Edited by Nathan Lomax, Friday, 21 Nov 2014, 20:32
Andrew Pollard interview (part a)
The reason to launch the TLRP
Need for more engagement in educational research.
Need for reform – policy makers vs practitioners
'Too much social science research is inward looking, too piecemeal rather than helping to build knowledge in a cumulative way.. issues for research are too supplier driven rather than focusing n the key concerns to policy-makers, practitioners and the public at large.'
Blunkett (2000)
(This quote may be contentious in light of Ball's revelations about the wholesale marketing of research to form government education policy)
The criteria for funding
Practical projects. How to help specific learners e.g. SEN likely to gain funding.
The sort of researcher that the Director hopes to attract
A combination of ‘blue skies thinker’ and pragmatist
The way that Pollard perceives the role of the TLRP in disseminating research and influencing practice.
Clear communication of how to implement reform based on evidence
External: generating new knowledge about teaching
Internal: supporting the development of research
What Pollard sees as the outcomes or purpose of the research
Complex factors to consider. Research is one element. Providing best advice possible, up to politicians to make judgements. Working rapidly to make statements/commentaries on particular issues to try to keep up with new policies.
The specific contribution that research can make in contrast to practitioner experience, for example: the application of the research findings in different contexts.
Practitioner knows the context they are working in. Offering of evidence can help them to make better judgements.
The way in which Pollard uses the word ‘evidence’
Helps to make judgements. Promotes understanding. Resolving dilemmas. Assisting decision making process.
The effect of participating in research on the professional identity of the teacher.
Involvement of practitioners lends validity. Teachers are helpers, advisors, allies & advocates. People more willing to participate in meetings/seminars & distribute findings.
Mary James interview
The way in which the research project emerged
Grew out of interests: formative assessment/changes in classroom practice directed towards learning rather than exam performance. Expanding scope of research from small groups to wider population but with limited resources. Scaled up, rolled out school wide.
2 areas of research:
Assessment for learning/pedagogy
Research on professional learning & school improvement
The scope and structure of the project
Desire to study student outcomes as a result of their experience in the classroom rather than exam performance.
Classroom observations
Interviews with teachers/groups of students
Questionnaires for students & teachers about learning practices
Interviews with head teachers about management strategy
Observation schedules had many categories (ticks etc, field notes (open ended)
Different audiences, different demands. TLRP tries to appeal to both.
Practitioners, research community, policy makers.
Practitioners need workable ideas that fit with own value system e.g. teaching ‘manual’
Obligation to make sure scientific warrant was there – papers peer reviewed & published in academic journals. Teaching manual hardly mentions research. Ts need ideas they can practically implement.
Policy makers want warrant but often interested in ‘does this work?’ measured in specific ways. Pressure to provide evidence of increasing standards (empirical evidence, positivism, results driven)
Re-professionalisation of teachers?
Not just about delivering curriculum but how sts can be helped to learn (promoting learning autonomy) encouraging questions.
The way that different themes in the project grew organically
Accumulation of data.
Compare quantitative data (performance results) with qualitative: learner experience.
Interrogate patterns of difference
Knowledge sharing via electronic network communities encouraged
The way in which the data were analysed.
Practical criticism approach – treated video like a text – group watches lesson & identify areas of practice that are interesting to them. Enabled distinction between assessment for learning procedures (majority) on surface level or deeper internalisation of principle – better equipped to respond to unpredictable situations.
Try to relate the situations that James describes to your own workplace or one you are familiar with.
James mentions that staff development and action research projects had to be stimulated through INSETT sessions and ‘critical friends’.
If teachers can see that something will work, they will use it. This has been my experience when running PD sessions on using technology for teaching. Staff are willing to participate if they knew the tools under discussion can make their life in the classroom easier. Finding a time when people can meet for informal learning sessions can be challenging. The ‘knowledge sharing via electronic network communities’ that James mentions is an effective way to disseminate information shared at conferences. This also provides an informal space for reflection and sharing of best practice. Informal, small scale staff generated PD sessions are generally more productive than big conferences. Observations by ‘line managers’, are often an exercise in paper filling for administrative purposes. Every teacher has their ‘stock’ lesson which they roll out when inspection time comes. This makes it hard to measure what James describes as more ‘deeply internalised principles’, which allow teachers to respond to and exploit serendipitous opportunities for learning. These kind of ‘flashes’ that James mentions having seen occasionally on video, are difficult to measure as they are spontaneous and arise out of complex, constantly changing classroom dynamics. Trying to produce empirical evidence to prove that learning is happening is difficult as it may be intangible. That could be why James struggled to convey the exact way that video data was analysed. The promotion of student generated content e.g. videos, posters, digital projects, in my experience, is one way for students to gather evidence of their own learning. This can then, if necessary, be shared with other stakeholders e.g. management or parents.
References
Blunkett, D (2000) Influence or irrelevance? Can social science improve government? Presentation at ESRC seminar February (London Department for Education and Skills)
Action 1.5: The TLRP Programme
Andrew Pollard interview (part a)
Need for more engagement in educational research.
Need for reform – policy makers vs practitioners
'Too much social science research is inward looking, too piecemeal rather than helping to build knowledge in a cumulative way.. issues for research are too supplier driven rather than focusing n the key concerns to policy-makers, practitioners and the public at large.'
Blunkett (2000)
(This quote may be contentious in light of Ball's revelations about the wholesale marketing of research to form government education policy)
The criteria for funding
Practical projects. How to help specific learners e.g. SEN likely to gain funding.
A combination of ‘blue skies thinker’ and pragmatist
Clear communication of how to implement reform based on evidence
External: generating new knowledge about teaching
Internal: supporting the development of research
Complex factors to consider. Research is one element. Providing best advice possible, up to politicians to make judgements. Working rapidly to make statements/commentaries on particular issues to try to keep up with new policies.
Practitioner knows the context they are working in. Offering of evidence can help them to make better judgements.
Helps to make judgements. Promotes understanding. Resolving dilemmas. Assisting decision making process.
Involvement of practitioners lends validity. Teachers are helpers, advisors, allies & advocates. People more willing to participate in meetings/seminars & distribute findings.
Mary James interview
Grew out of interests: formative assessment/changes in classroom practice directed towards learning rather than exam performance. Expanding scope of research from small groups to wider population but with limited resources. Scaled up, rolled out school wide.
2 areas of research:
Assessment for learning/pedagogy
Research on professional learning & school improvement
Desire to study student outcomes as a result of their experience in the classroom rather than exam performance.
Classroom observations
Interviews with teachers/groups of students
Questionnaires for students & teachers about learning practices
Interviews with head teachers about management strategy
Observation schedules had many categories (ticks etc, field notes (open ended)
Different audiences, different demands. TLRP tries to appeal to both.
Practitioners, research community, policy makers.
Practitioners need workable ideas that fit with own value system e.g. teaching ‘manual’
Obligation to make sure scientific warrant was there – papers peer reviewed & published in academic journals. Teaching manual hardly mentions research. Ts need ideas they can practically implement.
Policy makers want warrant but often interested in ‘does this work?’ measured in specific ways. Pressure to provide evidence of increasing standards (empirical evidence, positivism, results driven)
Re-professionalisation of teachers?
Not just about delivering curriculum but how sts can be helped to learn (promoting learning autonomy) encouraging questions.
Accumulation of data.
Compare quantitative data (performance results) with qualitative: learner experience.
Interrogate patterns of difference
Knowledge sharing via electronic network communities encouraged
Practical criticism approach – treated video like a text – group watches lesson & identify areas of practice that are interesting to them. Enabled distinction between assessment for learning procedures (majority) on surface level or deeper internalisation of principle – better equipped to respond to unpredictable situations.
James mentions that staff development and action research projects had to be stimulated through INSETT sessions and ‘critical friends’.
If teachers can see that something will work, they will use it. This has been my experience when running PD sessions on using technology for teaching. Staff are willing to participate if they knew the tools under discussion can make their life in the classroom easier. Finding a time when people can meet for informal learning sessions can be challenging. The ‘knowledge sharing via electronic network communities’ that James mentions is an effective way to disseminate information shared at conferences. This also provides an informal space for reflection and sharing of best practice. Informal, small scale staff generated PD sessions are generally more productive than big conferences. Observations by ‘line managers’, are often an exercise in paper filling for administrative purposes. Every teacher has their ‘stock’ lesson which they roll out when inspection time comes. This makes it hard to measure what James describes as more ‘deeply internalised principles’, which allow teachers to respond to and exploit serendipitous opportunities for learning. These kind of ‘flashes’ that James mentions having seen occasionally on video, are difficult to measure as they are spontaneous and arise out of complex, constantly changing classroom dynamics. Trying to produce empirical evidence to prove that learning is happening is difficult as it may be intangible. That could be why James struggled to convey the exact way that video data was analysed. The promotion of student generated content e.g. videos, posters, digital projects, in my experience, is one way for students to gather evidence of their own learning. This can then, if necessary, be shared with other stakeholders e.g. management or parents.
References
Blunkett, D (2000) Influence or irrelevance? Can social science improve government? Presentation at ESRC seminar February (London Department for Education and Skills)
Too tired to find the others...