Incorporating the longitudinal perspective was important for this study as it facilitated arriving at a more comprehensive picture of how AfL was implemented in TEYL. It involved gaining longitudinal data about the frequency and diversity of using AfL and the way in which AfL techniques were implemented: purpose, type of language skills etc. The data were extracted from the responses to the delayed teacher questionnaire (Appendix 13) that was administered to teachers in October 2013: i.e. sixteen months after the main data collection stage finished in May 2012.
The main aim of the questionnaire was to gain insights into how teachers continued to use AfL sixteen months after the study had ended. In Question 2 (Q2) of the delayed questionnaire, teachers were asked to indicate how often they used different AfL techniques on a scale from 1 (never) or (almost never) to 5 (every lesson) or (almost every
lesson). Employing such a scale was justified by the findings from the cross-sectional
172
below, reported using AfL techniques in almost every lesson, while those at the extreme right of the frequency continuum, reported using them almost never. The list of AfL techniques was sourced from the findings presented in Part One of the current chapter. However, space for the respondents to add other techniques, if they had used them, was provided in the questionnaire. Figure 4.4 below presents the results of the analysis of the answers to Q2. It indicates that three teachers (T1, T5, T7) reported frequent use of AfL; two (T2, T4), moderate use; and three (T3, T6, T8), infrequent use. The distribution of the teachers on the frequent-infrequent use continuum resembled the one obtained in May 2012. However, importantly the positions of five of the teachers on the continuum were different.
Figure 4.4: A sliding scale of the frequency of using AfL showing changes over time
The teachers’ positions on the frequency continuum from May 2012 (top half of Fig. 4.4) and October 2013 (bottom half) were compared in order to provide insights into changes in the frequency of implementing AfL techniques as reported by the teachers. The findings indicate that all the teachers who were previously in the mid-range of frequency changed their position on the scale; T7 moved to the ‘frequent use’ category, while T3 and T6 both moved to the opposite side of the continuum. The teachers who used AfL frequently in 2012, i.e. T1 and T5, remained in that category, while T2 and T4 moved from the ‘infrequent use’ to the ‘moderate use’ category. T8 remained in the ‘infrequent use’ category. Overall, this finding confirmed between-teacher variance in the use of AfL
Frequent use Moderate use Infrequent use T1 T5 T3 T6 T7 T2 T4 T8
Frequent use Moderate use Infrequent use T1 T5 T7 T2 T4 T3 T6
T8 BLACK The same frequency
category GREEN Moved to higher frequency category RED Moved to lower frequency category
173
but also indicated that many teachers reported that they changed frequency in the use of AfL.
The measure DivTDQL15 was applied to the data collected from Q2 on the delayed questionnaire to gain insights into the diversity of techniques used by the teachers sixteen months after the end of the study. The techniques used by the teachers in terms of frequency within a lesson were considered representative of the diversity of use. In other words, if a teacher used the given technique type sometimes, often or almost every lesson, it was possible to say that that particular technique added to the diversity of the technique type in the practice of that particular teacher. Whereas the technique types that the teachers reported as never, almost never or rarely being used were considered as not used often enough to provide diversity. For this reason the techniques in the ‘never’ and ‘rarely’ categories were excluded from this analysis. The total number of different technique types was recorded for each teacher. This was compared with the numbers obtained from the cross-sectional phase. The results indicated that there was a greater diversity of technique type in October 2013 compared to May 2012 (Table 4.11). The majority of teachers used quite a large number of different techniques (8-15) and only one teacher (T8) used markedly fewer (4). The findings suggested that the diversity of technique type increased over time.
Table 4.11: Diversity of technique type used by teachers one academic year later T5 T1 T4 T7 T2 T3 T6 T8
Number of technique types recorded in ROWDs in the cross-sectional phase (May 2012)
12 14 3 5 3 9 10 2
Number of technique types recorded in the longitudinal phase (October 2013)
15 14 14 13 10 8 8 4
The results from the cross-sectional and longitudinal phases pertaining to frequency and diversity were compared. They show that one teacher, T8, reported using AfL with limited frequency and diversity. It could in fact be argued that this particular teacher did not use AfL enough to offer useful insights into the implementation of AfL. Nevertheless, identifying T8 as an outlier was useful as it indicated that there could be factors that might inhibit implementing AfL in TEYL classes. This issue warrants future research.
15 This measure is defined in Table 4.5 on page 163
174
While comparing the values of diversity in technique type (Table 4.10, p.171) and places on the frequency continuum from May 2012 and October 2013 (Fig. 4.4), it was observed that the majority of teachers reported using AfL with medium to high frequency and all but one used it with medium to high diversity. This finding is summarised in Figure 4.5 below. May 2012 October 2013 High Frequency Medium Frequency Low Frequency High Frequency Medium Frequency Low Frequency High Diversity T1 T5 T3 T6 - T1 T5 T7 T2 T4 - Medium Diversity - - - - - T3 T6 Low Diversity - T7 T2 T4 T8 - - T8
Figure 4.5: Frequency and diversity in the use of AfL: longitudinal perspective
The above finding could be interpreted in two ways. First, it seems possible that, as teachers became more experienced users of AfL, they became more confident in implementing a wider range of technique types. A second interpretation could be that as they became more experienced in using AfL, some teachers observed that a high diversity in technique type was more appropriate for TEYL classes than a low diversity. The latter interpretation corroborates with the finding that the teachers reported (e.g. Appendix 19, Turns 8-10) that diversity in AfL technique type was needed in order to sustain interest and engagement (RQ1).
Fully investigating the reasons for the occurrence of the changes in frequency and diversity of use is beyond the scope of this study. However, some useful insights into this area have been gained through the analysis of the answers to Questions 1, 3 and 4 of the delayed teacher questionnaire.
Q1 of the questionnaire gathered information about the continuous professional development (CPD) that the teachers participated in between May 2012 and October 2013. The aim was to find out if there was a relationship between the use of AfL and CPD
175
activities. The outcomes of this analysis are presented in Appendix 22. The findings indicate that:
1. The teachers who reported starting to use AfL more frequently or remained in the ‘frequent use’ category had all observed AfL being used in lessons by colleagues. The remaining teachers had not.
2. The teachers who moved from the ‘infrequent’ to the ‘moderate’ use category had participated in AfL training specifically.
3. The teachers who had participated in a different form of assessment training used AfL less frequently over time.
Further insights into the reasons for change in the frequency of using AfL between May 2012 and October 2013 were gained from the qualitative analysis of the teachers’ answers to the open-ended questions: viz. 3 and 4. The teachers were asked to provide their accounts of why they had selected those techniques that they had implemented most frequently. The results indicate that familiarity with a technique type and their perceived ease of implementation were important considerations. Table 4.12 summarises the outcomes of the analysis of the open-ended questions.
176
Table 4.12: Reasons for changes in diversity and frequency over time
Teachers’ reasons for choosing to use AfL Teachers’ reasons for choosing NOT to use AfL High Frequenc y and diversity in AfL use Limited
Familiarity with AfL techniques
gained through training,
observations and experience of using AfL
‘I chose the techniques I used most often because I had learned about them from input sessions and from further
background reading. I tried them and they worked best for me and my students.’
(T1/Q3)
AfL techniques were an integral part
of the teaching style
‘Some of the techniques I use are an essential part of my teaching style and I do not necessarily make a conscious decision to use them.’ (T7/Q3)
AfL was considered an effective tool
to focus students on expectations of outcomes and on students’ own achievement
‘They [AfL techniques] give students an appreciation for what was achieved in the lesson as well as a sense of
accomplishment. It is extremely simple and effective, and they can understand how to improve.’ (T2/Q3)
Lack of familiarity
with a given technique
‘The main reason that I’ve not used these techniques is that I’m (or was) unfamiliar with them.’ (T3/Q4) ‘I may not have seen them [the AfL
techniques that I do not use] in action. I usually
have to witness the effectiveness of a
technique first hand in a language lesson in order to gain a full
appreciation for it.’
(T4/Q4)
Time constraints (on
preparation and within lessons)
‘This could be time consuming to prepare.’
(T6/Q4)
‘Colour coding is sometimes too time consuming with small kids.’ (T5/Q4)
‘The idea of learning partners was not particularly practical due to limited time in class.’ (T7/Q4)
Satisfaction with the amount of AfL
that teachers used
‘I thought they [the AfL techniques that
this teacher used] did the job and there
was no need for other techniques.’
(T8/Q3) Ease of use
‘I used these techniques because these are the ones that I am most happy with, and I find them easy to set up and use.’ (T3/Q3)
The findings indicate that there were a number of factors that contributed to the teachers choosing whether to use AfL or not. Notably, all the reasons seem teacher-focused. That is, they took into account the teachers’ preferences, experiences or knowledge. None of the reasons quoted by the teachers were learner-centred. This might imply that the teachers and their beliefs were important factors in how AfL was implemented.
177
The findings about the reasons for choosing to use AfL indicate that familiarity with AfL techniques, compatibility with their teaching practice and the perceived effectiveness were among the factors that impacted on whether the teachers used AfL or not. It is worth noticing that the teachers who used AfL with medium to high diversity and frequency tended to share their reasons for choosing to use AfL. These included the beliefs that AfL facilitated raising learner awareness of achievement and was compatible with the teaching methods used. It is also important to note that the whole cohort of teachers indicated there were two reasons for not including some of the AfL techniques into their practice: lack of familiarity and time constraints. These reasons confirmed that familiarity with AfL techniques was an important factor in implementation and that practical constraints, like lack of time, can inhibit implementation.
Another interesting longitudinal insight referring to the use of AfL in TEYL classes was drawn from the responses to Q5 of the delayed questionnaire. The teachers were asked to choose three of the AfL techniques that they had identified in their responses to Q2 as most commonly used and to report on which language skills or types of tasks they had used them with. The data confirm that AfL was used with the productive skills: speaking and writing. This finding is similar to those obtained from the cross—sectional phase. Hence, it provides evidence that the types of activities that AfL was used for in TEYL classes did not change over time. The teachers’ answers are summarised in Table 4.13 below.
178
Table 4.13: Use of AfL with task types and language skills reported by the teachers in the delayed questionnaire
AFL16 Skills/ types of activities
WALT Introduction to the lesson (T1, T2, T5, T7)
With any activity to keep learners focused on what they are learning (T1, T7)
SC Writing (T2, T4, T8) Arts and crafts (T2, T6) Speaking (T4, T5)
Classroom management (T4, T6)
ICS With any activity, to introduce or reflect on the learning objective (T1, T2, T3, T6)
LP Speaking (T3, T4, T8)
SF After any task (T4, T8)
TSAW Writing (T5, T6) CMWE Writing (T7)
ITT Speaking (T7)
The final insights provided by the answers to Q6 relate to the impact of AfL that the teachers had observed in their classes. The quotes provided in this section to exemplify the teachers’ comments were copied verbatim from the written answers to the delayed questionnaire. Hence transcribing convention does not apply to them. Most teachers indicated that:
1. The learners were more aware of what they were learning and of how to improve, thus the formative function of assessment could be realised:
‘As for teaching, giving instructions became more efficient and assessing students’ work too. I was amazed how honest the kids were about their own results.’ (T5/QUESTIONAIRE)
‘I think they have a better idea of their own capabilities after they complete a can-do, whereas, after a multiple choice test they only know that they’ve passed or failed.’ (T6/ QUESTIONAIRE)
‘They know what to do and miraculously somehow are able to do it. Which is not to say that they do not make mistakes. Mistakes happen but at least there is an opportunity for them to make mistakes and get those corrected and not as I
179
remember my pre-AfL teaching, you just didn’t know what your student knew because it was hard to get anything out of them.’ (T3/ QUESTIONAIRE).
2. The learners were able to take responsibility for their own learning.
‘When I use these techniques, my students seem to notice the purpose of each lesson and they feel more responsible for their own learning. They take pride in their achievement. As their involvement increases, they enjoy the lessons more and, obviously, learn more.’ (T7/ QUESTIONAIRE)
‘Before using success criteria with writing, I only used to set writing tasks as homework, which almost invariably meant that not all students completed the task. I had the impression that students in that age range (9-11) would view writing as “boring”. However, they have been motivated by doing the writing tasks in this way. It has also taught the students a sense of responsibility as they do peer-correction.’ (T3/ QUESTIONAIRE)
The current section has provided a longitudinal perspective to the findings about the use of AfL in TEYL. The findings indicate that over time the majority of the teachers implemented a greater diversity of AfL techniques. Finally, the data confirm that AfL was used predominantly when teaching productive skills.