quality teaching rounds: a - flinders university teaching rounds: a tested approach to enhancing...

Quality Teaching Rounds: A tested approach to enhancing teaching for improved student outcomes

PROFESSOR JENNY GORESciences of Learning in Education | Flinders University | February 2017

DES

IGN

PRO

CES

SES

IMPA

CTSupport such as

protocols, leadership, facilitation

Teacher learning, teaching practice, student outcomes

Design of approach to professional development

Complex field of professional learning

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 fifteen-minute 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

Note: *Marked elements do not pertain to the coding of assessment practice.

Quality Teaching model3 dimensions and 18 elements

Intellectual QualityQuality Learning

Environment SignificanceDeep knowledge Explicit quality criteria Background knowledge

Deep understanding Engagement* Cultural knowledgeProblematic knowledge High expectations Knowledge integrationHigher-order thinking Social support* Inclusivity

Metalanguage Students’ self-regulation* ConnectednessSubstantive communication Student direction Narrative

QUALITY TEACHING: DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Generic Specific

Narrowly focussed Comprehensive

Performance assessment Professional development

Teachers’ work Classroom teaching

Teaching Learning

Open Closed

Self-reflection tool External evaluator

Negotiated

Collaborative analysis

FEAR

HOPE

QT QTR

APST

Teaching

Teachers

Asse

ssme

ntDevelopment

EnhancingTeaching Practice

JudgingTeaching Practice

Supporting Teacher

Development

AssessingTeacherQuality

FFT

CLASS

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

Systemic Implications of Pedagogy and Achievement in NSW public schools

SIPA

Jenny Gore, James Ladwig, Tom Griffiths and Wendy Miller (2004–2007)

Note: *1,942 teachers, some completed the questionnaire in more than one year of the study.

DATA SOURCE 2004 2005 2006 2007 TOTALSchool visits 16 20 12 8 56Teacher questionnaires 796 949 942 805 *3,492Interviews with teachers/executive 192 177 162 80 609

Classroom observations 193 208 153 111 665Assessment tasks coded 95 190 163 73 521Student work coded 4,439 6,875 6,835 3,309 21,458Teachers at coding sessions 89 85 111 57 342

Data collection2004 – 2007

(NSW DEC, 2003)

DEEP KNOWLEDGETo what extent does the knowledge addressed in the lesson focus on a small number of key concepts and the relationships between them?

1 Almost all of the content knowledge of the lesson is shallow because it does not deal with significant concepts or ideas.

2 Some key concepts and ideas are mentioned or covered by the teacher or students, but only at a superficial level.

3Knowledge 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.

4Most 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.

5 Knowledge is deep because focus is sustained on key ideas or concepts throughout the lesson.

Example QT coding scale

Intellectual Quality by sample

Scale Primary (n=362)

Secondary (n=302)Whole sample (n=664)

Quality of classroom practice

Difference between primary and secondary is statistically significant at p < 0.001

4

3

2

1

5

Quality Learning Environment by sample





4

3

2

1

5


Significance by sample




4

3

2

1

5

Element Scale Descriptor

DK 3Knowledge 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.

DU 3Deep 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 3Students 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.

M 2Low 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.

SC 3 Substantive communication among students and/or between teacher and students occurs occasionally and involves at least two sustained interactions.

A typical lesson (2004--2007): Intellectual Quality

Element Scale DescriptorEQC 2 Only general statements are made regarding the desired quality of work.

E 3Variable 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.

HE 3Many 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.

SS 4Social support is clearly positive. Supportive behaviours and comments are directed at most students, including clear attempts at supporting reluctant students.

SSR 4

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.

SD 2Low 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): Quality Learning Environment

Element Scale Descriptor

BK 3Students’ 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.

CK 1 No explicit recognition or valuing of other than the knowledge of the dominant culture is evident in the substance of the lesson.

KI 1 No meaningful connections. All knowledge is strictly restricted to that explicitly defined within a single subject area.

I 4Students 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.

C 2 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.

N 2 Narrative is used on occasion as a minor part of the lesson and/or is loosely connected to the substance of the lesson.

A typical lesson (2004--2007): Significance

Intellectual Quality by sample



Quality of assessment tasks


4

3

2

1

5

Quality Learning Environment by sample





4

3

2

1

5

Signficance by sample





4

3

2

1

5

Quality Teaching for Aboriginal students’ Authentic Achievement

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Low task QT (bottom quartile) High task QT (top quartile)

Mean

auth

entic

achi

evem

ent s

cale

Task total Quality Teaching

Non ATSIATSI

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Low task QT (bottom quartile) High task QT (top quartile)

Mean

auth

entic

achi

evem

ent s

cale

Task total Quality Teaching

Low socioeconomicstudentsHigh socioeconomicstudents

High socioeconomic statusLow socioeconomic status

Quality Teaching for SES Authentic Achievement

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

Effective Implementation of Pedagogical Reform

EIPR

Jenny Gore, Wendy Miller and Julie Bowe (2009–2012)

Quality Teaching Rounds

Instructional Rounds

Quality Teaching

Professional Learning

Community

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

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)

Study overview: Quality Teaching Rounds

Data collection2009–2012

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 190Student NAPLAN scores

(2008: 14,154) 19,888 19,048 19,664 - 72,754

Questionnaires 364 259 207 170 970

Intellectual QualitySIPA EIPR

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 notsustained 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.

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.

SIPA EIPROnly 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.

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.

Quality Learning Environment

SIPA EIPRStudents’ 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.

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.

Significance

NAPLAN literacy results

510

515517 517

512515

512

507

490

500

510

520

2008 2009 2010 2011

Overall literacy

QTR Schools

Non-QTR Schools

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.

498

503

506

502

506

511

506

501

490

500

510

520

2008 2009 2010 2011

Overall numeracy

QTR Schools

Non-QTR Schools

NAPLAN numeracy results

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.

“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 Iwas teaching, even though I thought it was fine and gettinggood 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 differentway…You know, it’s a big awakening too, just cruising along theway I was, which was getting through to them and doing thethings you had to do and following the syllabus and all this kindof thing, but it wasn’t exciting. And now I’m excited about it. It’snot the humdrum, it’s great stuff all the time. (510007)

“

”

So I remember the conversation afterwards and, to be honestwith you, I can’t even remember how the lesson was coded. ButI remember the positive feeling of at the end of the day, drivinghome thinking, wow, I didn’t feel threatened. I didn’t feel thatthere was any negativity. I didn’t feel criticised. Yet, my lessonwas critiqued but I didn’t feel criticised. It was all verypositive. (511022)

“

”

Investigating Quality Teaching Rounds to Support Teacher Professional Learning

ACT QTR

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

1

2

3

4

5

Intellectual Quality Quality LearningEnvironment

Significance

SIPAEIPRACT QTR

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

QTR-Sn = 4

SECTOR

LOCATION

SES

QTR-SETQTR-CHOICE

CONTROL

All schools that wanted to participate

n = 243

Primary schools

Low SES

QTR-Cn = 4

Urban Rural

MidSES

High SES

AllSES

Controln = 4

Secondary schools

Urban Rural

MidSES

High SES

AllSES

Low SES

QTR-Sn = 4

QTR-Cn = 4

Controln = 4

Note. The number of schools in the final row is the final study sample n = 24.

ControlNo QT Rounds until

study completion

.QTR Choice

One set of QT Rounds Choice in PLC size

QTR SetTwo sets of QT Rounds Four teachers per PLC

Group randomisation

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

75% female

9% from language backgrounds other than English

Average age 38 years

20% < four years teaching experience

25% > 16 years teaching experience

Characteristics of participating teachers

Summary of data collected

Data SourceTime point

TotalBaseline 6-months 12-monthsLesson observations 381 365 327 1,073

Teacher surveys 182 177 157 516

Teacher interviews 48 46 48 142

Teacher focus groups (case study)

5 6 11

Executive interviews (case study)

5 6 11

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

2.55

2.65

2.75

2.85

2.95

Baseline 6-months 12-months

Quali

ty Te

achin

g (me

an)

d = 0.4

d = 0.4

d = 0.5

d = 0.2

Impacton Quality Teaching

QTR Set

QTR Choice Control

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?

2.55

2.65

2.75

2.85

2.95


Quali

ty Te

achin

g (me

an)

d = 0.5d = 0.5d = 0.5

Impacton Quality Teaching –per protocol

QTR Set

QTR Choice Control

d = 0.4

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

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2


Mora

le (m

ean)

d = 0.4

d = 0.4

d = 0.6

d = 0.1

ControlQTR Set QTR Choice

Impacton morale

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

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6


Appr

aisal

and R

ecog

nition

(mea

n)

d = 0.4

d = 0.5d = 0.4

d = 0.3QTR Set

QTR Choice

Control

Impacton appraisal and recognition

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 frameworkto base your teaching on…it's nice to have a little bit of a frameworkto … pin your teaching on, to know that you're doing the right thingreally… We can see that the programmes we run … are addressingthe Quality Teaching model and it gives you greater confidence inyour teaching and what you're doing.

“

”Molly, primary teacher of 4-6 years

I really like the way that you actually have the [Quality] Teachingframework there as the basis…. It’s not just a matter of “that lessonworked well”. It’s not a free-for-all discussion. It is actually guided bythe framework which is really good because you’ve got that commonlanguage and everybody kind of understands where you’re comingfrom 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 itand say “well, going on the language here, this is what the codingneeds to be, because that is the evidence we have to be able to backit up”. So, because you’re working in that framework with thatlanguage 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]—Idon’t feel as intimidated. As a new teacher you sort of sit backand go, ‘I don’t really know what they’re talking about’ but QThas given me a lot more confidence so I know I can speak a bitmore because I’m more confident as a teacher. I’m not afraid tospeak 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 beenthe four of us, so you're almost—not forced, but you have tospeak up. You do get the opportunity to share your thoughts andto speak. I know when we were coding, you know, we'd have tojustify why we gave … that particular code. … That's been thebest thing about this is that it’s been in a small [group]. I'vegotten to really know three other teachers and their practicesthroughout 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 askinga lot of questions which shows … that you could be teaching for20 plus years and still have a lot of questions.

“

”

Derek, primary, third year

Doing the rounds was the best thing that I've been able to do.Building that relationship with the other teachers like within differentfaculties that I didn't really have a relationship with before and beingable to go into that faculty and get assistance for certain thingsespecially across-KLA ideas.

“”

Christina, secondary teacher of 1-3 years

Enhances professional relationships to build a culture of learning among teachers

They did not like me, and I did not like them, and it was only onhearsay and reputation alone, and they did not know me from a barof soap, I did not know them from a bar of soap. But when I was inthe room with them and working with them, I respected them and Ilearned 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 thatlittle bit more - like I’ve got to know one lady – closer, and I’m able totalk 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 parentthat didn’t leave. I didn’t even realise! It’s pretty sad …the school isso big I didn’t realise….. I’ve actually been involved in her lessonsand got to know her through this, and her passion, yeah it’s beengood.

“

”Tessa, primary teacher of 10-12 years

…. I think in terms of impact on myself and my colleagues and thekids, I think really this [QTR] has been the biggest winner to behonest [because]…breaking down the barriers going into otherpeoples’ classrooms to share, that collegiate feeling. The kids,probably giving them a more engaging set of activities and the waythat I present the work in the classroom, just more thought goes intothat, and I think as a whole school initiative, you know, everyone’sinvolved so everyone seems to be on board and we have thatcommon 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

DES

IGN

PRO

CES

SES

IMPA

CTQuality Teaching

RoundsTeacher learning, teaching practice, student outcomes

Design of approach to professional development

Complex field of professional learning

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

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

Publications

Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. (AITSL). (2011). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/apst-resources/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-document-library/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_Great_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.

References

quality teaching rounds: a - flinders university teaching rounds: a tested approach to enhancing...

Documents