« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
4. Findings (1) - Phase 1 surveys
4.1 Introduction
The first major stage of data collection involved a series of surveys of key players in the AifL Programme: local authority assessment co-ordinators, project development officers ( DOs), higher education faculty representatives ( HE representatives), headteachers and teachers from participating schools.
The findings are presented thematically across the groups of participants. Firstly an overview of the samples for each survey is presented. The themes thereafter are:
- the participants - who they are, how and why they became involved in AifL and what they did during the first year of the project (2002 to 2003)
- the impact of the AifL Programme on policy and practice: benefits and challenges
- communication and collaboration
- resources, funding and sustainability
- awareness of the wider AifL Programme.
For each theme, findings from the case studies have been used to illustrate or expand upon those from the survey.
4.2 Survey samples
LA assessment co-ordinators, project DOs and HE representatives
The survey of these three groups was carried out in May 2003. The main purpose of the questionnaires was to gather as wide a range of views as possible from key players in the development of the programme. The issues addressed included: their role in the AifL Programme; how they had become involved; the extent of their involvement; the main means of communication and collaboration between the key parties and their effectiveness; perceived benefits of the programme to date; and progress being made towards project and programme aims. This survey took place just over a year into the programme, when the second phase projects were still in early stages of development.
Responses were received from:
- 29 out of the 32 local authority assessment co-ordinators
- 9 DOs (one for each school based project [8] and one jointly for projects 6 and 7)
- 11 out of 12 HE representatives.
School surveys of headteachers and teachers
The survey of schools was carried out in October 2003. The questionnaires addressed the following issues: the main objectives of the project within each school; how they heard about the project and became involved in it; how the developments related to existing school practices; the impact of the project on school policy, teacher practices and pupil learning; involvement of parents and carers; meeting of information needs; benefits and challenges of being involved; and awareness of other projects which are part of the wider AifL Programme.
Following the dates published in the Spring 2003 Assessment is for Learning Newsletter, the evaluation team had anticipated that most projects in schools would be nearing completion and that staff would therefore be able to respond to a wide range of questions on their involvement. However, as noted in Chapter 3, some of the second phase projects were, in fact, still continuing their development work, and therefore a number of these schools indicated that it was too early to take part in the survey.
A list of schools involved in the AifL Programme was drawn up from information supplied by the Scottish Executive Education Department and LT Scotland Project Development Officers and supplemented by information from the Local Authority Assessment Co-ordinators. In total, 174 schools were identified, allowing data to be gathered on all of the projects that were school-based (ie not Projects 6 and 7) from schools of varying sizes and in authorities across Scotland.
Following agreement from Directors of Education, the 174 schools were contacted with a request for information regarding the number of teachers involved in the school to enable the appropriate number of questionnaires to be sent. After this initial exercise some 47 schools were omitted from the list for a variety of reasons. For example, 23 did not respond to the initial request for information and 7 Project 1 schools who did respond were omitted because Project 1 had already been evaluated by the University of London, Institute of Education. A further 8 were omitted because they had not become involved after all or had dropped out; 8 more indicated it was too early in developments; and one said the questionnaire did not suit their work and declined to complete it.
Therefore, there was potential to receive responses from 127 schools: that is, 73% of the original list. In the end responses were received from 102 schools, representing 80% of potential responses and 59% of the original list. Schools were represented as follows:
- 65 both senior management and teacher responses
- 22 management-only responses
- 15 teacher-only responses.
In 13 instances of 'management-only' responses, these were from schools where no classroom teachers had been involved: for example in some Project 8 schools, or where the respondent was the only teacher involved in a smaller school, or where teachers had left. A few explanations were given as to why there was no management response from some schools, e.g. the headteacher had left, was on secondment or sick leave. The breakdown of returns by sector is given in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Breakdown of responses to first AifL school survey by sector
Sector | No. of schools on original list | Anticipated response | No. of schools from which responses were received |
|---|
n | % of original | n | % of anticipated | % of original |
|---|
Nursery & Primary | 104 | 84 | 81 | 66 | 79 | 63 |
|---|
5-14 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 100 |
|---|
Secondary | 60 | 36 | 60 | 29 | 80 | 48 |
|---|
Special | 9 | 6 | 66 | 6 | 100 | 66 |
|---|
Total | 174 | 127 | 75 | 102 | 80 | 59 |
|---|
The figures indicate that not only were fewer secondary than primary schools participating in the programme, but in the early stages of the evaluation a higher proportion of secondary schools were not included in the survey, and therefore overall there was a lower rate of return from this sector.
Based on the information supplied by schools, a total of 131 senior management questionnaires and 340 teacher questionnaires were sent out. ( NB: the number of management questionnaires is greater than the number of schools because of the 5-14 and special schools that cover both primary and secondary sectors). Ninety-two senior management (70%) questionnaires and 189 (56%) teacher questionnaires were returned. Distribution and return by project are given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Distribution and return of questionnaires in first AifL school survey by AifL project
Project | Headteachers | Teachers |
|---|
no. out | no. returned | % return | no. out | no. returned | % return |
|---|
1. Formative assessment | 28 | 21 | 75 | 66 | 44 | 67 |
|---|
2. Personal Learning Plans | 14 | 10 | 71 | 44 | 16 | 36 |
|---|
3. Managing PLPs | 15 | 12 | 80 | 61 | 35 | 57 |
|---|
4. Gathering and interpreting evidence | 24 | 15 | 63 | 50 | 27 | 54 |
|---|
5. Local Moderation | 16 | 9 | 56 | 21 | 14 | 67 |
|---|
8. ICT support | 14 | 12 | 86 | 15 | 10 | 67 |
|---|
9. Reporting to Parents etc | 12 | 9 | 75 | 47 | 18 | 38 |
|---|
10. Special Needs/ ASN | 8 | 4 | 50 | 36 | 25 | 69 |
|---|
Total | 131 | 92 | 70 | 340 | 189 | 56 |
|---|
The Assessment of Achievement Programme (Project 7) is one of the projects within the AifL Programme, but with a national rather than local focus. One question asked for involvement during 2003 when the science survey was underway. Twenty-three schools (25%) were involved in the 2003 AAP Science survey.
4.3 The participants: who they are, how and why they became involved in AifL and what they did
Local authority assessment co-ordinators
Responses were received from 29 out of the 32 assessment co-ordinators. All were qualified teachers. They had varying lengths of experience in their current posts: 6 had been in post less than a year; 12 up to 3 years; and 11 more than 4 years. The majority had prior experience of assessment initiatives in their roles as school and authority managers and had been involved in implementing a range of programmes, including 5-14 assessment, Standard grades, national qualifications and early intervention programmes. Two reported little prior involvement in assessment initiatives.
Most (24) were nominated or 'identified' for the role of co-ordinator, while 4 had applied for the role and one had volunteered. The majority had wide-ranging responsibilities within their authorities, with only a few having a predominantly assessment remit. Some authorities had nominated senior staff to the role and they, therefore, had a wider range of responsibilities. This variation in seniority and range of responsibility was reflected in the amount of time they estimated they spent on the AifL assessment co-ordinator role, which ranged from under 5% to around 50% of their time. For 21, 20% or less of their time was spent on AifL-related activities. In open-ended responses, several mentioned that they had too many other responsibilities and commitments to give sufficient time to the projects, either initially to help set up the projects or to give ongoing support. Keeping up with the reports and paperwork related to the programme was difficult in the midst of a busy remit. One indicated that involvement had 'taken up more time than we ever imagined'.
The co-ordinators were asked to give a brief description of their involvement in AifL to date. The activities which were given are listed from the one most frequently mentioned to the least mentioned, with the figures in brackets being actual numbers. (While more respondents may well, for example, have liaised with the Scottish Executive, this was an open-ended question and respondents reported the activities which were most prominent in their thinking.) Activities involved:
- supporting schools involved in projects (20)
- developing authority plans for further AifL developments; Action Plan; 'roll-out' (16)
- promotion and awareness-raising of AifL with headteachers in non-project schools and relevant authority personnel (15)
- attending conferences and seminars (13)
- attending assessment co-ordinator meetings (9)
- liaising with project development officers (9)
- dealing with finance (6)
- liaising with SEED (4).
When asked directly about disseminating information about the programme, especially to schools other than those involved in the projects, 25 indicated they had done this. The following strategies and groups of people were mentioned:
- headteacher meetings/events (13)
- in-service events for teachers (11)
- local authority staff, eg senior managers/directorate, Quality Improvement staff/advisers (10)
- newsletters and leaflets to schools (paper and electronic) (8)
- principal teachers' networks (3)
- 5-14 co-ordinators' meeting (3)
- parents' information evening (1).
Even at this early stage in development there was considerable effort being made to promote the AifL Programme both within the authorities and to schools.
Project Development Officers
Nine DOs completed the questionnaire. Seven teachers on secondment; one was already project co-ordinator for the Assessment of Achievement Programme, which became incorporated into AifL and one was an HE representative who took on the project co-ordinator role. Their teaching backgrounds were: 3 primary; 4 secondary; and 2 primary/special needs. All bar one had previous experience of assessment initiatives and all had experience relevant to the focus of their particular project.
Seven were full-time appointments; in the other two cases, one contributed about 5% of his time to other SEED work, and the DO who was also an HE representative indicated that less than 50% of her time was allocated to the development role. They were asked why they had taken on this role: 4 indicated they had been nominated or identified for the role with no further explanations; the others stated that their prior experience and interest in assessment and how it supported learning was a key reason for becoming involved. This gave them the opportunity to contribute their skills and experience to national developments and also to further develop those interests.
The key activities for the DOs involved visiting and supporting schools; running seminars and conferences; liaising with local authority co-ordinators; discussing issues with other development officers and the LT Scotland management team.
Higher Education representatives
Eleven HE representatives returned questionnaires - 3 for Project 1, 2 for Project 4 and one for each of Projects 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10. They had different levels of responsibility and research experience within their faculties, ranging from senior staff with major management and research responsibilities to a lecturer who indicated he/she was not currently active in research. Nine had become involved after being nominated or asked by their institution, one applied for the role and one volunteered. Only 3 gave further explanations as to why they had become involved: one stated a particular interest in formative assessment and the work of Black and Wiliam; one indicated a strong commitment to assessment as part of learning and teaching and saw opportunities for research; the third declared an interest in the opportunity for networking and opportunities for further research and development.
The number of days they contributed to the programme varied from 2 to 65, with an average of 17.5 days. This wide variation of time spent on the projects reflected the fact that some HE representatives had wider overall programme roles and some were project-specific. Also at the time the questionnaires were completed the Phase two projects were in their early stages and staff were only beginning to be active.
HE representatives were also asked to outline briefly what their involvement had been. The activities below are listed from the most to the least frequently mentioned. (As with the local authority co-ordinators, this was an open-ended question in which respondents were likely to report the activities which were predominant in their thinking.)
- attend local and national meetings and conferences (7)
- work with development officers (7)
- meet with teachers in schools (6)
- provide research ideas, materials and resources (6)
- make presentations at seminars (3)
- provide feedback to own faculty (2)
- get involved in research (1)
Meeting with teachers in schools varied from one visit to one school to regular visits to schools with the DOs. Providing research-based materials also varied from carrying out literature reviews to passing on some findings to the development officer. It would appear that some HE representatives developed closer relationships with their project DO and had a clearer focus for their input than others.
The involvement of HE representatives raised a number of issues regarding their potential contribution to the AifL Programme. They were asked to comment on the progress they thought had been made in relation to these activities. The responses are given in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Progress in relation to issues identified for HE representatives
(1 = not considered; 2 = discussion has taken place; 3 = some progress has been achieved; 4 = significant progress has been achieved)
| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|
a) | Contributing to projects on the basis of research | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
|---|
b) | Demonstrating the relationship between research and practice | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
|---|
c) | Encouraging action research with practitioners | 0 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
|---|
d) | Developing a community of practice jointly with practitioners and policy makers | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1 |
|---|
e) | Collaborating with representatives from each Higher Education Institution | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
|---|
f) | Sharing information on the project/programme with key groups and individuals in your own organisation | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 |
|---|
g) | Integrating AifL developments into Initial Teacher Education programmes | 0 | 5 | 3 | 2 |
|---|
Most respondents indicated that some progress was being made in all areas, although they were less positive about the development of a community of practice and collaboration across HEIs. Further comment was made on each point:
a) Several reported that they had provided background material on aspects of assessment to DOs to pass on to schools and 3 had undertaken general literature reviews. One reported writing a paper with another HE representative involved in AifL and one of the Development Officers..
b) In Project 1, the relationship between research and practice had been a central theme for one of the HE representatives, while the other felt that it was only in the initial stages that research had had a significant role. For other projects, research had been informing action as the projects developed but did not seem to have had a significant input at the start of the project during the planning phase.
c) The opportunity to engage in action research with practitioners, or to support practitioners in action research, had been realised for most respondents, although it was noted that in some projects (eg Project 8) there had been limited opportunity, and in others (eg Project 9) the participants were just getting started and it was still early for this to be realised.
d) The overall view was that developing a community of practice was a very laudable and important aim but that it was still very early to report on how successful this was likely to be. Experiences had differed and one respondent pointed out the need to establish shared aims and partnerships where trust underpinned the collaboration - problematic in the current competitive climate.
e) There seemed to be a willingness to collaborate within the group of HE representatives at this stage, although only one instance of a joint activity (writing a paper) was reported. Discussion was ongoing and it was felt that once the immediacy of meeting project deadlines eased and cross-cutting issues emerged, there would be the potential for greater collaboration.
f/g) Approximately half the respondents had had the opportunity to include AifL materials into Initial Teacher Education courses, while others had discussed it with appropriate colleagues. The ease with which this could be done depended on the position of the respondent in the faculty and whether he/she had the opportunity to influence the ITE curriculum directly or indirectly.
Schools: headteachers and teachers
Questionnaires were returned from 102 schools out of the 174 schools listed as participating in the pilot projects, representing a return of 59%. As noted above (p29), however, a pre-survey enquiry established that we could anticipate responses from only 127 schools, thus giving a return of 80%.
Questionnaires were completed by school managers and classroom teachers. Management responses came from headteachers and depute headteachers, especially in the case of secondary schools. For brevity, the term 'headteacher' has been used in this report, but should be taken to include other SMT representatives. Responses were received from schools in 31 authorities, with a spread of between one and 10 headteachers and 2 and 14 teachers per authority. The spread of respondents across the school sectors is given in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Sectors represented by respondents in first AifL school survey
| Headteachers | Teachers |
|---|
n | % | n | % |
|---|
Primary and nursery | 61 | 66 | 121 | 64 |
|---|
Secondary | 25 | 27 | 54 | 29 |
|---|
Special needs | 6 | 7 | 14 | 7 |
|---|
Total | 92 | 100 | 189 | 100 |
|---|
A higher proportion of primary/nursery schools were involved in the programme than the other sectors and they represent a higher proportion of responses in the survey.
Distribution of respondents over the projects is given in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Projects represented by respondents in first AifL school survey
| Headteachers | Teachers |
|---|
n | % | n | % |
|---|
Formative assessment | 21 | 23 | 44 | 23 |
|---|
PLPs | 10 | 11 | 16 | 8.5 |
|---|
Managing PLPs | 12 | 13 | 35 | 18.5 |
|---|
Gathering evidence | 15 | 16 | 27 | 14 |
|---|
Moderation | 9 | 10 | 14 | 7.5 |
|---|
Use of ICT | 12 | 13 | 10 | 5 |
|---|
Reporting to parents and others | 9 | 10 | 18 | 9.5 |
|---|
Additional Support Needs | 4 | 4 | 25 | 13 |
|---|
Total | 92 | 100 | 189 | 99 |
|---|
Headteachers were asked to give information on school size by school roll and number of teachers in the school. Schools in the sample ranged from those with rolls of under 20 to those of over 1000, with over 50% having between 100 and 500. Only 3 secondary schools had fewer than 500 pupils and only 4 primaries had over 500. The sample represents a cross-section of the size of schools to be found across Scotland. In parallel, the number of teachers per school varied from one to 100. The majority of primary schools had 20 or fewer teachers with only secondary schools having more than 50.
How and why schools became involved can be viewed from 2 perspectives: the approach taken by the authority to engaging them in the programme and the participants' views on why they agreed to be part of it.
The assessment co-ordinators were asked to indicate how pilot schools had been identified to take part in the programme. Different approaches were adopted for different projects within the same authority, but broadly 5 main approaches were described:
- the school was known for 'good practice', being positive and enthusiastic about new developments (17)
- the headteacher volunteered the school's involvement (10)
- assessment was in school's development plan or some relevant initiative was already in place (9)
- involvement seen as important in relation to HMIE recommendations or development needs identified by the authority (4)
- schools selected by authority (with no further explanation) (4).
One co-ordinator, who had not been involved when schools were nominated for Project 1, commented: '… it is unfortunate that the secondary chosen had not been a school which was strong in new developments. There has been a rather negative spin throughout from this participating school which is very unfortunate'. Balancing this comment with the number of references to selecting schools known to be enthusiastic about new developments suggests that pilot schools did need to be selected carefully for the benefit of future developments.
The majority of headteachers (82%) had heard about the programme from the local authority AifL co-ordinator. Other sources were the LA newsletter/circular (2%), through a headteachers' meeting (3%), other teachers in the school (1%) or other colleagues (3%). In the end, 82% became involved because the LA co-ordinator or advisor asked them to take part, 12% volunteered and in 3% of cases, one of the teachers suggested it. Other reasons for becoming involved included: as a follow-up to an HMIE report, through contact with the project development officer, contact with the authority race equality officer, and hearing about the project from another headteacher in the school cluster.
The majority of teachers (88%) first heard of the AifL Programme from the headteacher or another member of the senior management team within the school. Some (8%) heard about it from the local authority co-ordinator directly and small numbers through other teachers within the school or colleagues outside the school.
Most teachers (90%) became involved because they were invited to do so by their headteacher, while 4% approached the headteacher with the suggestion that the school become involved. A number of teachers gave other reasons. Twenty teachers from Projects 1, 2 and 4 indicated that they had become involved because they were interested in assessment and thought that the project seemed a good opportunity to develop new ideas and explore ways of assisting pupil progress. Ten indicated that assessment was part of their school development plan and a school priority or fitted in with other initiatives (Projects 1, 3 and 4). Seven teachers involved in Projects 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 saw it as an opportunity for professional development. Other reasons included: 2 teachers in one school had been told by the headteacher they 'were effective teachers with long experience'; Project 9 participants recognised the opportunity to expand work with parents; and teachers from 2 schools indicated that money for the department and to buy equipment was an incentive.
The above data suggest that the majority of schools were selected and responded because they had a good track record and keen interest in developing new ideas. A small number were involved to address identified development needs.
Case study schools
All of the case study schools were approached by their local authority to participate in the programme. Most thought this was because they were considered to have strengths in aspects relevant to the individual project. Others suggested a degree of 'coercion', an area of weakness and taking advantage of the funding on offer for participation.
Headteachers were asked to indicate the number of teachers participating in the project in the school. One headteacher involved in Project 8 reported that no teachers had been involved as it was a management exercise only. Two secondary schools reported having over 60 teachers involved - one in Managing PLPs and one in Reporting to Parents and Other Teachers. Twelve respondents omitted to answer the question. The remainder reported as follows:
- 1 teacher - 16 schools
- 2 teachers - 28 schools
- 3 teachers - 9 schools
- 4 teachers - 8 schools
- 5 teachers - 4 schools
- 6 to 12 teachers - 12 schools.
In the majority of schools the development work was carried out by a small team of teachers.
The headteachers were also asked to indicate the number of stages/year groups that were involved in the projects. Ten primary school headteachers indicated that all year groups were included and 10 respondents (6 primary and 4 secondary) indicated that no year groups were involved (9 of those were involved in Project 8 and one in Project 9). Twenty-two schools involved one year group only and 26 involved 2 year groups: therefore 48 schools (52% of the sample) involved one or two year groups. The remaining schools involved between 3 and 6 stages.
In parallel to this, teachers were asked to indicate the number of year groups they were including in the projects: 114 (60%) of the teachers were working with one year group only; 41 (22%) were working with 2 year groups. The remainder were working with between 3 and 7 year groups.
The variation in numbers of teachers and year groups taking part in the projects suggested that schools were carrying out quite different scales of development.
A question for both headteachers and teachers sought to establish which of the stages within the sample were involved in the AifL projects. The feedback is shown in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Stages involved in AifL projects
Stage | Schools ( HT responses) | Teachers |
|---|
n | % | n | % |
|---|
Pre 5 | 8 | 9 | 16 | 9 |
|---|
Primary 1 | 21 | 23 | 35 | 19 |
|---|
Primary 2 | 20 | 22 | 25 | 13 |
|---|
Primary 3 | 20 | 22 | 25 | 13 |
|---|
Primary 4 | 21 | 23 | 20 | 11 |
|---|
Primary 5 | 26 | 28 | 28 | 15 |
|---|
Primary 6 | 29 | 32 | 36 | 19 |
|---|
Primary 7 | 36 | 39 | 37 | 20 |
|---|
Secondary 1 | 19 | 21 | 38 | 20 |
|---|
Secondary 2 | 16 | 17 | 26 | 14 |
|---|
Secondary 3 | 5 | 5 | 17 | 9 |
|---|
Secondary 4 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 6 |
|---|
Secondary 5/S6 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 4 |
|---|
There is evidence of greater involvement of primary schools at the upper primary stages (P5-7), while in secondary schools work focused on the S1-2 stages.
Both teachers and headteachers were asked to indicate which aspects of the curriculum were being targeted through the developments in each year group. For analysis the responses were grouped into broad curricular areas. The figures presented here represent the percentage of mentions made of each curricular area in relation to the total number of aspects named (see Table 4.7). Small numbers of headteachers and teachers did not complete this part of the questionnaire.
Table 4.7: Curricular areas being developed as part of AifL (Percentage mentions of total areas named)
Curricular area being targeted | Headteacher (whole school) responses | Teacher responses |
|---|
% | % |
|---|
Whole curriculum | 16 | 6 |
|---|
English (literacy, reading, writing) | 19 | 22 |
|---|
Maths/numeracy | 11 | 17 |
|---|
Environmental studies/social subjects/ science | 15 | 11 |
|---|
PSD/ PSHE | 5 | 1 |
|---|
Modern languages | 1 | 0.5 |
|---|
Combinations of curricular areas | 20 | 20.5 |
|---|
Other | 8 | 16 |
|---|
Generic aspects (eg ICT applications, management of PLPs, reporting systems) | 6 | 7 |
|---|
Those addressing the whole curriculum or, more frequently, combinations of curricular areas, were most likely to be taking part in Projects 2 or 3, that is, those developing PLPs. Only two headteachers involved in Project 1 indicated that they were addressing the whole curriculum. Those developing formative assessment strategies appeared to be focusing on specific areas spread fairly evenly across aspects of English, maths and environmental studies/social subjects; some (12 SMT responses), mainly at secondary level, indicated they were developing formative assessment in more than one subject area. Likewise those involved in gathering and interpreting evidence and in moderation were focusing on specific areas of the curriculum.
Case study schools
Case study schools also varied in the scale of the development tackled and in the project focus. Some teachers worked in teams, giving support and a sense of community to those involved, while others worked alone within the school ('ploughing a lonely furrow').
As in the survey, some schools targeted specific groups of pupils such as pupils with additional support needs or particular year groups, while others focused on individual departments/subject areas or cross-curricular issues. There were examples of almost every combination of these characteristics, reflecting the needs identified by the individual school at the start of the project.
Both headteachers and teachers were asked in an open question to describe the main objectives of the project within their own school. Thirteen headteachers (14%) and 27 teachers (14%) did not answer the question. Most headteachers identified 2 or 3 objectives, while most teachers identified one or 2 objectives. Headteachers generally expressed strategic objectives for staff, pupil and school development, while many teachers described their objectives in more operational terms. For example, in relation to Project 1, headteacher objectives included:
Example 1:
- To develop formative assessment strategies, especially increasing response wait time, using higher order questioning and giving feedback
- To increase pupil confidence and motivation
- To raise attainment
Example 2:
- Incorporate examples of formative assessment techniques into daily classroom practice and evaluate their impact
- Roll out programme of formative assessment practice to remainder of staff within the school.
Teacher objectives included:
Example 1:
- Increase wait time for responses
- Develop better quality questions
- Allocate time for oral feedback
Example 2:
- S1-S2 classes: question styles, wait time, traffic lights, strategies for assessing prior knowledge
- S5-S6: peer assessment, sharing exam criteria.
However, teachers also expressed more general objectives:
Example 3:
- To be more focused on assessment in order to determine next steps for learning
- To increase involvement of all pupils in their own learning.
In relation to Projects 2 and 3, again the expression of objectives varied. Some indicated that the objective was to develop a PLP: for example, 'to develop and pilot a suitable PLP to be used in a primary 3 class'; others indicated the wider purposes of the PLP: for example : 'to involve children in setting and achieving targets. To give greater information to parents regarding pupils' learning. To involve parents in setting their children's targets'.
For analysis purposes the objectives were categorised and are shown in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Objectives for involvement in projects as given by respondents
Main focus of developments | Headteachers (total 92) | Teachers (total 189) |
|---|
n | % | n | % |
|---|
Teacher development: (for example, raising awareness; developing knowledge and understanding of assessment; improving practice of both teaching and assessing; increasing confidence) | 21 | 23 | 96 | 51 |
|---|
Pupil development: (for example improving pupil skills; improving grades; raising attainment; involving pupils more in their learning; encouraging them to take more responsibility; helping pupils learn faster; develop confidence and self-esteem) | 28 | 30 | 60 | 32 |
|---|
Development of assessment strategies: (for example improve/develop/introduce new approaches or methods of assessment) | 33 | 36 | Not identified for teachers |
|---|
Development of assessment instruments: (for example, improve or develop new tests; devise prompts for use in assessing) | 10 | 11 | Not identified for teachers |
|---|
Development of self and peer assessment: (particularly in relation to pupil learning) | 11 | 12 | Not identified for teachers |
|---|
Involvement of parents: (for example, improve, develop, introduce new ways of working with/reporting to parents) | 19 | 21 | 29 | 15 |
|---|
Use of technology: (for example, piloting/developing/ improving use of IT - hardware, software, other equipment) | 16 | 17 | 4 | 2 |
|---|
Other school issues: (for example, improving record-keeping, reporting, primary-secondary liaison, management issues) | 10 | 11 | 24 | 13 |
|---|
It is interesting to note that a higher proportion of teachers than headteachers identified teachers' professional and personal development as being an important objective of taking part in the project. Headteachers were also more likely to express specifically assessment-focused objectives.
Thirty-three schools (35%) were involved in other initiatives which they saw as related to AifL. Fifteen (16%) identified other AifL projects, 4 (4%) cited New Community Schools and one (1%) mentioned ICT-related initiatives. Fourteen (15%) identified a range of other initiatives including: 'metacognition', 'Building Bridges', 'Thinking through Philosophy', 'accelerated learning', 'co-operative learning', 'assertive discipline' and, more generally, other local authority initiatives.
As part of preparation for participating in the projects and to assist in the development of action plans, it was intended that schools should complete a baseline audit. In the sample of schools responding to the survey only 54 (59%) had completed an audit. Of those who had completed it, 42 (80%) had found it useful.
« Previous | Contents | Next »