#edCPDchat reflections: Components of Coaching

This week’s #edCPDchat was an interesting one for me, as the topic of coaching allowed me to reflect further on recent training on instructional coaching (with Ambition Institute) and reading around the topic to develop a peer coaching model in my department from September, as outlined in this previous blog post.

Throughout the conversation, I was continually asking myself to what extent my plans were actually a form of coaching, as well as considering how I might adapt my plans to make them more effective.

Q1: Can anyone learn to be a coach?

I feel that @EnserMark summed this up concisely when he stated that coaches might struggle to hide it if their ‘personality sucks’.  Unsurprisingly, many others agreed that personality traits were key to a good coach, including being able to ‘believe in capable people’ (@Steven_Berryman) and the need to be ‘kind’ and ‘empathetic’ (@EnserMark).  In a thread later on, @teach_music_ldn also highlighted the importance of a moral purpose, with the coaches needs being the core of the process, not the ‘feather in [the coach’s] cap’.

It also seemed that there was agreement in the need for coaching to be a choice as well, with @MissM0Eng3 stating that there ‘shouldn’t be an expectation that everyone is a coach’ though @HenrySauntson highlighted that a ‘culture of collaboration’ is still a possibility (perhaps with coaching as a part of it, rather than a process everyone follows).

There was also agreement in that learning to be a coach is a process that needs time, with @DrRLofthouse explaining that ‘learning to coach is a developmental process’ with a need for this to be ‘scaffolded’.  This concept, along with the process of ‘focused practice and a reflective feedback loop’ for developing coaches (@Mr_N_Wood), leads to this idea proposed by @Steven_Berryman: coaches should be ‘willing to be coached’ themselves.

Q2: What are the active ingredients of effective coaching?

The consensus for this question involved many agreeing that effective coaching needs active listening, a lack of judgements being made and space (both physical and temporal) for the conversations to happen.  I found this document from CfBT Education Trust (mentioned by @DrRLofthouse in the chat) really useful in outlining what the processes of listening might look like to promote an effective coaching dialogue.  This is vital if we take @informed_edu’s contribution of coaching dialogue being ‘a reflective conversation to stimulate learning and growth’.

I also felt that @jillberry102’s tweet about coaching taking a ‘how can we?’ rather than a ‘why can’t we?’ approach relevant here, especially with the links back to the positive personality traits that were mentioned in the first part of the discussion.

The discussion at this point also turned to a comparison between coaching and mentoring, which becomes trickier in a sense (given that there are different forms of coaching).  I agreed with @Steven_Berryman that coaching should be a ‘meeting of equals’ whereas mentoring implies a hierarchical relationship.  Other contributions highlighted that the coach is there to ‘support [the coachee] in reaching their own conclusions’ through ‘open questioning and reflection’ (@bibliogeordie).  This clashed a little with my understanding of instructional coaching in particular, with Steve Farndon seeing a need for ‘direct, explicit instruction’ for instructional coaching to be ‘efficient’, with this form of coaching assuming ‘that there are some areas where [the coachee] is more novice’ (2019).  That being said, instructional coaching can still seen as a dialogical model, with Caviglioli and Sherrington seeing it as a process where ‘teacher and coaches work together as partners’ (2020) as well as the dialogical process being highlighted in both the CfBT document shared by @DrRLofthouse and ‘Leading Coaching in Schools’ from NCSL.

Q3: How can a coaching culture be grown across a school?

I feel that the main component in the final section of the chat can be summed up in a single word: trust.  @EnserMark stated how a ‘them and us’ culture prevents this and, therefore will prevent the growth of a coaching culture.  @DrRLofthouse also mentioned how successful coaching is ‘harder to achieve in a performative culture’, which gives more reason to decouple it from any performance management process (better still: remove the performance management ‘objectives’ entirely).

Time was another factor cited by people in the discussion, as we all felt that a coaching culture isn’t something that can be generated overnight.  I found @robertkelly95’s reflection really useful here, as he explained how his school changed from the initial plan of all staff being coaches due to the time needed for training (‘better to have a small group of well-trained coaches doing it well’).

My Plans

Overall, it’s difficult for me to justify my initial plans for ‘peer coaching pairs’ as actual coaching.  I think that the element of choice was an important one, as well as the fact that it would be difficult to balance developing my department as effective coaching with other CPD needs, much as @robertkelly95 found in his school.  However, I still feel that pairing staff up for reflection and structuring some of this reflection (in our department meetings) with coaching-style scaffolds will be beneficial.  In the meantime, perhaps I need to consider whether staff might opt-in to a coaching programme across the school.

Thanks again to everyone who joined in this week’s chat for your contributions and expertise.  I hope that anyone who was back at school this week also has a restful weekend, though don’t forget to vote for our next topic on Sunday!

#edCPDchat runs every Wednesday at 7:30pm.  Details of upcoming topics can be found at the @edCPDchat account.

References

Caviglioli O and Sherrington T (2020) Teaching Walkthrus: Five-step guides for instructional coaching. Woodbridge: John Catt Educational Ltd.

Creasey and Paterson (2005) NCSL Leading Coaching in Schools. Available at: http://www.lcll.org.uk/uploads/3/0/9/3/3093873/leading_coaching_in_schools.pdf

Farndon, S (2019) What is instructional coaching? Available at: https://www.ambition.org.uk/blog/what-instructional-coaching/ 

Lofthouse, Leat and Towler (2010) CfBT Coaching for teaching and learning: a practical guide for schools. Available at: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/media/wwwnclacuk/cflat/files/coaching-for-teaching.pdf

#edCPDchat reflections: CPD after lockdown

 

It’s been amazing to see how the concept of an online community talking about quality CPD has grown so quickly from a thread started by @greeborunner and developed into the first #edCPDchat last week.  I’m really proud to have been a part of this alongside Zoe and also colleagues at the Teacher Development Trust (David Weston, Kathryn Morgan, Maria Cunningham and Michelle Barker).

That there was so much engagement in last week’s chat is a testament to those who care about the development of their staff and are actively reflecting on how to give staff the best deal in CPD going forwards.  Below is a summary of some of the key ideas from last week’s chat.

Q1: Planning for 2020-21

The first question asked us to consider the contingencies we’d likely need to consider for the coming academic year, so several responses inevitably centred around the possibility of local lockdowns and blended/remote learning.  @EnserMark highlighted how we need to ensure we’re not ‘caught by surprise’ this time by training staff on what makes effective remote teaching and learning.  We then discussed how this might overlap with classroom pedagogy (so the CPD had a life beyond a lockdown scenario), though Mark highlighted that we need to ensure that staff don’t just replicate classroom teaching on a remote platform (possibly by highlighting the differences between classroom learning and remote learning).

The impact of social distancing on the delivery of CPD was brought up by @robertkelly95, as he shared how his school are moving to CPD delivery in small teams rather than all staff training together.  He explained how this could mean CPD is more tailored to these groups.  I can definitely see this, as it would enable more subject-specific CPD if in subject groups- something we’re pursuing in my school by having a whole-school virtual T&L briefing that’s followed by a subject-specific session in department groups.

The ways in which technology enable us to share and celebrate expertise was also mentioned by Robert, as he mentioned how it could be used to celebrate expertise across the whole school.  Others also shared how they’d done this last year through formats such as a T&L newsletter (@PearceMrs) and a ‘Team’ on Microsoft Teams that had different channels for different strands of CPD (@CeriBoyle).

The content we choose for CPD was also a factor for next year’s planning that @steven_berryman mentioned, in both supporting the bespoke needs of our staff and also not overwhelming them (a sentiment shared by @teacherhead and @greeborunner in tweets they posted as schools returned this week).

Q2: Learnings from Lockdown

Unsurprisingly, many of us again shared how learning more about online learning (both in terms of pedagogy and technology) will impact CPD for the coming months, so that we are prepared for the potential of blended/remote learning.

However, the growth of remote CPD options for teachers was also flagged as an opportunity to exploit by @EnserMark, who mentioned the high quality of online learning available to staff during lockdown (a view I share after attending various webinars, watching the ResearchEdHome videos and attending the Team English online conference).  Mark also noted how it meant teachers were interacting more on virtual platforms, opening up international discussions and CPD.

The benefit of remote CPD is not lost on me, as living in the bucolic East Riding of Yorkshire means that attending conferences/CPD in most major cities can be tricky; I’m definitely hoping for some movement of training online to support with this.  Part-time staff would also find this more useful, as @CeriBoyle noted how on-demand CPD means that it’s more flexible around part-timers and those with other commitments.

Q3: Current CPD Priorities

When it comes to the current priorities, the reoccurring theme of remote learning was prominent again, as many of us shared the need to train staff on effective remote learning.  I particularly liked the idea from @teach_music_ldn, who is using ‘teaching trios’ for peer observations from September and plans on using these groups to support remote learning CPD (with the potential for moving the peer observations to drop-ins on online sessions if remote CPD is used).  I think this would be a great way of ensuring that staff still get to benefit from feedback on their teaching if we do have a local lockdown (though it will be important to have the right culture in place so that it does not get perceived as a process for ‘checking up’ on staff).

There were also contributions from those who are planning to mitigate the impact of students having been away from school for so long, with @lcgeography mentioning the importance of metacognitive strategies and @robertkelly95 highlighting how giving staff clear CPD on behaviour management/expectations will be important as we return.

My Plans

Although it was a hectic 30 minutes keeping up with so many responses, I feel that last Wednesday definitely gave me a lot of important thoughts for the CPD I plan.  It’s certainly made me consider how I can make the most of online tools to build CPD across the different English teachers in my trust, as well as the potential for peer observation to continue if we move to remote learning (as this is a key feature of my department’s CPD that I mentioned in my last blog).

Thanks to all of the contributors to last week’s chat, and sorry if I didn’t mention you directly- there were so many brilliant tweets to choose from!

#edCPDchat runs every Wednesday at 7:30pm.  Details of upcoming topics can be found at the @edCPDchat account.

Developing Departmental CPD

Over the summer, I’ve also spent a lot of time reflecting on the CPD I plan and deliver in order to consider how I can maximise the impact of the CPD for colleagues next year.  A large part of this has involved looking at the CPD for my department, developing on ideas I’ve written about in a previous blog on departmental CPD and in an article for Impact journal.

There can’t be any doubt about the importance of good subject-specific CPD in terms of its impact on a teacher’s practice (as it can be more context-specific) but I also feel it’s important to highlight the potential impact it can have on teacher wellbeing (and, therefore, retention) with the latest TALIS report highlighting ‘a strong focus on providing meaningful and impactful opportunities for professional learning’ as being one of five predictors for teachers’ job satisfaction (Schleicher, 2020).  For this reason, I constantly evaluate my approach to CPD to ensure that my team get the best deal possible.

Developing Retrieval Practice

As with student learning, retrieval practice in teacher CPD can help to embed new pedagogical knowledge into the long-term memory, so it becomes part of their practice.  I’ve been working on developing this over the past couple of years by identifying key threads that we return to across different sessions as well as some brief quizzes in both departmental and whole-school CPD sessions.

However, whilst the ‘key threads’ approach has helped make the programme of CPD more cohesive, I worry that I haven’t focused enough on staff actively retrieving knowledge from prior sessions so (with busy teachers) sometimes important knowledge gets lost.  To better support the impact of retrieval, this year I’m planning the retrieval more specifically (see below) to both assess which knowledge we need to go over and activate the prior knowledge before we develop it further.

Developing Links to Whole-School CPD

Reinforcing the links with whole-school CPD has also been something that I wanted to work on in the coming year, especially given that I co-ordinate the regular CPD briefings for staff.  Next year, our head has suggested moving these from the weekly morning slot to a video briefing at the start of department meetings, therefore allowing departments to discuss ideas from the briefing and apply it to their own context.

Again, reviewing the way I plan these will be important to maximising the impact so, in addition to planning them across a term so that ‘key threads’ run through the sessions, this year I’m getting more feedback from other subject leaders on the proposed sessions, as well as adding in ideas for what to discuss in each department meeting to enable other subject leaders to make the links between the whole-school sessions and their subject-specific CPD.

Developing Staff Ownership

Lastly, I wanted to improve the ownership my staff felt over their own CPD so that I can promote the sense of autonomy that is key to professionalism (Booth, Perry and Boylan, 2019).  Last year, I introduced a regular CPD audit for staff (via a simple online form) to help with this and it was a really useful way of looking at what staff wanted to look at in department time and where they wanted resources to research something independently.  However, I wanted to provide more structured opportunities (and time) for staff to pursue their own development.

I decided on a form of peer coaching to do this, especially as coaching and mentoring were identified as valuable for professional learning across the different evidence reviewed by Weston and Hindley (2019).  For this, I’ve paired the team up to work on their choice of strategies from ‘Teaching Walkthrus’ with a process based on the book’s ‘ADAPT’ model (Caviglioli and Sherrington, 2020).

Whilst I’m aware that the process I’m following may not follow a set coaching model, I’m hoping that using it to introduce CPD on the principles of coaching may give me a foundation to formalise a supportive coaching process at a late stage.

Evaluating the Process

I’m hoping these developments will help to improve the provision for my team, both in terms of giving them more autonomy when it comes to their professional development and continuing the drive for excellent teaching for the children at our school.  However, it will be crucial to consider the impact throughout the year through conversations and opportunities for feedback.  That being said, I’m most looking forward to visiting the classrooms to see my team do what they do best: teach.

References

Booth J, Perry E and Boylan M (2019) Understanding Teaching as a Profession. Teacher CPD: International trends, opportunities and challenges. P35-41. Available at: https://chartered.college/download-international-teacher-cpd-report/

Caviglioli O and Sherrington T (2020) Teaching Walkthrus: Five-step guides for instructional coaching. Woodbridge: John Catt Educational Ltd.

Schleicher, A (2020) TALIS 2018: Insights and Reflections. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS2018_insights_and_interpretations.pdf

Weston, D and Hindley, B (2019) Professional Development: Evidence of What Works. Teacher CPD: International trends, opportunities and challenges. P60-67. Available at: https://chartered.college/download-international-teacher-cpd-report/

Feeding the Pig

A few years ago, I started with a lovely Year 11 (mixed attainment) group who had not had the best of journeys through Years 7, 8, 9 and 10.  Through a combination of an inconsistent curriculum model and high staff turnover, their knowledge of English at that stage had more holes than the collated plot lines of the Marvel film canon.  That September I felt overwhelmed with the fact that all they knew for the literature course was 7 out of 15 poems, 2 out of 5 acts of ‘Macbeth’ and the basic plots for ‘A Christmas Carol’ and ‘An Inspector Calls’.  Their knowledge of apostrophes didn’t even bear thinking about.

When I compare our current Year 10 cohort to that group, part of me feels a little reassured.  They might have missed a fair chunk of Year 10, but they had a much better deal from Year 7 until that point and I know that most of them will come to Year 11 with more English-based knowledge than my old group did.  Surely, if I could support that previous class through the exams with success, we can do the same for our current students.

When it comes to how I approached that group, it really comes down to a crude, yet accurate, analogy that I have heard many people use in education: weighing a pig doesn’t make it any fatter, feeding it does.  So I took the decision to not put any numbers in their frequent feedback.  No grades.  No mark scheme criteria.  No levels.  I needed to get them to believe in themselves and know what they needed to do to improve; knowing that there was ‘some understanding of context’ was unlikely to help them with this.

Instead, there were lots of short bursts of practice, with specific steps on how to improve through assessment for learning that led to responsive teaching.  I changed lesson plans frequently, adapting for gaps in knowledge and misconceptions that I’d discovered.  We broke complex tasks down into steps, rehearsing them again and again until they could do it without me prompting.  In essence: assess, teach, repeat.

When I think about how I’m going to teach Year 11 in September, I’m planning on doing the same again (albeit from a slight distance).  Lots of low stakes quizzing to find the gaps in knowledge and retrieving what they know; lots of modelling, explaining and scaffolding to illustrate what they need to know; and monitoring them closely to know where to go next, what to teach next and when I can start to remove scaffolds.

English Curriculum Thinking

https://www.loom.com/share/ea48047fbd404b709835ec388f2eb5fc

Showing and Not Telling Through Video Feedback

When the pandemic lockdown first began, I had a brief period to finally read through the spring issue of The Chartered College of Teaching’s ‘Impact’ journal, which had been sitting on my dining room table for some time.  Fancourt’s article on using audio feedback with KS5 groups, therefore, was timely for me; it gave me the perfect chance to ensure that my own A level groups would continue to get effective feedback whilst we all worked from home.

However, the benefits that Fancourt outlines have led me to think about how I am likely to continue this method when we are all back in school, as she highlights the benefits of it being time-efficient for staff and low-threat for students.

The Process

Students have been submitting their essays via Microsoft Teams for me, and this has still been the case for the video feedback, though I don’t need to try and edit it with the restrictions of text boxes or print a copy for my usual annotations).  Instead, I open the document on my computer and start by reading through, making some brief (and very messy) notes on paper as I go, creating a rough plan for the video.

Once I’ve read through and made my notes, I then used screen recording software (there are many options here, with some devices having it built in, though Loom is a popular - and free - possibility) to record the video.  After it’s been recorded, I then upload the video to my OneDrive and share the link in the ‘feedback’ box for the assignment where the work is submitted, ready for the student to access.

The next stage, which Fancourt mentions in her article, is that students fill in a reflection document to record their interpretation of the feedback.  I adapted the questions that Fancourt used to help students support their reflection and redraft (see links at the end of the blog) and also asked that students return the document to me once completed.  I felt that this was a crucial stage in the process, as it:

• Gave students a sense of accountability for recording their feedback
• Ensured that students had a log of targets for future essays (I get them to copy and paste them onto the next piece of work to help me with the marking)
• Ensured that students attempted to use their targets to improve
• Allowed me to check that students understood my feedback where needed

Obviously, it is possible that this borders on a mutation of ‘triple marking’, so I want to highlight that the submission of these sheets wasn’t for the purpose of more feedback.  Instead, I saw it as a quality-assurance measure whilst I trained students in how to respond to feedback effectively (allowing me to address the odd student who made notes that were too brief or didn’t answer all of the reflection questions).

Reflections

I found the video element particularly helpful, especially whilst we were working remotely, as it allowed me to highlight where my feedback applied to, as well as modelling improvements in the same way that I would do in a lesson.  This was important to me, as I agree with Christodoulou that feedback should be ‘a recipe’ for improvement; and recipes are easier for many to follow when ‘show not tell’ is used to illustrate how to follow the steps.

Students were also positive about the feedback, highlighting the advantages with the comments below:

• “I found it easier to understand the context of my targets and how they were linked.”
• “The feedback was in more depth, as you explained the targets in more detail.”
• “Making my own notes from your feedback helped me to engage with my targets.”

Next Steps?

As I have already mentioned, I will definitely be looking to use video feedback for KS5 classes when we go back to ‘normal’ (or something that’s close to normal at least.  However, I admit that the process might not be as useful for individual feedback for a class of 30, since it is likely that this would increase workload.

However, it’s certainly useful as a substitute for written feedback for specific students who have low literacy and I’d also consider using the process for whole-class feedback, perhaps getting students to engage with the video and make notes at home before I then develop the feedback and give more time for independent practice in the classroom.

Links:

Fancourt’s Impact article: Listen and Respond: Evaluating the Use of Audio Feedback:

https://bit.ly/ImpactFancourt 

My self reflection sheets (including a template and a student example):

https://bit.ly/ReflectionSheets  

Re-thinking KS3 Assessment

Despite the introduction of ‘life after levels’, KS3 assessment in my department still used similar assessment processes.  These weren’t always workload-friendly and also had problems in the way that they then impacted data entry.  This year, we’ve trialled a new approach

What did KS3 assessment look like before?

Our previous KS3 curriculum model was taught across 4 lessons a week with a 2:2 split across two teachers.  Each teacher taught a different unit, where one focused mostly on reading skills and the other on writing.  This model is one we still hold, as it allows us to exploit some of the benefits of interleaving, as well as being able to accommodate part-time teachers without any awkward splits or ‘passing the baton’ from week to week.

Our assessment of KS3 work at this time, however, was not so effective.  In a model that many English teachers will be familiar with, students completed an assessment piece at the end of each half term (alternating between reading and writing assessments).  These were then assessed using a skills-based criteria that was similar to APP, but used our school’s KS3 grading system of Emerging/Developing/Confident/Excelling.

Evaluating the previous model

The biggest drawback to the previous model by far was the impact on staff workload.  Though staff who had multiple KS3 groups would find their planning load lighter if they had multiple classes on the same topic, come assessment time some staff would have 3 or more sets of books to mark at a similar time, with many staff choosing to take these home over the holidays.

The summative nature of the assessments also meant that it could be difficult to ensure that teachers and students had time to address misconceptions and go over gaps in knowledge, since half of the assessments that took place were positioned at the end of the unit.

It was also clear that the presence of a summative assessment impacted the teaching from some staff.  Though our units were labelled as ‘reading-focused’ or ‘writing-focused’, the intention was always that reading, writing and oracy would be integrated to the teaching across a unit.  However, there were instances where teachers would ‘teach to the test’ to support students’ success in the assessment (which meant that our curriculum became narrowed).

Lastly, we found that the assessment gradings were not always reliable indicators of students’ attainment.  Because of this, we needed to encourage staff to be holistic when entering data for reports (meaning that the grading of the assessments started to become redundant).

This year’s approach

This year, we made the decision to review assessment across KS3, in line with a whole-school review.  Yet continuing with the old model in the meantime did not make sense to me, especially given that it increased workload and didn’t have a noticeable impact on students’ learning.

Our 2:2 split remained, but our medium-term plans are now more granular.  This supports our staff in being more consistent with core knowledge/sequencing, as well as ensuring that reading, writing and oracy are integrated into all units.

In terms of assessment, we have scrapped the summative assessments completely, with staff giving formative feedback on work alongside explicit signposting in the schemes for suggestions of assessment activities and also suggestions of where to integrate follow-up lessons to address misconceptions and model the improvements for a class.

In terms of data entry, we still use the whole-school grading system but it’s all holistic.  To support in the accuracy of these judgements, we have used some department time to standardise using a slimmed-down version of the criteria while we evaluate how we assess and record attainment at KS3.  The fact that the schemes now signpost suggestions of assessment activities has also helped with this, as we can compare pieces across classes within the standardisation process.

Next steps

As we review our whole-school assessment for KS3, I expect that there will be changes that we make to refine our process further.  That being said, it makes me glad to see that what was a temporary measure to support workload has actually started us on the way to more effective assessment for learning for our students.