Validating and proving efficacy

Key concepts associated with aspiring for the gold standard were the

perception of a good or outstanding lesson judgement as a method of validating and proving efficacy. I will start by outlining the concept of proving efficacy. For example, Lottie (a teacher for 5 years with a pastoral management role) stated ‘I’m really trying to fight for that outstanding ….I just want to say I’ve had

one…’ (lines 164-167) indicating that the outstanding judgement of a lesson is a

label given by others, but also implying that this label is a tool she can use to sell herself as a teacher, to show other teachers she is competent. It is a way of

proving efficacy to other teachers. The grade of ‘satisfactory’ is not good enough for many of the teachers I interviewed, hence their aspiration to achieve the gold standard of ‘outstanding’ and to be seen by colleagues to have achieved it. Indeed, since 2013 Ofsted now label a ‘satisfactory’ lesson as ‘requires improvement’, which perhaps reflects how teachers already perceived the judgement. The concept of proving efficacy could be seen as a motivator for teachers to continually develop and improve.

There were differences in the attitudes teachers had towards being observed. Louise (a teacher for 11 years with a pastoral management role) had a very positive attitude towards observation, viewing it as an essential professional development activity. She argued that although it can make you nervous and worry about things you wouldn’t normally, it motivated you to up your game. In other words, it forced you to reflect on your teaching and to make positive

improvements to your practice.

‘…I believe anything like that just forces you to up your game. You’re going to be more motivated because you want somebody to watch you teach and have a good impression. You know, you never set out to not do your best. Erm, so yeah I think that process of observing and being observed helps everybody to improve.’ (Louise, lines 127-130)

Louise states that she wants the observer to have a ‘good impression’, implying that she is using the feedback opportunity to prove that she is a good teacher (proving efficacy). Louise also used the feedback gained from observations to

improve her teaching, using the observation feedback as a guide to what she does well and what she needs to improve, suggesting that she saw the feedback as an accurate reflection of her actual effectiveness in the classroom (measuring efficacy).

‘…I’ve only ever had good with outstanding features and those outstanding

features change. It’s not always the same ones. It makes me more

determined that the next time that happens right I’m going to take on board those things and try and take it forward……’(Louise, lines 134-138)

However, it is interesting that Louise says ‘I’ve only ever’, suggesting that she has high expectations for herself and is aiming for outstanding. The feedback she receives makes her ‘determined’ to improve. She says she feels ‘stuck in that

place’, suggesting she hasn’t improved (based on the Ofsted criteria). Therefore,

being judged using lesson observation criteria may serve to demoralise teachers who never seem to improve on the observation judgement they received

previously.

Other teachers such as Jill (a teacher for 25 years who is now head of department and has had other leadership roles in the past) and Annie (also a head of

department) also shared the aspirational mind-set to achieve an outstanding lesson shown by Lottie and Louise, and this appeared to be linked to their management roles. They perceived that as they were in a position of

responsibility they should be proving their efficacy to other colleagues because they should practice what they preach. In other words, they should be

practising pedagogy in the classroom that they expect their colleagues to use. In her discussion of how being in a leadership position has affected her practice, Louise (pastoral leader) illustrates this concept clearly.

‘…..and I suppose taking ownership for what happens in my classroom ….. if

I am pushing forward that we need to be doing these things I need to be doing it in my own practice.’ (Louise, lines 96-100)

So, Louise feels a responsibility to model the practice she expects from her colleagues. The use of the word ‘ownership’ implies that Louise believes she

in particular seemed to put a lot of pressure on herself to succeed and be the best, partly due to the perceived responsibility to do so as head of a department, but also admitting to a general competitive nature.

‘….as head of department they look at you because you should be setting the

tone for the department…..’(Jill, lines 4-5)

‘...the thing is as head of department you’ve got to try and be as good as the people you’re observing at least and that’s my motivation. I don’t want to be,

I don’t want to have a lesser grading than other people. And actually I think that would push most heads of department. But I’m interested in it, I’m interested in how people learn. And I’m competitive, I don’t want other people to be better than me.’ (Jill, interview 1, lines 80-84)

Jill’s explanation for wanting to practice what she preaches is slightly different to Annie’s, who appears to be concerned about being perceived as a good teacher by her colleagues rather than wanting to be the best for competitive reasons. Although she mentions that the pressure comes from herself, there is an implied sense of concern around her status as head of department being threatened by poor practice.

‘….in terms of my lessons there’s greater expectations…….. that I’ve got to produce really good lessons and I put that pressure on myself……….. I find more pressure on myself, everyone in my department’s looking at me, I can’t have rubbish lessons.’ (Annie, lines 170-174)

So, it could be that pushing yourself to achieve outstanding is a part of the status of responsibility in a school, but there also appears to be a link with personality features such as competitiveness. The practice what you preach element to proving efficacy was seen in many of the teachers with positions of

responsibility (Annie, Jill, Louise, Suzy), implying that a motivation for

outstanding practice is associated with the status of responsibility. It may be that practising what you preach is important for a teacher with responsibility so that they feel they have the credibility to lead colleagues, and therefore their efficacy beliefs for their management role are enhanced. This then leads to an

improvement in efficacy beliefs for classroom practice too, resulting in a positive feedback style loop. This idea is shown in Louise’s comments below.

‘…….my experience from doing those jobs has fed back into my teaching. So I

think my classroom management and my discipline is certainly better as a result of being director of learning because I know more about the

strategies of how to get the challenging ones to behave……” (Louise, lines

92-95)

Middle leaders may also be under more pressure from senior management to model good practice, although this did not appear in the comments from the teachers I interviewed.

In contrast, Sophie did not appear too concerned about proving her efficacy to other members of her department, although she was concerned about

practising what she preached. This may be because her department (of two) is very small and she felt less pressure to outperform her colleague (who is also in a position of responsibility), or it may be that she has a more secure efficacy beliefs than Jill and Annie.

‘Having people, like student teachers come in to teach you feel you must be a good example, but there is another member of the department who’s also in a position of responsibility who also wants to be seen to be doing what they should be doing. I don’t necessarily have to really prove myself to the members of my department, having said that I’ve now got people who are PE specialists, art’s their second subject, teaching in art. I’ve always said lead by example so if I’m asking them to do something I would do it myself, so I suppose in that’s sense you do but you don’t really think about it that much.’ (Sophie, lines 161-169)

Validating efficacy is slightly different to proving efficacy as it relates to the process of confirming to yourself that you are an effective teacher. So, a teacher who believed they were a good teacher would have this belief validated by a positive lesson judgement in which the skills they thought they were capable of

were highlighted. This could also happen vice versa, if you believed you were not a good teacher and received feedback that confirmed this from a lesson

observation. From the interviews, it appears that validating efficacy could be split into direct and indirect sources. Direct sources include lesson observation feedback, colleague and student feedback, in which the teacher is given specific communications about their effectiveness. Indirect sources include management methods, professional dialogue and exam results, in which the teacher interprets the information available in order to infer how this relates to their efficacy.