This section reports findings about the purposes of using AfL techniques in TEYL lessons. In the process of reviewing the lesson observations, the technique types were recorded against the relevant purpose(s) in three mutually exclusive categories. These were techniques used: 1) in both age groups, 2) with 7-9 year olds only, 3) with 10-11 year olds only. That analysis is summarised in Appendix 28. The outcomes demonstrated that the teachers’ who used AfL selected different technique types to serve different purposes. This suggested that fitness for purpose might be a consideration in implementing AfL in TEYL classrooms. Comparing the AfL techniques which were used for each purpose between the two age groups in the study allowed for gaining insights into the differences in implementation of AfL in the two age groups. These findings are summarised in Table 4.3 and discussed below.
The findings presented in Column A of Table 4.3 indicate which purposes for using AfL in TEYL that were identified in teachers’ interviews and the focus group discussion (Table 4.1, page 144) could be confirmed through empirical data from lesson observations. It is necessary to note that the data obtained through lesson observations suggested that two of the purposes which were identified in the teachers’ reports (giving/clarifying instructions and measuring learners’ confidence) seemed to be enacted as a part of other purposes (sharing learning objectives and expectations or providing feedback, respectively). As a result of this analysis, new terms for three categories of purposes which AfL was observed to serve in TEYL classrooms have been proposed. These are: setting objectives and
expectations, monitoring performance and checking achievement. The descriptions of each
of the purposes are provided in Column A.
The findings presented in Table 4.3 illustrate how AfL was practically implemented for each of the three categories of purposes and demonstrate the differences in implementation between the two age groups in the study. These are interesting insights, as the learners were at low levels of language proficiency and were developing their literacy skills. In such a context, sharing learning aims and feedback seems inherently difficult, while monitoring own or a peer’s performance, or responding to monitoring conducted by a teacher may be metacognitively too challenging for the younger age group (7-9 year olds).
155
Furthermore, the empirical findings presented in Column A also point towards a complex nature of feedback provision through AfL. There was an indication in the data that the technique types used throughout the lessons or tasks were employed with the aim of helping the learners monitor their own performance (mostly in the older age group) or enable the teachers to monitor learner performance. This type of ongoing feedback was based on short fragments of the learners’ work, e.g. one sentence from a longer piece of writing. In contrast, the feedback provided towards the end of a lesson or a task tended to be based on the entire performance during the given task or lesson that was being assessed, e.g. on the whole piece of writing. In both cases, the feedback aimed to indicate what positive elements the learners were able to demonstrate and/or consider how to improve. However, in the former case, the emphasis was on improving performance during the given task. Whereas in the latter case, the points for improvement could be addressed either through Next Steps (NST) techniques or later in future tasks or lessons (i.e. improvement can happen ‘later’). This seems to be an important characteristic which warrants making a distinction between the purposes for providing feedback in Table 4.3.
Additionally, the findings that refer to feedback provision suggest that the same AfL techniques were used for providing feedback by teachers and by peers. A difference was observed between this group of techniques and the ones used to facilitate self-assessment and reflection. This suggests that the process of providing feedback might have differed depending on who the feedback provider was, i.e. the learners themselves or somebody else. This was an interesting insight as it indicates that feedback in a TEYL classroom could be a very complex phenomenon and would warrant detailed research in the future.
156
Table 4.3: Purposes for using AfL techniques based on data from lesson observations
Purposes for use of AfL confirmed through lesson observations Column E:
Purposes for use of AfL not confirmed through lesson observations Column A:
Purpose for using AfL techniques observed in lessons
Description of the purpose (Purpose reported by teachers)
Column B:
The relationship between the timing and the purpose for using AfL
Column C:
Specific for 7-9 year olds
Column D: Specific for 10-11 year olds
Setting objectives and expectations
When teachers used AfL techniques to share learning objectives, they focused on clarifying expectations of outcomes or explicitly raising students’ awareness of what they were learning.
(Purpose reported by teachers: To share learning objectives. To give and clarify instructions)
The AfL techniques used at the beginning of tasks or lessons were used predominantly to ensure that the students understood the expectations of good performance, the learning objectives and their teacher’s instructions.
The purpose of giving and clarifying instructions, reported by teachers, was observed only in the 7-9 year group.
AfL techniques were less reliant on literacy skills than those used in the older age group.
A wider range of techniques was used in the older age group to explicitly raise the students’ awareness of what they were learning.
There was no confirmation in the data from lesson observations that AfL was used for record keeping or setting up
homework, in either of the age groups.
Using AfL for the purposes of communication with parents was not observed in the 10-11 year olds’ classes and only one instance was recorded in the younger age group. Monitoring performance
This was done by referring to the expectations set earlier in that lesson or by providing feedback on short fragments of the learners’ performance. (Purpose reported by teachers: To provide feedback, To measure learners’ confidence)
The techniques used throughout the lessons seemed to be used mostly for teacher or peer feedback on ongoing performance.
A greater reliance on monitoring by the teacher. There was a wider range of technique types used to measure students’ confidence. A wider range of technique types used to encourage self-monitoring, Checking achievement
This included self-reflection or peer- and/or teacher feedback. The AfL techniques which were deployed for teacher feedback were also used for peer
feedback while those used for self-assessment were different from those used for the first group. (Purpose reported by teachers: To provide feedback,).
The techniques used towards the end of a lesson or a task served the purpose of checking if students knew what they had learnt, and what the areas for improvement were.
There was a wider range of technique types used to provide teacher and peer feedback
AfL techniques less reliant on literacy skills.
There was a wider range of technique types used to facilitate self- assessment and reflection on learning and areas for improvement.
157
The findings presented in Column B above indicate that timing of use was indeed related to the purpose of using AfL techniques. This is useful as it confirms that there were techniques that were better suited to the initial stages of the activities or lessons when the aims were shared and the instructions given. Other AfL techniques were more appropriate towards the end of the activities when feedback was provided and areas for improvement explored. This provides some suggestion as to why the findings addressing RQ1 indicate that the majority of the teachers believed that AfL techniques were compatible with the teaching methods used at the study school. In other words, AfL techniques were used in the parts of the lessons that aimed to address a purpose that was effectively served by a specific set of techniques. This has clear pedagogical implications, as it suggests that how AfL is used and whether it can be successfully implemented is connected to the teaching methodology.
The findings in Columns C and D provide more detailed insights into the differences in how AfL was implemented in the two age groups. First, they indicate that the purpose of using AfL to give and clarify instructions expressed by the largest number of teachers in the teacher interviews (Table 4.1, p. 144), was only observed in the classes of the younger age group. This may suggest that the younger learners needed the type of scaffolding that AfL was believed to provide not only for sustaining work but also for comprehending instructions, or perhaps remembering them for long enough to actually complete the task. This resonates with the finding that teachers tended to deploy techniques that were visually attractive (e.g. SF, SCH, SS, see Appendix 28) and less dependent on literacy skills with the younger learners (7-9 year olds). The AfL techniques used with learners aged 10-11 (e.g. TSAW, IMWE, NST, see Appendix 28) tended to rely more on the students’ ability to read and write.
The findings presented in Table 4.3 indicate how sharing learning objectives was enacted in TEYL. In both age groups, teachers used AfL techniques to help their learners understand the objectives in two ways. One focused on clarifying the expectations of the required standard of performance, e.g. by demonstrating examples of the outcomes that students were expected to complete by the end of a lesson. The other method entailed explicitly informing the students about what they were going to learn, often through I can statements. These were frequently discussed at the beginning of the lesson and returned to towards the end of the session, sometimes to facilitate self-assessment. Not surprisingly, there was more evidence of using the second method in the older age group,
158
where children’s language and literacy levels tended to be higher. It also seems that by explicitly raising the learners’ awareness of what they were learning, the teachers effectively contributed to raising their metacognitive awareness: especially of the requirements of the task at hand (see Section 2.2.1.3.2).
Furthermore, although AfL was used in both age groups to provide feedback, teachers were observed using a wider range of AfL technique types which facilitated self- assessment and reflection on own learning with the 10-11 year olds. In the classes of the 7-9 year olds, a greater reliance on feedback from teachers and peers was observed. This might be interpreted as follows: as learners developed their metacognition, they were able to become more effective at self-assessing and reflecting on their own progress. Another difference, between the two age groups in the study was evident in the use of technique types for judging how confident learners were about their learning. Two AfL techniques were used for that purpose exclusively in lessons with 7-9 year olds, a different one was used with both age groups. This might be due to differences in classroom pedagogy in the two year groups. Specifically, it could indicate that most teachers paid more attention to fostering a positive effect in the younger age group. An alternative interpretation could be that the teachers needed more tangible tools, like AfL techniques, to foster positive feelings, while the same may have been possible to achieve in the older age group without AfL, e.g. by using praise.
The differences in how AfL was implemented in the two age groups are summarised in Table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4: Between-age group differences in the use of AfL
7-9 year olds 10-11 year olds
1. Visual, picture based techniques 2. Wider diversity of technique type
used for:
- Measuring learners’ confidence - Peer assessment
- Teacher assessment
3. AfL frequently used for instruction giving
4. AfL also used for sharing learning aims and feedback
1. AfL techniques reliant on literacy skills
2. Wider diversity of technique type used for:
- Self-assessment and reflection on progress
3. AfL used predominantly for sharing learning aims and feedback
159
The findings in Column E of Table 4.3 (p. 159) suggest that the purposes not strongly represented in interview data could not be confirmed through lesson observations. There was no evidence of using AfL for keeping records and setting homework in video recorded lessons. The one instance of using AfL to communicate with parents was observed solely in the younger age group. This indicates that some differences in the use of AfL might occur between different age groups.