Quality Teaching Rounds: A tested approach to enhancing teaching for improved student outcomes PROFESSOR JENNY GORE Sciences of Learning in Education Flinders University February 2017
Complex field of professional learning DESIGN Design of approach to professional development PROCESSES Support such as protocols, leadership, facilitation IMPACT Teacher learning, teaching practice, student outcomes
Nationally and internationally, there is unequivocal evidence that the quality of teaching is the most significant in-school factor affecting student outcomes. There is also strong evidence that better appraisal and feedback leading to targeted development can improve teacher performance. The Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework will ensure that every teacher, every year, in every school receives regular, effective and constructive feedback on their performance, as well as opportunities to identify areas for further development. (AITSL, April 2012)
We have worked, collectively and separately, in dozens of school districts where there was no common point of view on instruction, where ten educators from the same district could watch a fifteenminute classroom video and have ten different opinions about its quality, ranging the full gamut from high praise to excoriation. Gaining an explicit and widely held view of what constitutes good teaching and learning in your setting is a first step toward any systematic efforts to scaling up quality. (City et al., 2009, p. 173, emphasis added)
Improving teaching: possible solutions Recruiting better quality teachers Measuring/evaluating the quality of teaching Supporting current teachers - To teach well, teachers need to know what constitutes quality - PD processes are not enough
Quality Teaching model Antecedents were Authentic Pedagogy and Productive Pedagogy Not just about teaching practices, but about the practice of teaching Implemented initially in NSW (NSW DET, 2003, 2005) and the ACT Applicable across all year levels and subject areas
Quality Teaching model 3 dimensions and 18 elements Intellectual Quality Quality Learning Environment Significance Deep knowledge Explicit quality criteria Background knowledge Deep understanding Engagement* Cultural knowledge Problematic knowledge High expectations Knowledge integration Higher-order thinking Social support* Inclusivity Metalanguage Students self-regulation* Connectedness Substantive communication Student direction Narrative Note: *Marked elements do not pertain to the coding of assessment practice.
QUALITY TEACHING: DISTINGUISHING FEATURES Generic Specific Narrowly focussed Comprehensive Performance assessment Professional development Teachers work Classroom teaching Teaching Learning Open Negotiated Closed Self-reflection tool Collaborative analysis External evaluator
Judging Teaching Practice Teaching Enhancing Teaching Practice QT QTR CLASS F E A R Assessment Development H O P E FFT Assessing Teacher Quality APST Teachers Supporting Teacher Development
Towards quality and equity: Four studies Systemic Implications of Pedagogy and Achievement in NSW Public Schools (SIPA): ARC Linkage Grant and NSW DET, 2004 2007 Effective Implementation of Pedagogical Reform (EIPR): ARC Linkage Grant with the Parramatta CEO, 2009 2012 Investigating Quality Teaching Rounds to Support Teacher Professional Learning (ACT QTR): a pilot study with ACT ETD, 2012 Improving Teaching Quality through Peer Observation and Feedback: Investigating the Impact of Quality Teaching Rounds: NSW DEC, 2014 15
SIPA Systemic Implications of Pedagogy and Achievement in NSW public schools Jenny Gore, James Ladwig, Tom Griffiths and Wendy Miller (2004 2007)
Data collection 2004 2007 DATA SOURCE 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTAL School visits 16 20 12 8 56 Teacher questionnaires 796 949 942 805 *3,492 Interviews with teachers/executive 192 177 162 80 609 Classroom observations 193 208 153 111 665 Assessment tasks coded 95 190 163 73 521 Student work coded 4,439 6,875 6,835 3,309 21,458 Teachers at coding sessions 89 85 111 57 342 Note: *1,942 teachers, some completed the questionnaire in more than one year of the study.
Example QT coding scale DEEP KNOWLEDGE To what extent does the knowledge addressed in the lesson focus on a small number of key concepts and the relationships between them? 1 2 3 4 5 (NSW DEC, 2003) Almost all of the content knowledge of the lesson is shallow because it does not deal with significant concepts or ideas. Some key concepts and ideas are mentioned or covered by the teacher or students, but only at a superficial level. Knowledge is treated unevenly during instruction. A significant idea may be addressed as part of the lesson, but in general the focus on key concepts and ideas is not sustained throughout the lesson. Most of the content knowledge of the lesson is deep. Sustained focus on central concepts or ideas is occasionally interrupted by superficial or unrelated ideas or concepts. Knowledge is deep because focus is sustained on key ideas or concepts throughout the lesson.
Quality of classroom practice 5 4 Scale 3 Primary (n=362) Secondary (n=302) Whole sample (n=664) 2 1 Intellectual Quality by sample Difference between primary and secondary is statistically significant at p < 0.001
Quality of classroom practice 5 4 Scale 3 Primary (n=362) Secondary (n=302) Whole sample (n=664) 2 1 Quality Learning Environment by sample Difference between primary and secondary is statistically significant at p < 0.001
Quality of classroom practice 5 4 Scale 3 Primary (n=362) Secondary (n=302) Whole sample (n=664) 2 1 Significance by sample Difference between primary and secondary is statistically significant at p < 0.05
A typical lesson (2004--2007): Intellectual Quality Element Scale Descriptor DK 3 DU 3 Knowledge is treated unevenly during instruction. A significant idea may be addressed as part of the lesson, but in general the focus on key concepts and ideas is not sustained throughout the lesson. Deep understanding is uneven. Students demonstrate both shallow and deeper understanding at different points in the lesson. A central concept understood by some students may not be understood by other students. PK 2 Some knowledge is treated as open to multiple perspectives. HOT 3 M 2 SC 3 Students primarily demonstrate routine lower-order thinking a good share of the lesson. There is at least one significant question or activity in which most students perform some higher-order thinking. Low metalanguage. During the lesson terminology is explained or either the teacher or students stop to make value judgements or comment on language. There is, however, no clarification or assistance provided regarding the language. Substantive communication among students and/or between teacher and students occurs occasionally and involves at least two sustained interactions.
A typical lesson (2004--2007): Quality Learning Environment Element Scale Descriptor EQC 2 Only general statements are made regarding the desired quality of work. E 3 HE 3 SS 4 SSR 4 SD 2 Variable engagement. Most students are seriously engaged in parts of the lesson, but may appear indifferent during other parts and very few students are clearly off-task. Many students participate in challenging work during at least half of the lesson. They are encouraged (explicitly or through lesson processes) to try hard and to take risks and are recognised for doing so. Social support is clearly positive. Supportive behaviours and comments are directed at most students, including clear attempts at supporting reluctant students. Most students, most of the time, demonstrate autonomy and initiative I regulating their own behaviour and there is very little interruption to the lesson. Once or twice during the lesson, teachers comment on or correct student behaviour or movement. Low student direction. Although students exercise some control over some aspect of the lesson (choice, time, pace, assessment), their control is minimal or trivial.
A typical lesson (2004--2007): Significance Element Scale Descriptor BK 3 CK 1 KI 1 I 4 C 2 N 2 Students background knowledge is mentioned or elicited briefly, is connected to the substance of the lesson, and there is at least some connection to out-ofschool background knowledge. No explicit recognition or valuing of other than the knowledge of the dominant culture is evident in the substance of the lesson. No meaningful connections. All knowledge is strictly restricted to that explicitly defined within a single subject area. Students from all groups are included in a significant way in most aspects of the lesson, but there still appears to be come unevenness in the inclusion of different social groups. The teacher or students try to connect what is being learned to the world beyond the classroom, but the connection is weak and superficial or trivial. Narrative is used on occasion as a minor part of the lesson and/or is loosely connected to the substance of the lesson.
Quality of assessment tasks 5 4 Scale 3 Primary (n=303) Secondary (n=219) Whole sample (n=522) 2 1 Intellectual Quality by sample Difference between primary and secondary is statistically significant at p < 0.001
Quality of assessment tasks 5 4 Scale 3 Primary (n=303) Secondary (n=219) Whole sample (n=522) 2 1 Quality Learning Environment by sample Difference between primary and secondary is statistically significant at p < 0.001
Quality of assessment tasks 5 4 Scale 3 Primary (n=303) Secondary (n=219) Whole sample (n=522) 2 1 Signficance by sample Difference between primary and secondary is statistically significant at p < 0.001
Quality Teaching for Aboriginal students Authentic Achievement 9 Mean authentic achievement scale 8 7 6 5 4 Non ATSI ATSI 3 Low task QT (bottom quartile) High task QT (top quartile) Task total Quality Teaching
Quality Teaching for SES Authentic Achievement Mean authentic achievement scale 9 8 7 6 5 4 Low High socioeconomic students status High Low socioeconomic students status 3 Low task QT (bottom quartile) High task QT (top quartile) Task total Quality Teaching
Major findings Indigenous and low-ses students and students with low prior attainment received poorer quality pedagogy Better pedagogy was correlated with narrowing of achievement gaps for Indigenous and low-ses students Teachers dispositions and beliefs were related to the contexts in which they worked There were no significant differences between beginning and more experienced teachers in quality of teaching
EIPR Effective Implementation of Pedagogical Reform Jenny Gore, Wendy Miller and Julie Bowe (2009 2012)
Quality Teaching Rounds Instructional Rounds Professional Learning Community Quality Teaching
Professional Learning Community (PLC) Long-term, ongoing commitment to a group The capacity for the development of trust and respect Colleagues with whom to debate and explore practice Scope for breadth of insights/diverse views to be articulated
Rounds process Turn taking which requires all participants to share their practice A common experience as a basis for analysis and discussion Deprivatised practice A focus on describing practice A focus on explaining the impact on student learning
Quality Teaching A lens through which to comprehensively notice and assess what is happening in any lesson both for the teacher and for the students A tool for the systematic and specific analysis and judging of lesson quality A focus on the lesson rather than the individual teacher A framework from which to commence analytical conversations
Quality Teaching Rounds process Reading discussion to develop shared knowledge base and build sense of professional community Observation one PLC member teaches a lesson observed by the others Individual coding by all participants, including the teacher Discussion of the observed lesson, and of teaching in general, drawing on the language and concepts of the Quality Teaching model and working towards a shared view for each element
Study overview: Quality Teaching Rounds Quality Teaching Rounds 4 schools 3 primary, 1 secondary Average ICSEA 986 NAPLAN data (2008 2011) 7 8 teachers per school No Quality Teaching Rounds 12 schools 9 primary, 3 secondary Average ICSEA 1091 NAPLAN data (2008 2011)
Data collection 2009 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTAL QT Rounds observations 28 38 39 0 105 QT Rounds analysis conversations 27 40 37 0 104 Interviews 49 49 49 43 190 Student NAPLAN scores (2008: 14,154) 19,888 19,048 19,664-72,754 Questionnaires 364 259 207 170 970
Intellectual Quality SIPA Knowledge is treated unevenly during instruction. A significant idea may be addressed as part of the lesson, but in general the focus on key concepts and ideas is not sustained throughout the lesson. Deep understanding is uneven. Students demonstrate both shallow and deeper understanding at different points in the lesson. A central concept understood by some students may not be understood by other students. Some knowledge is treated as open to multiple perspectives. Students primarily demonstrate routine lower-order thinking a good share of the lesson. There is at least one significant question or activity in which most students perform some higher-order thinking. Low metalanguage. During the lesson terminology is explained or either the teacher or students stop to make value judgements or comment on language. There is, however, no clarification or assistance provided regarding the language. Substantive communication among students and/or between teacher and students occurs occasionally and involves at least two sustained interactions. EIPR Most of the content knowledge of the lesson is deep. Sustained focus on central concepts or ideas is occasionally interrupted by superficial or unrelated ideas or concepts. Deep understanding is uneven. Students demonstrate both shallow and deeper understanding at different points in the lesson. A central concept understood by some students may not be understood by other students. Some knowledge is treated as open to multiple perspectives. Most students demonstrate higher-order thinking in at least one major activity that occupies a substantial portion of the lesson. Some use of metalanguage. At the beginning of the lesson, or at some key juncture, the teacher or students stop and explain or conduct a mini-lesson on some aspect of language, e.g. genre, vocabulary, signs or symbols. Substantive communication, with sustained interactions, occurs over approximately half the lesson with teacher and/or students scaffolding the conversation.
Quality Learning Environment SIPA Only general statements are made regarding the desired quality of the work. Variable engagement. Most students are seriously engaged in parts of the lesson, but may appear indifferent during other parts and very few students are clearly off-task. Many students participate in challenging work during at least half of the lesson. They are encouraged (explicitly or through lesson processes) to try hard and to take risks and are recognised for doing so. Social support is clearly positive. Supportive behaviours and comments are directed at most students, including clear attempts at supporting reluctant students. Most students, most of the time, demonstrate autonomy and initiative in regulating their own behaviour and there is very little interruption to the lesson. Once or twice during the lesson, teachers comment on or correct student behaviour or movement. Low student direction. Although students exercise some control over some aspect of the lesson (choice, time, pace, assessment), their control is minimal or trivial. EIPR Detailed criteria regarding the quality of work are made explicit during the lesson, but there is no evidence that students are using the criteria to examine the quality of their work. Serious engagement. All students are deeply involved, almost all of the time, in pursuing the substance of the lesson. Most students participate in challenging work during most of the lesson. They are encouraged (explicitly or through lesson processes) to try hard and to take risks and are recognised for doing so. Social support is strong. Supportive behaviours or comments from students and the teacher are directed at all students, including soliciting and valuing the contributions of all. All students, almost all of time, demonstrate autonomy and initiative in regulating their own behaviour and the lesson proceeds without interruption. Low student direction. Although students exercise some control over some aspect of the lesson (choice, time, pace, assessment), their control is minimal or trivial.
Significance SIPA Students background knowledge is mentioned or elicited briefly, is connected to the substance of the lesson, and there is at least some connection to out-of-school background knowledge. No explicit recognition or valuing of other than the knowledge of the dominant culture is evident in the substance of the lesson. No meaningful connections. All knowledge is strictly restricted to that explicitly defined within a single topic or subject area. Students from all groups are included in a significant way in most aspects of the lesson, but there still appears to be some unevenness in the inclusion of different social groups. The teacher or students try to connect what is being learned to the world beyond the classroom, but the connection is weak and superficial or trivial. Narrative is used on occasion as a minor part of the lesson and/or is loosely connected to the substance of the lesson. EIPR Students background knowledge is mentioned or elicited several times, is connected to the substance of the lesson, and there is at least some connection to out-of-school background knowledge. Some cultural knowledge is evident in the lesson, but it is treated in a superficial manner. At least one meaningful connection is made between topics or subject areas by the teacher and/or the students during the lesson. Students from all groups are included in all aspects of the lesson and their inclusion is both significant and equivalent to the inclusion of students from other social groups. Students recognise some connection between classroom knowledge and situations outside the classroom, which might include sharing their work with an audience outside the classroom, but they do not explore implications of these connections which remain largely abstract or hypothetical. Narrative is used at several points in the lesson to enhance the significance of the substance of the lesson.
NAPLAN literacy results Overall literacy 520 510 510 512 515 515 517 517 512 507 In 2011, students in QTR Schools had significantly better NAPLAN scores in overall literacy at the p < 0.05 level. QTR Schools also had significantly better results in writing, spelling and reading. 500 QTR Schools 490 2008 2009 2010 2011 Non-QTR Schools
NAPLAN numeracy results Overall numeracy 520 510 500 498 506 503 511 506 506 502 501 In 2008, students in QTR Schools had significantly lower scores in overall numeracy at the p < 0.05 level. In 2011, the gap was closed to put the two groups on an equal footing. QTR Schools 490 2008 2009 2010 2011 Non-QTR Schools
There s been an identifiable link in our NAPLAN results in terms of the improvement in the student results. It was actually noticeable that [for] one of our groups of students who didn t have teachers who had been through the QT [rounds process] with us that there was a dip in their results there. That improvement trend was evidently not apparent in those [classes] that had not [had teachers involved in QT Rounds]. So for us, it was that the rest of the school was on a momentum shift, but you could see a lag there because people in that particular group didn t actually - they hadn t had the experience and didn t work [with] the QT framework. (Principal)
I know there s no turning back, I d never go back to the way I was teaching, even though I thought it was fine and getting good results and that. It wasn t as exciting as teaching is now. Like now I guess I ve been re-energised to teach in a different way You know, it s a big awakening too, just cruising along the way I was, which was getting through to them and doing the things you had to do and following the syllabus and all this kind of thing, but it wasn t exciting. And now I m excited about it. It s not the humdrum, it s great stuff all the time. (510007)
So I remember the conversation afterwards and, to be honest with you, I can t even remember how the lesson was coded. But I remember the positive feeling of at the end of the day, driving home thinking, wow, I didn t feel threatened. I didn t feel that there was any negativity. I didn t feel criticised. Yet, my lesson was critiqued but I didn t feel criticised. It was all very positive. (511022)
ACT QTR Investigating Quality Teaching Rounds to Support Teacher Professional Learning Jenny Gore, Julie Bowe, Nicole Mockler, Max Smith, Hywel Ellis and Andrew Lyell (2012)
Modifying Quality Teaching Rounds Design experiments : would modified QTR still positively impact on teaching practice 156 teachers from 18 schools, including teachers at all career stages as well as executive staff Agreed QT scores, pre- and post-intervention surveys and interview data were collected over a 6-month period
Quality Teaching Rounds: Essential features 1. At least three teachers in each PLC 2. Full participation 3. All members will host a round 4. Focus on teaching regular lessons 5. Entire lesson to be observed 6. Time for individual coding and analysis (30 mins) 7. Discussion in which each member provides codes, evidence and justification in relation to QT Classroom Practice Guide (1 2 hours) 8. Commitment to confidentiality
Major findings All teachers valued QTR regardless of how it was structured, with all variations producing a high quality collaborative professional learning experience Overall, high quality teaching was produced by participating teachers with as few as three Quality Teaching Rounds
Lesson quality comparison: SIPA, EIPR and ACT QTR 5 4 3 SIPA EIPR ACT QTR 2 1 Intellectual Quality Quality Learning Environment Significance
Impact on early career teachers Discursive effects: what teachers think and talk about Subjectification effects: how teachers are seen and how they see themselves Lived effects: the impact on teachers lives Gore, J. M., & Bowe, J. M. (2015). Interrupting attrition? Re-shaping the transition from preservice to inservice teaching through Quality Teaching Rounds. International Journal of Educational Research, 73, 77 88. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2015.05.006
Improving Teaching Quality Through Peer Observation and Feedback An Investigation of the Impact of QTR (Gore, Bowe, Smith, and Lubans, 2014 present)
A randomised controlled trial Two lesson observations per teacher for 192 teachers in 24 schools before QT Rounds, at 6 months following the intervention, at 12 months as indication of sustainability (1073 lesson observations) Supplemented by survey, interview and case study data on how participation in QT Rounds impacts on teachers identities, teaching culture and teachers career commitments
School sample stratification All schools that wanted to participate n = 243 Primary schools SECTOR Secondary schools Urban Rural LOCATION Urban Rural Low SES Mid SES High SES All SES SES Low SES Mid SES High SES All SES QTR-S n = 4 QTR-C n = 4 Control n = 4 QTR-SET QTR-CHOICE CONTROL QTR-S n = 4 QTR-C n = 4 Control n = 4 Note. The number of schools in the final row is the final study sample n = 24.
Group randomisation Control No QT Rounds until study completion QTR Choice One set of. QT Rounds Choice in PLC size QTR Set Two sets of QT Rounds Four teachers per PLC
Characteristics of participating schools Students with language backgrounds other than English 2% to 92% Indigenous students 0% to 62% School index of relative socio-educational advantage 766 to 1209
Characteristics of participating teachers 75% female 9% from language backgrounds other than English Average age 38 years 20% < four years teaching experience 25% > 16 years teaching experience
Summary of data collected Time point Data Source Baseline 6-months 12-months Total Lesson observations 381 365 327 1,073 Teacher surveys 182 177 157 516 Teacher interviews 48 46 48 142 Teacher focus groups (case 5 6 11 study) Executive interviews (case 5 6 11 study) Student surveys 3,077 3,237 2,726 9,040 Fidelity checks (research team) 38 38 Fidelity checks (self-reported) 88 88
Overview of findings Significant variation in Quality Teaching scores Significant, positive effects for intervention groups No moderating effect of school sector or location No significant difference re years of teaching experience
Distribution of baseline scores
Impact on Quality Teaching 2.95 2.85 d = 0.4 d = 0.5 Quality Teaching (mean) 2.75 QTR Set d = 0.4 d = 0.2 2.65 QTR Choice Control 2.55 Baseline 6-months 12-months
Implementation fidelity check Was a professional reading session conducted? Were PLC members present throughout the lesson? Did PLC members individually code all QT elements prior to the lesson discussion? How long was the post-lesson discussion? Was the host teacher included in the discussion? Were PLC members (including the host teacher) present throughout the discussion? Did PLC members (including the host teacher) provide their codes and justification using evidence from the lesson for each QT element? Was the Quality Teaching Classroom Practice Guide a consistent point of reference throughout the discussion?
Impact on Quality Teaching per protocol 2.95 2.85 d = 0.5 d = 0.5 d = 0.5 Quality Teaching (mean) 2.75 QTR Set d = 0.4 2.65 QTR Choice Control 2.55 Baseline 6-months 12-months
Impact on morale School Organisational Health Questionnaire (Hart et al., 2000) Consisted of 5 items on a 5 point scale where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree Includes questions on issues such as: Team spirit Enthusiasm for work Energy in the school Pride within the school
Impact on morale 4.2 4.1 d = 0.4 d = 0.6 Morale (mean) 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 Control QTR Set QTR Choice d = 0.1 d = 0.4 3.6 3.5 3.4 Baseline 6-months 12-months
Impact on appraisal and recognition School Organisational Health Questionnaire (Hart et al., 2000) Consisted of 5 items on a 5 point scale where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree Includes questions on issues such as: Receiving feedback on performance Opportunities to discuss performance Recognition of good work Receiving encouragement
Impact on appraisal and recognition 3.6 Control d = 0.5 3.5 d = 0.4 d = 0.4 Appraisal and Recognition (mean) 3.4 3.3 3.2 QTR Set QTR Choice d = 0.3 3.1 3.0 Baseline 6-months 12-months
Underlying mechanisms Innovations often fail when educators focus only on the surface features of the innovation rather than the underlying mechanism[s] that enable it to work (Lewis, Perry & Murata, 2006, p.5) 1. Structures the knowledge base for teaching 2. Flattens power hierarchies to enhance collaboration 3. Enhances relationships to build a culture of learning among teachers
Structures the knowledge base for teaching It gives you just more a clearer lens to look through or a framework to base your teaching on it's nice to have a little bit of a framework to pin your teaching on, to know that you're doing the right thing really We can see that the programmes we run are addressing the Quality Teaching model and it gives you greater confidence in your teaching and what you're doing. Molly, primary teacher of 4-6 years
I really like the way that you actually have the [Quality] Teaching framework there as the basis. It s not just a matter of that lesson worked well. It s not a free-for-all discussion. It is actually guided by the framework which is really good because you ve got that common language and everybody kind of understands where you re coming from and I think I really valued that. Jade, primary teacher of 1-3 years
Look, I think what makes it safe is having that [Quality Teaching] Classroom Practice Guide because you can really depersonalise it and say well, going on the language here, this is what the coding needs to be, because that is the evidence we have to be able to back it up. So, because you re working in that framework with that language as your guide it does make it really safe. Tilly, primary teacher of 1-3 years
Flattens power hierarchies to enhance collaboration I think I m more willing to interact with the [other teachers] I don t feel as intimidated. As a new teacher you sort of sit back and go, I don t really know what they re talking about but QT has given me a lot more confidence so I know I can speak a bit more because I m more confident as a teacher. I m not afraid to speak in front of people, even if I m wrong. Kate, secondary, second year
One thing that I've really liked about this is that there's just been the four of us, so you're almost not forced, but you have to speak up. You do get the opportunity to share your thoughts and to speak. I know when we were coding, you know, we'd have to justify why we gave that particular code. That's been the best thing about this is that it s been in a small [group]. I've gotten to really know three other teachers and their practices throughout this time. I feel like I've been heard. Victoria, primary, second year
Even the more experienced teachers who have been doing QT [Rounds] are really taking it on board as well and they re asking a lot of questions which shows that you could be teaching for 20 plus years and still have a lot of questions. Derek, primary, third year
Enhances professional relationships to build a culture of learning among teachers Doing the rounds was the best thing that I've been able to do. Building that relationship with the other teachers like within different faculties that I didn't really have a relationship with before and being able to go into that faculty and get assistance for certain things especially across-kla ideas. Christina, secondary teacher of 1-3 years
They did not like me, and I did not like them, and it was only on hearsay and reputation alone, and they did not know me from a bar of soap, I did not know them from a bar of soap. But when I was in the room with them and working with them, I respected them and I learned to trust them and I learned who they really were. Karen, secondary teacher of 19-21 years
And it s good to work with people that I don t normally work with. And the fact that we aren t all on the same stage just brings us that little bit more - like I ve got to know one lady closer, and I m able to talk to her..i didn t even realise she was a teacher here before, particularly in the middle of last year, I thought she was just a parent that didn t leave. I didn t even realise! It s pretty sad the school is so big I didn t realise.. I ve actually been involved in her lessons and got to know her through this, and her passion, yeah it s been good. Tessa, primary teacher of 10-12 years
. I think in terms of impact on myself and my colleagues and the kids, I think really this [QTR] has been the biggest winner to be honest [because] breaking down the barriers going into other peoples classrooms to share, that collegiate feeling. The kids, probably giving them a more engaging set of activities and the way that I present the work in the classroom, just more thought goes into that, and I think as a whole school initiative, you know, everyone s involved so everyone seems to be on board and we have that common goal to work towards. Michelle, secondary teacher of more than 24 years
Change the game! Work the curve! Measures of Effective Teaching (Vicki Phillips, 2013)
Working the curve with QT Rounds
Complex field of professional learning DESIGN Design of approach to professional development PROCESSES Quality Teaching Rounds IMPACT Teacher learning, teaching practice, student outcomes
Next research questions Implementation in and across small schools Impact at different stages of teachers careers Impact on student outcomes (PATs) Sustainability of impacts (longer timeframe)
Impact of QTR on teaching practice
Publications Gore, J. M., & Bowe, J. M. (2015). Interrupting attrition? Re-shaping the transition from preservice to inservice teaching through Quality Teaching Rounds. International Journal of Educational Research, 73, 77 88. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2015.05.006 Gore, J., Smith, M., Bowe, J., Ellis, H., Lloyd, A., & Lubans, D. (2015). Quality Teaching Rounds as a professional development intervention for enhancing the quality of teaching: Rationale and study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 82 95. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2015.08.002 Bowe, J., & Gore, J. (2016). Reassembling teacher professional development: The case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13540602.2016.1206522
References Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. (AITSL). (2011). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/apstresources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. (AITSL). (2012). Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-documentlibrary/australian_teacher_performance_and_development_framework Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education. Bacchi, C. (2010). Foucault, policy and rule: Challenging the problem-solving paradigm. Aalborg, Denmark: Institut for Historie, Internationale Studier og Samfundsforhold, Aalborg Universitet. Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. London, UK: Institute of Education. Bowe, J. M., & Gore, J. M. (2012, April). Reassembling teacher professional learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada. Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
References Craven, G. (2013, June 17). Great teaching, inspired learning: Where to from here? A university perspective. Speech presented at the NSW Council of Deans of Education, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.acu.edu.au/ data/assets/pdf_file/0005/566015/20130617_nsw_council_of_deans_of_education_g reat_teaching,_inspired_learning_where_to_from_here,_a_university_perspective_prof_craven.pdf Elmore, R. F. (2007). Professional networks and school improvement. School Administrator, 64(4), 20 25. Gore, J., Bowe, J., Mockler, N., Smith, M., Ellis, H., & Lyell, A. (2013). Investigating Quality Teaching Rounds to support teacher professional learning: Research report. Newcastle, NSW: The University of Newcastle. Gore, J.M., & Bowe, J.M. (2015). Interrupting attrition? Re-shaping the transition from preservice to inservice teaching through Quality Teaching Rounds. International Journal of Educational Research, 73, 82 95. Gore, J., Smith, M., Bowe, J., Ellis, H., Lloyd, A., & Lubans, D. (2015). Quality Teaching Rounds as a professional development intervention for enhancing the quality of teaching: Rationale and study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Educational Research, 74, 82 95. Grönqvist, E., & Vlachos, J. (2008). One size fits all? The effects of teacher cognitive and non-cognitive abilities on student achievement (Working Paper 2008:25 for the Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation). Retrieved from http://www.ifau.se/upload/pdf/se/2008/wp08-25.pdf
References NSW Department of Education and Training. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: A classroom practice guide. Sydney, Australia: Author. NSW Department of Education and Training. (2005). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: An assessment practice guide. Sydney, Australia: Author. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80 91.