Using the IQC Framework of Best Practice

The IQC framework can be used in a variety of different ways, from a simple observation tool to a more rigorous evaluation device. For each of the three cycles, teachers audio-recorded a whole-class I-R-F routine (for a duration of approximately 10 minutes) and the framework was used to comprehensively evaluate the teacher’s IQC during that performance. The steps and data collection procedures in each cycle can be seen in Table 4.1 below.

In terms of recording the questioning routines over the three cycles, two issues surfaced early on which needed to be resolved. The first problem was how to make sure that the three questioning sessions were of sufficient magnitude and duration so that they could be properly evaluated. After-all, not every lesson would necessarily incorporate a planned questioning routine and much would depend on what point the teacher was at in the teaching cycle of a particular topic. It was

70

essential that each routine was substantial enough to allow teachers the opportunity to elicit the full range of skills covered in the IQC framework. The second concern was that of consistency; it would be very difficult to compare and assess the progress of a teacher’s performance, if the routines were discernibly different from each other.

As a solution to both issues, I decided that each questioning routine in the three cycles would be based on a revision session involving a recently taught topic. I asked the teachers to identify three topics of a similar level and nature which the class had been taught approximately 3 or 4 weeks previously. Thus, although each recorded routine would not be fully standardised, there would at least be a high degree of consistency between them. The fact that there was a time lapse of at least 3 to 4 weeks from when the topic was taught, meant that it was unlikely that the students would be able to instantly recall the content of each topic. Although the routine would be technically less authentic than a typical I-R-F sequence, the advantages far outweighed the disadvantages. In any case, in between cycles, teachers would be continuing to practise daily their questioning skills in a more realistic environment, albeit in an informal and unscrutinised way.

Table 4.1: Time-line for a Single Performance Cycle

Event (in chronological order)

Description

Audio-recording

Teacher records questioning routine in class and sends copy to researcher

Teacher Evaluation

Teacher evaluates routine using IQC framework, identifying strengths and areas for improvement.

Pro-forma evaluation sheet completed and sent to researcher

Specialist Coach Evaluation

Specialist coach comprehensively evaluates the questioning routine using IQC framework and

compiles detailed feedback using pro-forma feedback sheet

Coaching Session

Meeting arranged between specialist coach and teacher. Pertinent issues discussed and targets for

improvement agreed for next cycle

There is no doubt that the use of an audio-recording was a critical part of the whole research process. McNamara (2002, p.37) confirms that “video recordings

71

of practice can promote critical reflection and can be instrumental in bringing about changes to practice.” In my opinion, audio-recordings possess the same inherent advantages and there were untold benefits to be gained from recording the questioning routines in this way:

 The factual elements of the recordings could not be disputed by teachers;

it was important that teachers could accurately analyse their performance without needing to rely on memory, since the resultant data would form the basis of future discussions in the coaching sessions.

 It allowed both the teacher and specialist coach to analyse performance retrospectively and without the need to be in the classroom at the same time; it would not have been possible for the specialist coach to observe all lessons ‘live’ due to time constraints and timetabling issues.

 The recordings could take place without the ‘intrusion’ of another teacher in the classroom, meaning that the interactions would be more natural and authentic: having another teacher (or specialist coach) in the class would inevitably affect the dynamics of the classroom situation.

 It allowed teachers to self-evaluate and reflect on their own performance;

one of the major aims of the study was to determine the degree to which teachers can evaluate their own practice and improve.

 It would not be possible to calculate a variety of measures such as average

‘think-time’ or ‘student utterance’ without the opportunity to listen to and continually replay the recording; these were critical measures in determining the degree to which teachers had improved their IQC.

 It allowed the opportunity to challenge the notion that a teacher’s self-perception might be different to reality: for example, one of the anticipated outcomes of the study was that teachers would over-estimate the amount of think-time they allow.

After each audio-recording, the teacher used the framework to self-evaluate the effectiveness of each routine (Appendix K). The specialist coach produced a more detailed analysis which involved calculating the frequency of each feature on the framework. The resultant data were used to identify the strengths and weaknesses from each audio-recording and improvement targets agreed during the subsequent coaching session.

72

From a practical perspective, it was recommended that no more than three categories should be analysed at any given time, otherwise the evaluation process would have become unnecessarily complicated and challenging; the

‘down-side’ of this, however, is that repeated analyses can be very time-consuming. Three other important indicators were established by the specialist coach to investigate whether there were any trends in these measures across the three performance cycles:

 Average think-time; this gives a general indication of how much time the teacher is allocating to students in order to formulate responses.

 Average student utterance; this measure illustrates the average length of the students’ responses and is expressed in number of words per utterance.

 Activity profile; this illustrates the proportion of time spent during the routine on three possible activities, teacher-talk, student-talk and think-time. It is a useful tool in highlighting the degree to which any one element might be dominating the routines; according to research, this has historically been the teacher-talk component. One of the aims of the research was to reduce this over the course of the study and increase the other two elements.

On its own, it is questionable whether the use of the IQC framework would have had a tangible impact on teachers’ IQC. Thus, working in tandem with the framework itself, three different catalytic devices were used to facilitate improvement over the course of the study, each with its own unique strengths:

 Self-evaluation

Turner-Bisset (2001, p.112) asserts that “knowledge of self” is an essential component of the process of ‘reflection’ and ‘meta-cognition’. She concludes that,

“being consciously critical of one’s performance implies that one can ‘stand back’

from one’s performance and assess it without rationalisation.” Teachers who indulge in the process of ‘rationalisation’, she suggests, tend to view negative classroom experiences as being caused by external factors over which they have little control or influence. The highest level of reflection, she concludes, is that in which the teacher is able to re-conceptualise “knowledge of self and models of teaching and learning in the light of political, social and ethical considerations.”

73

Thus, a major part of this study was to investigate the degree to which each teacher was able to use the recordings and the framework to improve their IQC through a process of self-evaluation.

 Focus group interviews

Cohen et al (2000, p.288) describe a ‘focus group’ as being a form of group interview where the focus is on the interaction within the group whilst they discuss a theme supplied by the researcher. It is the interaction within the group that generates the primary data rather than that between the group and the interviewer. Taber (2007, p.57) concludes that, although focus groups are unlikely to generate individual viewpoints to any great depth of understanding, they are a useful way of increasing the number of informants without significantly increasing the time available for the interviews; a notable point within the context of a demanding school environment.

However, this strategy offers significant benefits to the researcher, other than those of a purely logistical nature. Robson (2002, p.284) points out that the group dynamics can help to direct the group towards the more pertinent issues, thus making it easier to assess the degree to which “there is a consistent and shared view.” He highlights the fact that groups can be either homogeneous or heterogeneous. The former is one where a common background, position or experience exists, whilst the latter is one in which these elements differ. The strength of a homogeneous group, he concludes, lies in the fact that the commonality within the group facilitates communication and promotes the sharing of ideas and experiences; this, he suggests, may even lead to a “groupthink (unquestioning similarity of position or views).” Conversely, the differences apparent in a heterogeneous group “can stimulate and enrich the discussion” and

“may inspire other group members to look at the topic in a different light.”

I would argue that in this study, the group was neither homogeneous nor heterogeneous but, rather, elicited characteristics of both types of groups. The fact that they worked within the same school context, were subject to the same whole-school vision and would have participated in a collective CPD programme, meant that there was bound to have been a large amount of commonality amongst the group. However, even within that setting, it was inconceivable that there would not have been perceptible differences in experiences and outlooks; they all taught different subjects, possessed differing amounts of experience and had undertaken different teacher training programmes. Moreover, their own unique

74

childhood experiences of teaching and learning are likely to have influenced individual teacher constructs.

It was hoped that the process would enable the group to experience the

‘best of both worlds’ and allow teachers the opportunity to observe a range of perspectives. Working collaboratively would enable them to share ideas and learn from each other, thus providing a vehicle for enhancing their own IQC.

Furthermore, as Bryman (2004, p.348) points out, it “offers the researcher the opportunity to study the ways in which individuals collectively make sense of a phenomenon and construct meanings around it.”

 Specialist coaching

Lofthouse et al (2010, p.7) identify three specific roles which provide personalised professional support for teachers in a school environment; mentoring, specialist coaching and collaborative coaching. All three roles are aimed at providing a structured, sustained approach to professional development but differ in approach and purpose. Mentoring aims to support “professional learners” through significant career transitions, whilst specialist coaching endeavours to develop a specific aspect of practice. Collaborative coaching is a process involving two or more professional learners which attempts to “enable them to embed new knowledge and skills from specialist sources in day-to-day practice.”

Lofthouse et al (2010, p.10) confirm that a major strength of coaching is that it can provide teachers with detailed feedback on the “intellectual and practical challenges” thrown up by teaching on a daily basis; typically, teachers focus more on “the burdensome nature of the job” and broader, more ‘macro-driven’ performance indicators. They explain that teachers:

“Tend to adopt set teaching routines and often wait for examination results, performance management and Ofsted inspections to indicate how well they are doing. The burdens of the role, and the relatively blunt instruments available for feedback, can lead teachers to overlook some of the fine detail of practice.”

Furthermore, they add, coaching also advances a school’s “social capital”, by encouraging open and trusting relationships to flourish, there-by increasing the resources available to successfully carry out its “core business.”

A comparison by CUREE (2005, p.3), highlights the fact that there is much in common with all three aforementioned roles, in both approach and intent. As well as being the researcher, I made the decision that I would also assume the role of specialist coach. There were two main reasons for this. Firstly, because I was conducting the research, this position gave me a valuable and instantaneous

75

insight into the different issues that were emerging throughout the study.

Secondly, I had developed a great deal of knowledge and expertise in this specialised area over the years, partly through the research itself, but also through my whole-school teaching and learning role. Thus, within the school environment, I felt that I was best placed to successfully fulfil the requirements of this role.

Clearly, this also raised some ethical considerations and this is elaborated on in Section 4.6 (see ‘Incentives’).

The role that I assumed aligned itself with many of the aims and objectives of both mentoring and specialist coaching, including:

o Identifying learning goals

o Providing support to clarify and refine goals o Providing guidance, feedback and direction o Encouraging experimentation

o Reflecting on and debriefing shared experiences o Asking good questions

o Highlighting evidence from research and others’ practice

As CUREE (2005, p.3) points out, the role of a specialist coach involves “having knowledge and expertise relevant to the goals of the professional learner” and the fact that the study was also aimed at improving a specific aspect of professional practice (IQC) meant that on balance, my role tended towards this domain.