School B data and analysis

School B was selected from the TAPS project group because it provides the most complete case record for changes over time to be explored, being one of the few schools which did not have a change of Head teacher or science subject leader (SL) during the project. The data for School B were collected between March 2013 and June 2016 from 8 TAPS cluster days (discussions, written tasks and SL presentations), 6 school visits (non-participant lesson observations, interviews and collection of school documentation) and two PSQM

applications (see Appendix 6A for full details of the 86 items in the case record). The boundary for the case is science assessment within the school, with data from across the school utilised, for example, lesson observations, pupil work samples and observation of a whole staff moderation meeting. Nevertheless, the large majority of the data comes from the perspective of the SL who was representing the school at TAPS cluster day interviews and writing the PSQM submissions. It is acknowledged that there may have been a tendency for the SL to present a more positive picture, for example, the PSQM reflections were written with the aim of securing an award for the school. However, the SL’s viewpoint about what constitutes a ‘positive picture’ for assessment in primary science provides additional information regarding conceptualisations of assessment. The viewpoint and reported practice of the SL were triangulated by classroom observations, planning and work samples from across the school, together with comparison of sources over time, for

example, between the two PSQM applications or between SL interviews or presentations.

For this case study, it was change over time which was of particular interest and the DBR phases provided a structure for this, helping to compare early analysis with later analysis. For example, the DBR phases allowed checks between the frequency of codes for a

particular time to avoid over-emphasis on the ‘loudest or brightest’ data (Cohen et al. 2011). Deciding where one phase should stop and another should begin was a challenge because the school development processes did not stop and start, they were continuous. Thus the split into DBR phases designated breaks which could have affected the way the data was analysed and interpreted. However, the phases did relate to key events in the cycles of development, for example, the sharing the first version of the TAPS pyramid with participants in February 2014 marked a change from Phase 1 exploration to Phase 2 development.

156 The case record was organised into the three DBR phases as detailed in Table 6.1. The data identifier (utilised in Appendix 6A and summarised in Table 6.1) contains the phase (e.g. Ph1, Ph2 or Ph3) to support navigation, and the phases will be referred to below by their number to avoid repetition of the date range each time.

Table 6.1 Design-Based Research Phases

Dates Data identifier

DBR Phase 1 Exploration March13 – Nov13 B1-Ph1 to B21-Ph1 DBR Phase 2 Development Feb14 – Jan15 B22-Ph2 to B53-Ph2 DBR Phase 3 Implementation March15 – June16 B54-Ph3 to B86-Ph3

The entire case record was interrogated using ATLAS.ti in batches according to the DBR Phases to allow for comparison over time, for example, comparing the frequencies of codes at each phase which could represent shifts in focus for the SL or school (Appendix 6B). For this case study the aim was to look at practice over time and an inductive approach was taken in order to strengthen the ‘voice’ of the school. Codes were added to ATLAS.ti as they emerged in the data, rather than beginning with a predesignated list as used for case study A. Nevertheless, there is no suggestion that the analysis was a ‘grounded theory’ approach, where codes, themes and theories emerge from the data without a pre-conceived

framework, since the TAPS pyramid (Davies et al. 2014) supported both coding and thematic analysis.

After coding of the full case record, the TAPS pyramid layers were used as an analytical framework, in a similar way to case study A, to structure the data and identify ‘higher order codes’ (further details in Appendix 6C). Figure 6.1 details the pyramid layer framework and the higher order codes for each layer.

157

Figure 6.1 TAPS pyramid analytical framework: pyramid layers and ‘higher order’ codes

Whole school processes

Higher ordercodes: purpose,

formative, summative Summative reporting layer Higher order codes: confidence,

records, evidence Monitoring layer

Higher order codes: levelling, consistency, criteria, structures, moderation Teacher layer

Higher order codes:planning, differentiation,recording, marking Pupil layer

Higher order codes: strategies, self/peer assessment

In the discussion below the ‘higher order’ codes for case study B are written in bold on their first occurrence in a section, to support transparency of data analysis. Use of the TAPS pyramid layers, as for case study A, supported a comprehensive mapping of school processes and consideration of the data from a number of perspectives. For example, ‘strategies’ is considered in both the teacher and the pupil layers, and ‘evidence’ in a number of layers as a recurring theme. Extracts have been selected to support the most relevant section in order to avoid both repetition of extracts and the use of short snippets which lack context; more extended quotations are presented to provide ‘thick description’ (Geertz 1973).

In order to support close analysis of School B’s assessment processes and any changes during the three years, the case study will consider each layer of the analytical framework in turn, over time e.g. the Monitoring layer during DBR1, DBR2 and DBR3. This enables a focus on one strand at a time, for example, within the Pupil layer, from trialling strategies in DBR1, to developing new strategies in DBR2, to developing the role of the pupil in DBR3. The case study will begin at the top of the pyramid, in a similar way to case A, in order to track the origins of summative assessment and how much they are informed by formative

assessment, together with identifying conceptions of the purpose of assessment, which will impact on practice at all other layers.

158