« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
4.5 Communication and collaboration
The opportunity to work with other colleagues from one's own school and from other schools was mentioned as a benefit of being involved in the programme. The AifL Programme is based on a variety of key groups working together to enable teachers to trial and implement developments in the classroom and to encourage them to engage in action research. It is considered important that policy makers, practitioners and researchers should work collaboratively to develop approaches that have a real impact on teaching and learning.
Local authority co-ordinators, project DOs, HE representatives and teachers were all asked about the effectiveness of the communication processes within the programme, the contributions made by each key group and early views on the development of a community working collaboratively.
The local authority assessment co-ordinators reported working mainly with DOs, teachers and other authority co-ordinators, although one reported no contact with the relevant DO and 5 indicated they were rarely in touch with other authority assessment co-ordinators. However, 18 reported no contact with HE representatives. There was broad agreement that DOs, other LT Scotland staff, the Scottish Executive Education Department staff and teachers all provided strong and committed support for the developments. Seven disagreed that HE representatives had made strong contributions to the development of ideas and 11 disagreed that they had made a strong contribution to the development of practice, but this view is in some ways unsurprising as at this stage the majority of authority co-ordinators had not had contact with the HE representatives. Those from remote communities expressed a sense of isolation as it was not easy to attend national meetings and the website, which would have been helpful, had not 'taken off'.
The DOs reported working mainly with teachers, local authority co-ordinators and other DOs. Three reported that they often had contact with HE representatives; for the remainder contact was occasional or rare. A majority of the DOs agreed that all other key parties had given strong support to the developments, though 3 out of the 9 thought that the HE contribution had not been strong in relation to developing ideas or practice. On the other hand, those who were often in touch with HE representatives considered working with them to be very useful. One DO reported that the HE representative had been very supportive, while another suggested that HE representatives 'have had limited input; they seem unclear of their contribution'. The DOs agreed that the relationship with the local authority co-ordinators varied between co-ordinators. Some were perceived as having a 'hands-on approach', while others were 'remote'; some were actively supporting schools while others were 'conspicuous by their absence', though all contact with them was useful or very useful.
The majority of HE representatives reported regular contact with the DO and two said that this was very effective and that a strong working relationship had developed, with frequent meetings. For others contact was more often by email, with meetings on a monthly or less frequent basis. Three indicated that contact was either when time was available or when they were at the same meetings. The main purpose for working together was to share ideas and to act as a 'sounding board'. As with DOs, the HE representatives' relationship with local authority co-ordinators was variable. Three of the HE representatives said that they had regular contact with some but little contact with others. Other HE representatives indicated that they only had contact with them at seminars or, in three cases, no contact at all. Project 1 had more than one HE representative associated with it and they reported working closely with each other and collaborating to produce a paper; however, collaboration across projects was not taking place due to the fact that each was busy on his/her own project and that other responsibilities and commitments limited time availability. Five HE representatives reported contact with teachers when visiting schools, for example, to discuss the purpose and practice of formative assessment or gathering views on the project. They also met at seminars and conferences.
Although a small number of authority co-ordinators and DOs reported having contact with pupils and parents/parent groups, this was occasionally or rarely: 11 authority co-ordinators had been involved with pupils and 8 with parents; 4 DOs had had contact with parents and 4 with pupils. One DO responded that it was not part of her role 'to liaise directly with pupils and parents'. The HE representatives did not report contact with these groups at this stage although it was suggested that this would be useful.
Teachers were asked to indicate how useful they had found the various sources of support. Their responses are given in Table 4.16. They were asked not to respond if any group was not relevant or if they had no view, and the level of missing responses suggests that teachers had very little or no contact with some groups.
Table 4.16: Helpfulness of the various forms of support (Teachers)
| very helpful | helpful | unhelpful | very unhelpful | no response |
|---|
% | % | % | % | % |
|---|
Project DO | 24 | 34 | 4 | 0 | 38 |
|---|
LA assessment co-ordinator | 14 | 23 | 7 | 0 | 56 |
|---|
Headteacher/senior manager | 56.5 | 29 | 1 | 0.5 | 13 |
|---|
Other teachers in own school | 59.5 | 20 | 1.5 | 0 | 19 |
|---|
Teachers in project in other schools | 21 | 27 | 3 | 0 | 49 |
|---|
HE representatives | 3 | 9 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 86 |
|---|
Parents and parents' groups | 9.5 | 22 | 1.5 | 0 | 68.5 |
|---|
Thus, for most teachers, the project had been developed within their own schools with strong support from both management and other teachers; the 'community of practice' for development had not extended far. Just over 60% had had contact with project DOs and for the majority this had been seen as very helpful or helpful. About half appear to have had contact with teachers in other schools and again this was very helpful or helpful. 86% had no views on the role of the HE representatives, and this reflects the response of the HE representatives that teachers were not a group they had worked much with. The teachers reported contact with them in group meetings and at seminars. One teacher reported that he/she could not answer the question 'because my headteacher has been the first point of contact with other parties' (Primary teacher - Project 8). The majority of comments added by teachers expressed their appreciation of the support from DOs, headteachers and fellow teachers and also how valuable contact with other schools in the project had been. Some of the negative comments, although few and far between, are revealing. For example:
'We were not given much direction as to what the final outcomes of the project were. Sharing ideas and resources was very good. We got some time out of class together, though not as much as we thought, and we felt we were "working in the dark" a lot as a group on the whole' (Primary teacher - Project 4)
'Lack of information and purpose to the project' (Primary teacher - Project 5)
'Normally when we use the term "unhelpful" we don't imply non-involvement, but involvement that is counter-productive' (Secondary teacher - Project 1; respondent recorded both the authority co-ordinator and the HE representative as missing).
For the local authority assessment co-ordinators, HE representatives and project DOs, the main means of communicating with other groups was phone, email, meetings of groups or one-to-one, and at seminars and conferences. Phone and email were useful for organising meetings, but face-to-face meetings were still the best way 'of getting work done'. Some local authority co-ordinators mentioned the value of the regular assessment co-ordinators' meetings, though the remote communities expressed concern at not being able to be present at all of them. One mentioned that while these meetings were an ideal opportunity to share ideas, this was often limited 'to those who are at the same lunch table'. Teachers reported, overwhelmingly, that group meetings (89%) or one-to-one meetings (70%) were the best means of communicating and sharing ideas; 47% had found the seminars and conferences very useful or useful; however, 46% did not respond to this question, suggesting that at this stage almost half had not had the opportunity to attend these events.
All groups had made very little use of the AifL Programme website forum for communicating with others. Two HE representatives mentioned it, 5 DOs had used it for communicating with teachers, with 3 finding it useful; 11 local authority co-ordinators mentioned using it, all finding it useful; however, a further 12 local authority co-ordinators, although they did not appear to have used it, thought it had limited usefulness. Thirteen percent of teachers thought it was very useful or useful, 23% thought it was limited or not at all useful and 64% did not respond to the question. Comments indicated that many people did not have time to keep checking to see if there had been new postings and it was suggested that this would only work if there were email alerts notifying new information. Teachers expressed frustration at trying to access the forum and not succeeding, or not finding much there when they did. For example:
'I'd have liked more web/email exchange of info/ideas, but I wasn't finding much of direct relevance. When I tried to submit material I ran into difficulties. I daresay I should have persevered longer' (Secondary teacher, Highland - Project 1)
'Despite many hours attempting to use the website, I was constantly told that I was ineligible - even though sitting with my mobile phone pressing the requisite buttons!' (Secondary teacher, Dumfries and Galloway - Project 1)
'My attempts at trying to contact teachers from other schools via email and the website failed miserably' (Secondary teacher, South Ayrshire - Project 1)
'The website has not been given much room as it's difficult finding the time to complete our own project, complete classwork and view the website' (Primary teacher, South Lanarkshire - Project 5).
Case study schools
Attendance at project conferences varied from school to school. For example, in 2 schools where 4 teachers were involved, in one case only one teacher went to the conference, whilst in the other all 4 attended. Reasons for not attending related to inability to get time off and problems with staff cover.
Management and teachers thought that the website had been a good idea but it was limited. Schools had agreed to post materials but hadn't, either because of difficulty in accessing the site, eg username and password problems, or because of lack of time. Spending time on the internet was considered a luxury.
The programme has set up a process which has brought LT Scotland DOs, local authority staff and HE faculty of education staff together into a working relationship for the purpose of bringing change to classroom practices. Despite the limitations reported by each of these groups at this stage in the developments, due possibly to the constraints of time and other responsibilities rather than unwillingness, these groups had been working together and with policy makers at national level. One local authority co-ordinator reported that having a DO as a single point of contact was essential and HE representatives acknowledged the value of the 'energetic input' from DOs. DOs and HE representatives both commented that local authorities were crucial to the ongoing implementation of the programme. HE representatives emphasised that links were being established between key groups and that this was progress. One considered that 'the programme is genuinely trying to produce a collaborative culture in contexts where competition is deeply embedded'. While all parties reported coming into contact with other groups 'only at seminars and conferences', this in itself suggests that such events have been a vital part of bringing the different groups together.
At this stage teachers were working mainly in in-school communities with some external contact. However, there is evidence that some teachers did not have contact with DOs and many of the teachers did not benefit from attendance at conferences and seminars or working with teachers from other schools. While some were benefiting from getting the opportunity to work with their own school colleagues more than they would otherwise have done, they were not yet participating in a wider community of practice.
4.6 Resources, funding and sustainabilityHeadteachers were asked to indicate what additional resources had been required to implement the project. The main resources identified were:
- staff time including release from class and payment of supply teachers (72 schools, 79%)
- ICT equipment, including hardware (pcs and laptops) and software (24 schools, 26%)
- other equipment, including video cameras, digital cameras, noticeboards (15 schools, 16%)
- materials, including folders, paper, photocopying, books and storage (24 schools, 26%).
Therefore the main additional cost funded out of the programme was for supply cover to release teachers to undertake developments. There was no notable difference between projects or sectors in this respect. Funding to release teachers is an important issue for extending the programme into other schools, as supporting additional staff is costly and not necessarily sustainable.
Eighty schools (87%) considered that the funding received through AifL was sufficient to cover these costs, although 7 schools (8%) said that it was not. A few of these schools referred to the travel costs of attending meetings, while others speculated that they could have done more in terms of releasing staff if more money had been available. Twenty-one schools (23%) had experienced problems with the funding, mainly delays in receiving it, although the majority (76%)were content. Again there was no notable difference between projects and sectors in these responses. The 21 schools reporting problems with funding were spread across 14 authorities; therefore there was no apparent geographical factor.
When asked how they would continue to sustain developments in assessment once central funding stopped, 4 schools did not know and a further 12 said 'with difficulty'. Seven schools thought that no extra resource was required and 26 schools intended to integrate the developments into school planning and, similarly, 33 schools replied that they would use their own budgets. Ten schools anticipated that they would require some additional funding from the local authority. Again there was no notable difference between projects or sectors in the responses to this question. The majority of respondents appeared to be indicating that ongoing developments were sustainable without further funding.
4.7 Awareness of wider programme
Local authority co-ordinators and DOs were asked to what extent they understood how all the projects linked together and how well they thought other participants understood this.
Ten of the local authority assessment co-ordinators indicated that they did not have a clear understanding of how the 10 projects linked together and 13 thought that other participants did not understand this. This was an issue of concern to them, as they realised it was their responsibility to develop the full programme within their authorities and yet for the most part they had detailed information only on the projects running within their authorities. Some expressed the view that they felt limited by lack of knowledge of projects their authorities were not involved in. One suggested she 'felt at sea when quizzed by schools throughout the authority on how the whole programme is going to affect them'.
All DOs indicated that they understood the relationships but only 3 of them thought other participants did. It was felt that major emphasis needed to be given to the inter-relationship of projects and how all the separate achievements in each school could be brought together into the bigger picture.
Headteachers and teachers were asked how much they knew about projects other than their own. Their responses are given in Table 4.17 and illustrated in Charts 4.14 and 4.15. In this data the responses relating to each school's own project have been excluded. All respondents know 'a lot' about their own projects and this question was designed to show awareness of other projects in the programme. The exceptions are Projects 6 and 7, for which all respondents have been included.
In September 2003, headteachers were more likely to know about other projects than class teachers. Sizeable percentages of teachers knew nothing or little about most other projects. Overall, participants were more aware of formative assessment and PLPs than other developments. This was to be expected, given that all projects had been given an introduction to formative assessment, if not the depth of input of the Project 1 participants. PLPs had been on the agenda for a number of years and new community schools had been developing them, therefore one might expect greater awareness of PLPs, if not of the actual project developments. The two national developments, AAP and NNAs, were familiar to most headteachers, but most teachers knew nothing about them.
Table 4.17: Awareness of other projects
| Know a lot | Know a little | Know nothing |
|---|
HT | Teach | HT | Teach | HT | Teach |
|---|
% | % | % | % | % | % |
|---|
1. Support for Professional Practice in Formative Assessment | 35 | 8 | 38 | 43 | 27 | 49 |
|---|
2. Personal Learning Plans | 31 | 17 | 60 | 44 | 9 | 39 |
|---|
3. Supporting the Management of Personal Learning Plans | 15 | 9 | 58 | 31 | 27 | 60 |
|---|
4. Gathering and Interpreting Assessment Evidence | 16 | 7 | 47 | 30 | 37 | 63 |
|---|
5. Local Moderation: sharing the standard | 6 | 1 | 38 | 11 | 56 | 88 |
|---|
6. New National Assessments ( NNA) | 22 | 4 | 50 | 24 | 28 | 63 |
|---|
7. Assessment of Achievement Programme ( AAP) | 28 | 9 | 49 | 20 | 23 | 71 |
|---|
8. ICT Support for Assessment | 13 | 2 | 56 | 20 | 31 | 78 |
|---|
9. Reporting to Parents and Others | 17 | 8 | 53 | 27 | 30 | 65 |
|---|
10. Meeting the needs of pupils with Additional Support Needs | 14 | 4 | 55 | 33 | 31 | 63 |
|---|
Chart 4.14: Awareness of other projects (Headteachers)
Chart 4.15: Awareness of other projects (Teachers)
Case study schools
Those leading the projects in schools were aware of being involved in AifL and of receiving funding to support the developments, but in some cases class teachers within the schools were not aware of either programme or project. In one school the project was based in one department and although other departments knew of the initiative, they were unaware that it was part of a national programme. Similarly with parents and, on occasion, pupils who, although aware that something was going on, were unsure of what it was.
4.8 Summary of key points emerging from the first phase of the evaluation
The key points emerging from the first phase of the evaluation were reported in the Interim Report and formed the basis of the second phase. The key points are:
The key participants
- Most local authority co-ordinators held multiple roles, which caused tension in time management and availability. In addition, many had not appreciated the scale of the programme.
- DOs were committed to the programme but were holding a varied and demanding remit, particularly in terms of liaison across stakeholders.
- HE representatives had varied roles in terms of demands on their time and the activities they became involved in. This was the least clearly defined and understood of the three central roles. Some felt integrated into the project while others felt more isolated.
- Just under two-thirds of the pilot schools participated in the evaluation surveys, with a higher proportion of primary than secondary schools responding. All projects were represented and all but one local authority.
Impact on practice
- Headteachers/senior managers indicated relatively clear strategic objectives for the staff and pupils as a result of their involvement in the project; teachers' objectives were more at the operational, day-to-day level.
- Almost two-thirds of schools indicated that they were already trying to develop assessment practices along the lines of the projects and so were building on existing strengths.
- Pupils across the pre-5 to S6 stages were involved in some element of the programme, although there was evidence of greater involvement at P5 to P7. There was an emphasis on literacy and numeracy or combinations of curricular areas, although other individual subject areas were also identified.
- Views on the impact of involvement with the AifL Programme were, in the main, positive with regard to changing practice, pupil involvement and relationships with parents (relevant to the specific project).
- A range of benefits was identified by both headteachers and teachers, depending on the individual project, with raised awareness, increased knowledge and understanding of assessment and increased collaboration across groups reported. Local authority co-ordinators, HE representatives and project DOs all noted that a key benefit of the programme had been enhanced teacher motivation and enthusiasm in the participating schools.
- The main challenge was time. There are two aspects to this. The first is concerned with the constraints resulting from school timetables and schedules that limit flexibility and responsiveness to initiatives. The second, for many teachers, is finding the time to become familiar with and access sources of information ( e.g.LT Scotland) on assessment and to implement change. Other challenges included engaging all staff and maintaining enthusiasm.
Impact on meeting information needs
- Developments in assessment practices and procedures were beginning to meet information needs more effectively than previously for class teachers and pupils and, to a lesser extent, parents, with less progress towards meeting the needs of other teachers and the local authority. Many respondents indicated that it was too early to make judgements on the impact of the project in this area.
- Only 53 teachers from the sample had been working on PLPs, with the majority of them indicating that their use was demanding but manageable for both teachers and pupils. These teachers indicated that PLPs were meeting teachers' and pupils' information needs more than those of other groups. It was unclear how the use of PLPs in schools could meet the information needs of local authorities.
Convergence of assessment arrangements
- Lack of awareness/knowledge of projects other than those in which their authority was involved caused concern to LA co-ordinators with regard to future dissemination and implementation across authority schools.
- Reservations were expressed about the extent to which key groups and participants understood how the 10 projects linked together to form a coherent programme. Teachers knew very little about projects other than the one in which they were involved, although headteachers indicated they were more aware of other projects.
AifL Programme issues
- Collaboration and community of practice: The three key support groups were beginning to work together and with policy makers, although each group identified limitations. Where working together occurred, it was reported as a positive and successful experience, albeit relatively novel. There was need for ongoing development of these relationships. Although teachers were benefiting from working more in collaboration with colleagues within their schools, many had not yet had the opportunity to liaise with colleagues in other schools or at conferences, and so were not yet participating in a wider community of practice. Face-to-face meetings (in groups or one-to-one) was the preferred method of communication in order 'to get work done'. The website and web-based forum had been used by a very small number of participants.
- Funding: The majority of schools had found the additional funding adequate for their purposes, with additional supply cover being the main resource purchased with it. Some schools had bought new information and communication technology equipment and various other resources and materials.
- Sustainability: Most schools considered that the initiatives would become part of school development planning and resourced from school budgets; only a small number considered that they would need extra funding.
- Planning: Similar themes were beginning to emerge across the groups of respondents. For example, local authority co-ordinators, headteachers and teachers, on reflection, felt that they would have benefited from a longer lead-in period and more information on the programme as a whole as well as on individual projects.
« Previous | Contents | Next »