[Feedback is] the next learning step or the things they should work at (Jane).
Introduction to Jane
Jane (pseudonym) is a Pakeha New Zealander with of teaching experience only from New Zealand primary schools
Background, education, and teaching experience
Jane attended primary, secondary, and tertiary education in New Zealand. She completed her teacher training at Wellington Teacher’s College. While teaching, she completed an advanced Diploma in Teaching. She had a Diploma of Communications and was upgraded to a Bachelor of Education in 2005. She had taught at a range of schools and at all levels in the primary system. She had been teaching in school C since 2009.
School C was a decile 2 contributing primary school (Years 1-6) and its mission was to recognise, promote, and enhance multicultural values, which included the students’ mother-tongue languages. My first meeting with the principal revealed a lot of information about the background of the school, its policies, and its future direction. The principal of the school took me around the grounds and personally introduced me to all the teachers and members of the staff. She then led me back to her office to talk informally about the school. I was permitted to take notes.
The school had a motto of ‘Together we learn’. Diversity in the school was celebrated and was supported by parents and families. The programme and environment for learning reflected the multicultural community, for example the school had a whānau room where the “teachers and students [could] cook and share soup once or twice a week” (JI). Students brought one vegetable to school on that day. They had their own garden at the school from which fruits and vegetables were harvested and shared during the lunch sessions. The teachers and students knew each other well; when I was at the school the principal and teachers were able to greet each other, and students, by name.
At the time of interview, Jane stated that the school was working on “improving documentation, gathering, and using information about students’ strengths, needs, and interests” (JI). “School-wide data [was] is collected” (JI) in reading, writing, and
60% of students achieved at or above the school’s expectations. Teachers had “started learning to report for English Language Learners (ELLs) and reflect on strengths and progress” (Principal). Students’ achievement in reading, writing and mathematics were reported formally to the Education Department and the school and teachers believed that “one shoe does not fit all”, requiring them to “try to cater to individual needs” (Principal).
At the time of this study, the school “had not developed its curriculum to align with the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC)” (ERO report at school website). The teachers had been working on implementing documents and guidelines for literacy and numeracy in order to align with the NZC. The school’s principal explained that “a discovery programme had been introduced to integrate student learning through research, investigation, and inquiry” (Principal). Teachers were learning how to incorporate information and communication technologies (ICT) into their classrooms.
Parents and whānau were provided with opportunities to engage with the school through a “planned parent survey” where they could “deliver feedback of ways to improve student learning and development” during meetings (JI). In response to surveys and meetings, “teaching process and practices [were] changed to suit students and the community needs” (JI). Jane believed that teachers and parents had built a healthy school community.
The school’s appraisal system provided opportunities for “teachers to reflect on their performance and personal goals” (JI). However, teachers at the school had no opportunities to “observe or share their teaching strategies with each other” (JI). Jane did not know how other teachers conducted their writing lesson or if there was, a “specific way” (JI) the school wanted them to carry out their writing practice.
Even so, the school board and teachers were “working together” to enhance students’ outcomes. In promoting writing “[the school] put students into different writing levels and taught writing in groups [according to their abilities] (JI). Students from Jane’s class wrote for different audiences, for example for assemblies and for newsletters. She said, “it [was] quite positive” (JI).
Jane believed the school was moving to a new level of thinking about feedback on writing, following the implementation of the National Standards into schools:
We [teachers] are all looking at feedback that we are giving in relation to Next Steps. I guess we are moving forward and we are beginning to think about the National Standards coming in [being implemented in school] (JI).
As a result, Jane felt teachers in her school were more aware of assessment and their writing lessons.
Professional learning and development
Jane’s professional development and learning had been on “using assessment to develop teaching and learning in literacy for the students” (JI). This she said the school felt was significant, as it was based on responding to students’ diverse needs. The teachers’ latest round of professional development was targeted at “enhancing students in mathematics” (JI).
The board of trustees were committed to “resourcing interventions and professional development to enhance student outcomes” (Principal). The teachers and board of trustees reassessed these programmes at the end of each year. At the time of this study, the teachers were learning about facilitating learning and reporting on English Language Learners (ELLs) through professional development in collaboration with the university. The teachers received feedback on their literacy practice from their professional development leaders.
Jane’s classroom
Jane’s classroom consisted of Year 4, Year 5 and Year 6 students. Her classroom consisted of 45% students with English as their first language and 55% of students with English as their second language. Jane’s students were the only students in this study that approached me to find out personally how I was and where I was from. Every day of the observation, I was greeted by my first name and asked how I was. The students in her classroom were very helpful and friendly and were always smiling. Jane was a soft-spoken teacher who, in the whole time I was in the classroom observing, never raised her voice and always spoke gently to students. It was helpful that I had placed more than one digital voice recorder around the class, as this enabled me to capture her interactions during the observations. From the second day onwards, she offered to carry one digital voice recorder when she walked and talked to students in their groups.
School C placed a lot of emphasis on using success criteria and worked towards helping students achieve these. Jane explained:
We have school wide success criteria [established through asTTle assessment] for what they [students] should be able to do [write] at their age and what are the steps we put in play for them to know and to learn (JI).
However, Jane’s multi-age students were working on curriculum level 1 to 4. Some of her students in Years 4 to 6 were on curriculum level 1. Jane‘s decided on a topic for writing after taking into account the diversity of her students’ language proficiency. She felt that choosing a topic required her to be mindful of her students’ familiarity with the context of the topic. Not surprisingly, she felt that the feedback given to new migrant students involved more oral and written feedback, hence quantity of feedback, or as she put it:
These students (L2) students need more support prompts, and questioning to help them in their writing (JI).
Jane placed her students in groups according to proficiency and moved them if they achieved the performance level of another group. As a result, she felt the students should be aware of their writing performance against the desired standard, and would be able to work towards better achievement if they talked through the success criteria with the teacher. Jane stated that:
I think [it benefits students] talking about the strengths in the writing and discussing ways in which they can improve that (JI).