, and the value participants see in measuring outcomes.
In the year following their TPL, 62% of the 2010 case study cohort and 64% of the 2011 case study cohort
rated the extent to which changes commenced through their TPL led to improvements in student learning
outcomes as either “moderately” or “substantially”. This tends to suggest that the teachers who were able
to see improvements in student outcomes during their TPL year were continuing to do so, and that
teachers who were expecting to see improvements in student learning outcomes in standardised testing in
the years following their TPL were now doing so.
Improvements to student learning outcomes were rated either “moderately” or “substantially” by 73% of
the 2010 case study cohort in 2012. An increased ability to see student learning outcomes in latter years is
consistent with this cohort’s expectations of seeing improvements in more macro level data. It is also
consistent with the higher percentage of responses for increases in improvements in their own teaching
practice and the teaching practice of others, which suggests that continued improvement to teacher
practice leads to improvements in outcomes for their students.
Consistent with the findings of the 2011 Evaluation Report of the 2010 Case Study Cohort, in both the 2010
and 2011 case study cohorts, teachers whose focus continued to be on improving teacher practice with
specific linkages to pedagogical content knowledge were more likely to be able to describe improvements
in outcomes for students as a result of changes in their own teaching practice and/or changes in the
teaching practice of others. Teachers describing improvements in student learning outcomes also tended
to be those who were working with other teachers to continue the approach. Collaboration is discussed
further in Chapter 5.2 on factors for sustainability.
The most common themes in examples given of student learning outcomes by the 2010 and 2011 case
study cohorts tend to reflect the focus of their TPL work. Improvements in student engagement in learning
activities and less behavioural issues, and improvements in student ability to be more independent in their
learning were the most common examples given by the 2010 case study cohort. Improvements in
outcomes in specific curriculum areas targeted in the TPL work, such as numeracy or literacy, and increased
student engagement were the most common examples for the 2011 cohort. Both case study cohorts
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
45
provide examples where improvements in student behaviour and engagement in learning lead to student
learning outcomes.
5.1.3
Measurement
Case study teams in all cohorts were using TPL to address a particular “need”, which was often identified
through data such as poor literacy results in specific year levels within a network or school, or poor student
engagement at specific year levels. As noted in the previous section, the extent to which teachers were
using evidence to assess whether the changes they were making to their teaching practice were having an
impact on student learning outcomes was varied.
During their TPL year, five of the eighteen 2010 cohort case study teams were collecting data on teacher
outcomes to document and refine their learning. The 2010 Annual Evaluation Report found the questions
asked through the case study process had a significant impact on whether TPL teachers were collecting
evidence to measure the impact of their TPL investigation.
In 2011, thirteen of the eighteen 2011 case study cohort teams described measurement activities, although
the 2011 Annual Evaluation Report found there was a broad range of measurement capability. The case
study process did not appear to have a significant impact on whether teachers were collecting evidence.
In 2012, all eighteen case studies had strong themes of evidence collection and measurement. All case
studies described levels of understanding and skill regarding evidence collection, with many providing
examples of leading practice in their school or region.
While the ability to use data to inform teaching practice and to make changes in daily practice has been
present in each of the cohorts, it is much stronger in the 2012 cohort. As previously discussed, the explict
focus on the “inquiry cycle” and the importance of using evidence to inform and to continue to inform
practice in 2012 means that teachers in this cohort are better able to make the link and to describe
changes in both their own teaching practice and changes in student learning outcomes as a result of those
changes. As noted in the literature review conducted as part of this evaluation, research literature finds
that effective teacher professional learning and development expands teachers’ ability to use inquiry cycles
and data to identify what their students need to learn as a starting point, and then identify what they as
teachers need to be able to do to teach that. It develops teachers’ ability to use evidence to assess what
the impact of their changed practices has been on student learning outcomes. This allows them to confirm
or refine practice as necessary.
The findings from the 2011 Evaluation Report of the 2010 Case Study Cohort suggested that teachers were
measuring the impact of their professional learning on their own teaching practice and other teachers and
on student learning outcomes in 2011 to a varying extent, and findings from this report suggests this
continues to be the case for both cohorts in 2012. Findings suggest that this may have been because
some teachers were relying on macro level data, such as NAPLAN to see the changes.
The ways in which both cohorts described measuring changes in student learning outcomes were the
same, with standardised assessments the most common examples, followed by observational evidence and
teacher judgement. Of the standardised testing, both cohorts most commonly cited NAPLAN data as the
way they would see high level change in student numeracy and literacy results. This may be because both
cohorts used NAPLAN data to inform their TPL about developing strategies to address a school or network
concern about literacy or numeracy results across specific year levels. While the 2010 case study cohort
tended to cite NAPLAN data as the way in which they would know their TPL had an impact on student
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
46
learning outcomes in following years, teacher examples of student learning outcomes in 2012 still tend to
focus on student behaviour and engagement. The focus on student engagement is discussed further in
Chapter 5.2 on factors for sustainability.
In 2011 filming was a key way in which the 2011 case study cohort were measuring changes in teacher
practice and student outcomes, with the 2011 Annual Evaluation Report finding that for those filming
frequently, filming increased the extent to which teachers reported improvements in teaching practice and
in student learning outcomes. In 2012 findings suggest that while some case study cohort teachers
continued to film students and described filming as a factor supporting changes in teaching practice
through providing evidence to teachers of changes in both their own practice and in student learning
outcomes, others were no longer filming because of lack of time.
Time, or the lack thereof was described by both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts as the major
impediment to using data or evidence to inform their teaching practice in 2012. Findings from the 2010
case study cohort suggest that lack of time in 2012 was less of an issue for the sustainability of their
learning than other factors were. Findings suggest that having time for measurement would perhaps be
less of an issue for teachers if they were better able to manage time for data collection and analysis and
made better use of resources which streamlined this process for teachers. In both case study cohorts
teachers who are able to overcome the obstacle of time to use data to continue to inform their teaching
practice are better able to describe how their practice influences student learning outcomes.
In 2012, 78% of the 2010 case study cohort and 72% of the 2011 case study cohort rated the extent to
which their learning through TPL contributed to their ability to use data or evidence to inform their
teaching practice as either “moderately” or “substantially”. This question was not measured quantitatively
in 2011, so there is no comparison with the 2010 cohort in 2011. These findings are slightly higher than
might be expected given the discussion around the variability with which teachers are measuring changes
both in their own teaching practice and how the changes of this practice impact on student learning
outcomes. The responses suggest that the ways in which teachers understand the use of data or evidence
may be different and/or that there is an emphasis on data generally in schools as has been seen with the
2012 cohort.
5.2
Key factors which support teachers continuing to make
sustainable changes to their instructional practice and influence
student learning outcomes
The findings indicate that the learning commenced by the 2010 and 2011 case study cohort teams during
their TPL has largely continued into subsequent years, with examples provided of the ways in which
teacher instructional practice has improved as a result of TPL and examples of student outcomes resulting
in teacher changes to instructional practice. The findings also suggest that the extent to which teachers are
able to continue their learning and make changes to their practice and to know that changes in practice
lead to improved student learning outcomes is varied. Case study data suggests that the key factors for
supporting teachers in this are largely similar to those identified in the 2011 Report of the 2010 Case Study
Cohort, and that they are inter-related.
The factors described by teachers in both cohorts as supporting their continued learning in both 2011 and
2012 are similar, although how commonly some appear as themes seems to differ depending on how many
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
47
years post TPL. In the first year post TPL, the key factor identified by both the 2010 and 2011 case study
cohorts for hindering their progress was time. In 2012 the 2010 case study cohort described change in
school priorities; lack of collegial support and lack of leadership support more commonly than lack of time
related factors. This tends to suggest that the issue of lack of time might be overcome to a certain extent
by teachers able to manage to continue the work with other key supporting factors in their school
environment.
Case study data for both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts suggests that teachers who were more able
to describe how changes in their teaching practice, or the teaching practice of others, had led to improved
outcomes for students were those who were continuing the approaches commenced through TPL and
were continuing to make changes to their teaching practice because they could see a reason to do so, or
could see an identified need. In many cases, this was because the particular area of learning being
addressed, or the particular pedagogical approach adopted continued to be a priority for the school, and
the work therefore had support from school leadership. Support from school leadership was identified as
a key support factor by both cohorts and included the allocation of resources, such as time for coaching or
mentoring others; time for peer observations and feedback; timetabling which supported the continuation
of the work; access to further professional development and so on.
In other cases teachers were continuing the approach adopted during their TPL year because of their
ability to use evidence to inform teacher practice. Teacher ability to use data to inform their teaching
practice to demonstrate change in student outcomes as a result of teacher practice was a particular focus
for our investigations across the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts and the 2012 cohort. Teachers being
able to see the benefits of the approach for their students and for their teaching was identified as a factor
which influences the sustainability of learning by the 2011 case study cohort in 2012, particularly by those
who continued to use frequent filming as evidence to inform their practice. Although not explicitly
described as a key support factor by the 2010 case study cohort, teachers in both cohorts describe seeing
the changes for students, particularly their engagement with their learning and increased confidence to
learn as rewarding.
As noted previously, research literature indicates that teacher ability to use data to inform teacher practice
to demonstrate change in student outcomes as a result of teacher practice is a key factor for supporting
student outcomes. Findings from both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts suggest that as well as seeing
changes in student outcomes through the quantitative data provided through standardised assessments,
teachers also rely on their teacher judgement through observational evidence to measure changes in
outcomes for students. As the nature of teaching is about relationships between teacher and student, the
findings suggest that evidence of increased engagement may be an important incentive for teachers to
continue the approach and embed it into their day-to-day practice.
As well as having an identified need which continues to be informed by evidence, another key observation
from both case study cohorts is that “need” continues to change in the school environment. Findings from
both case study cohorts show that the work commenced through TPL had evolved into, or created
preparedness for other work within the school. For change to continue to be made to teacher practice in
ways that support continued improvements in student learning outcomes, teachers need to be able to use
a range of evidence to continue to identify the problem in practice, or identify what needs to be addressed.
Findings from both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts show that the ability to share learning and work
collaboratively with colleagues is a key support factor for teachers to continue to make changes to their
teaching practice and influence student learning outcomes. In the first year post TPL teachers in both
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
48
cohorts found not continuing to work with other members of their TPL team difficult, and continuing the
work with other teachers not involved in the TPL difficult without the TPL time. However, as noted
previously, whether or not the case study cohort teachers continued to work with other teachers in their
TPL team was less of a supporting factor for the TPL work continuing than having a culture in the school
which supports changes in teaching practice and having other likeminded teachers to work with. During
the TPL year and to some extent in the first year post-TPL both case study cohorts tended to share their
learning with colleagues, and were getting colleagues to trial resources.
Working more collaboratively with other teachers seemed to follow on where other teachers were
receptive to new approaches, or where the approach was a school priority. Teachers tended to describe
working collaboratively with other teachers as working with other teachers in their curriculum area or year
level modelling approaches and providing coaching or mentoring to other teachers in the approach;
through peer observation and feedback; working with other teachers in a team teaching environment;
working with other teachers for collective planning of lessons or strategies; and discussing with other
teachers how strategies were working in classrooms and changes in student outcomes.
Other factors commonly listed by both cohorts which support teachers working collaboratively with others
to continue to make changes to teacher instructional practice were having: time for collective planning and
sharing with other teachers; the resources developed through TPL and the ability of other teachers to use
these strategies/ techniques/ resources in their teaching; and their position or role within the school.
Having the time for team meetings, or making time within existing meeting time was one of the ways
teachers overcame the obstacle of “lack of time”, which was most commonly identified as an impediment
to the work continuing by both cohorts in the first year post TPL. Having time for mentoring and coaching
others, by including it as a position or role within the school tended to be related to the work continuing to
be a priority within the school and having leadership support. The teacher’s position or role within the
school tended to support collaborative work with other teachers when they had a clear mentoring or
coaching role, or where they were in a position within a year level or curriculum area to continue to “drive”
the changes with teachers not involved in the original TPL.
Continuing to have a role in the classroom teaching was another support factor, both for working
collaboratively with others as well as for continuing to make changes to own teaching practice. Again,
while not explicitly stated by either of the case study cohorts, the findings show that teachers who make
changes to their instructional practice which are linked with their pedagogical content knowledge are
better able to describe how changes in their practice relate to improved outcomes for their students. The
findings suggest that, for some teachers having a focus on pedagogical content knowledge as well as an
ability to use evidence to inform teacher practice supported teachers in continuing to make changes to
their instructional practice, particularly where other supports such as having the work recognised as a
priority and the leadership support and resources that go with that had ceased. Having the time afforded
by TPL to develop approaches/ strategies/ techniques and other resources which teachers could draw upon
and share with other teachers in the years post-TPL was a support factor identified by both the 2010 and
2011 case study cohort teams in 2012. Although the 2010 case study cohort described other teachers
using resources, such as curriculum or curriculum specific intervention strategies in 2011, teachers had not
explicitly named it as a factor which continued to support changes in both their own practice and in others.
Access to relevant professional development, including further mentoring or coaching by external
experts in the particular pedagogical approach being implemented with a year level or school, was
identified as a key support factor in the years following TPL by both case study cohorts. The way in which
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
49
access to external expertise and professional development supported teachers in the years post TPL
differed from the support provided during the TPL year. In the TPL year, access to external expertise
supported changes in teaching practice by allowing teachers to explore the knowledge and develop an
evidence base for their work. Research literature finds that teachers need professional development which
helps them interrogate their knowledge and question their assumptions and that professional learning
approaches based on evidence support teachers in making changes to their practice which support student
learning outcomes. Findings from both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts suggests that in the years
post TPL, additional mentoring on the particular pedagogical approach being implemented assists teachers
to implement changes in the way they were designed to be implemented, and assists them with measuring
the impacts of the changes on student learning outcomes. Findings also suggest that teachers who are
able to access further professional development, such as through the Bastow Institute or through other
educational experts support them in building on from their TPL learning.
5.3
Other influences within the teacher’s operational context
The literature review undertaken as part of the Teacher Professional Leave 2010: Evaluation Final Report,
noted that teacher professional development for Victorian teachers in the government school system takes
place within the broader context of overarching government policy frameworks in which schools operate.
Since 2010, not only have there been changes within government policy frameworks but other changes or
initiatives within the education system which impact on schools.
Our case studies show that teachers are making changes to their own teaching practice and the teaching
practice of others to varying extents, and that these changes are having an impact on student learning
outcomes. Our case study participants also note that there are other significant initiatives within their
schools or networks and this can make it difficult for them to attribute changes to just to their TPL
experience. Some of these include:

Building the Education Revolution: Teachers in the 2010-12 cohorts commonly spoke about their
school having a new building and part of the reason for their TPL was teachers needing to “learn to
teach in the new building”. This was often linked with teachers seeking to increase student
engagement in their learning. Some teachers suggest that the new flexible learning space
contributes to changes in student learning outcomes – particularly engagement.

The e5 Instructional Model and the shift to looking at teacher practice: While the e5 framework
remained a component of TPL across the three years, it was an explicit focus of TPL for the 2010
case study cohort. The e5 Instructional Model was introduced in 2009 as a framework for defining
what high quality instruction looks like in the Victorian government school system. As this was a
relatively new initiative, there was a general expectation from schools and networks that teachers
within this cohort would share information or conduct professional learning on e5 for other
teachers within their schools as part of their TPL.
The 2010 Annual Evaluation Report found that ten of the eighteen case study teams explicitly
described the processes or structures they were implementing which challenged the existing
teaching culture in the school. For many of these teams “implementing e5” within their schools,
was a key part of a culture change involving “opening the classroom doors” and starting to look at
the quality of teacher instructional practice. In the 2012 follow up several interviewees explicitly
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
50
commented about a culture shift in their school as a result of the work the TPL team had
commenced.

Bastow and other professional learning: Teachers in both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts
spoke of participating in further study through the Bastow Institute or accessing other professional
development either during TPL or in the following year which increases their understanding
particularly of measurement (ie Masters in Numeracy, Harvard Data Wise), or exposure to research
literature on improving student learning outcomes. Further professional learning continues to
inform their teaching practice as well as suggesting that these teachers are interested in learning.

Other curriculum specific strategies: Teachers in 2010-12 case study cohorts often refer to other
curriculum specific strategies underway in the school such as literacy strategies, or approaches to
coaching etc, or a specific network focus on a particular framework or strategy. In 2012, the
Australian Curriculum was a specific issue for some teachers.
Other significant initiatives in the school means that teachers are not always able to attribute changes in
either their own learning practice or student learning outcomes to “just TPL”. For some teachers it also
means that the school’s priority can shift away from the area the TPL was used for in the years post TPL,
which teachers identify as a difficulty factor for continuing the approaches commenced through TPL. Some
2010 and 2011 case study cohort teachers note that the work they commenced through TPL has changed
or led on to other work which meets the need identified by new priorities.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
51
6. Conclusion
The longitudinal case study has been an effective approach to assist in understanding what happens to the
learning teachers gained during their TPL year. In particular the re-engagement of case study participants
in the year/s following their TPL, has provided rich data to investigate the ongoing impact on changes in
their teaching practice, their ability to continue the learning, and their ability to continue to influence
student outcomes. It has also allowed us to identify key factors that support their learning to continue.
It is clear from the evidence that changes to the program structure of TPL that have occurred over the
three year period, specifically the move to focus on individual teacher practice, have been a key
contributor to the increasing ability of TPL participants to measure and link the changes to their practice to
improvements in student outcomes. For the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts, the most likely area in
which the learning through TPL continues is in their own teaching practice.
Each TPL case study cohort has expressed the importance of TPL giving them time. Time to research, to
develop and trial new strategies, to learn and experiment with measurement and evidence collection, to
reflect on their practice and to work with others as part of their investigation. Time or the lack of time was
noted as particularly difficult for the both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts in the first year following
their TPL. Time has also been cited as an impediment for the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts in using
data to inform their practice in subsequent years. This reflects the less sophisticated approach to
measurement when compared to the 2012 cohort. Overcoming the perceived barrier of time was most
commonly achieved where teachers participated in team meetings and were able to incorporate their
learning about teaching practice into these meetings. This featured more strongly for teachers who were
continuing to model approaches, provide coaching and mentoring and through observation and reflection.
This was often the case where their practice or focus was supported as a priority within the school.
Interestingly, the 2010 case study cohort reported being more positive about the improvements in their
teaching practice in 2012 (two years after their TPL), and were better able to describe the links between
their TPL in 2010 and their teaching practice in 2012.
Having a supportive culture in the school and other like-minded colleagues to work with also contributed
to the extent to which teachers felt their teacher practice was continuing to improve, more so than
continuing to work with their TPL team members in subsequent years.
Collaboration with other teachers over a longer period, as experienced by the 2010 case study cohort,
contributed to sustainable changes in teacher practice. Collaboration was supported by being able to share
learning with others and work with them to discuss, reflect and plan their teaching with other teachers in
their curriculum or year level.
Student engagement with learning was an important measurement of improved student behaviour across
all three case study cohorts, especially where improved student engagement was a focus of their TPL. 2012
case study teams demonstrated a better ability than other year cohorts, in making the link between their
own teaching practice and student learning outcomes' and better able to measure changes. This is linked
to their greater range and frequency of measurement used.
An increased ability by the 2010 case study cohort to see student learning outcomes in subsequent years is
consistent with this cohort’s expectations of seeing improvements in more macro level data, and suggests
that continued improvement of teacher practice leads to improvements in outcomes for their students.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
52
For both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts, where teachers continued to focus on improving teacher
practice with specific linkages to pedagogical content knowledge, they were more likely to be able to
describe improvements in outcomes for students as a result of changes in their own teaching practice
and/or changes in the teaching practice of others.
Teachers describing improvements in student learning outcomes also tended to be those who were
working with other teachers to continue the approach.
Capability in measurement was mixed across the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts with the 2012 cohort
demonstrating much stronger themes of evidence collection and measurement, in particular the ability to
use data to inform teacher practice and to make changes in daily practice as a result. This cohort is also
better able to describe changes in their own teaching practice and the resultant changes in student
learning outcomes. Both the 2010 and 2011 case study cohorts tended toward using more macro level data
to measure changes in student learning outcomes than the 2012 cohort.
The introduction of filming as a way to measure change and a tool for reflection in 2011 saw an increase in
the extent to which teachers in the 2011 case study cohort reported improvements in teaching practice
and student learning outcomes, for those who used filming in 2011. The use of filming itself was variable
with some teachers in this cohort citing a lack of time to film, especially in the year following TPL.
The longitudinal study has found that teachers able to continue the approaches commenced through TPL
were continuing to make changes to their teaching practice because they could see a reason to do so and
could see an identified need. This was particularly so where the school continued to see the approach as a
priority and where there was support from school leadership. For teachers, and others, seeing the benefit
of the approach for their students and their teaching was also a contributing factor to the ability to sustain
the learning.
Finally, other significant initiatives within the particular school also impact on the ability and extent to
which teachers continue to make changes to their individual practice. For some this means they are less
likely to say that particular changes they are observing are due "solely" to TPL. For many teachers however,
they can see that their work in TPL provided the impetus for further change for themselves, for students
and the school more broadly.
It is clear that the investment in TPL has had a positive impact for teachers, student and schools beyond
the year in which the TPL was undertaken. For many teachers and schools TPL has been influential in
changing the culture within schools, and embedding a focus on improved teacher practice leading to
improved student learning outcomes.
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
53
7. References
Teacher Professional Leave 2010: Evaluation Final Report, March 2011.
Teacher Professional Leave: 2011 Evaluation Report of the 2010 Case Study Cohort, May 2012
Teacher Professional Leave: Evaluation 2011 Annual Report, May 2012
Teacher Professional Leave:2012 Evaluation Annual Report, February 2013 (draft final)
synergistiq pty ltd. abn 20 059 274 430 ph +61 3 9946 6800 97 drummond street, carlton, victoria 3053 australia
54