SEGURIDAD FRENTE AL RIESGO DE ACCIÓN DEL RAYO

In order to help situate the reader, a brief description of the data from the classroom observations is given in this section. This general description is derived from the

101 researcher’s field notes from the classroom observations of the three mathematics classes.

The three classes observed exhibited similarities with respect to pedagogy, student activities, class size, and students’ achievement levels. It is not intended that the description presented here portrays any one individual teacher’s sequence of lessons. Rather the description is intended to be representative of the three classrooms, and provides the reader with a sense of the structure of the lessons, and the roles and actions of the participants. As outlined in the methodology chapter (section 3.9.6), three sets of three observations (triplets) were made of each mathematics class; the first triplet of observations in the first term, the second set in term two, and the third set bridging the mock examinations at the end of term three and the start of term four.

4.2.1 A typical teaching session

The first classroom observation of each triplet was conducted during the teaching of the mathematics unit. The purpose of this observation was to gain a sense of the structure of a typical mathematics period, its learning activities and the inter- relationship between the students and their teacher.

All three classrooms share a similar organisational layout. The desks were arranged in rows facing the whiteboard at the front of the room. At the start of the period students informally entered the room, and proceeded to find a seat and get their books and other material out. In all of the classes observed the teacher was always in the room at the start of the period and informally interacted with the students as they came in. The teachers all appeared to have good relationships with their students, and the atmosphere was lively and typically good-natured.

The structure of the lessons followed a consistent pattern within all three classes. The mathematics period started with the teacher reminding students of organisational details of assignments, assessments and ‘Support Maths’ sessions. A small amount of time was then set aside for any questions concerning the homework, although very few students took the opportunity to ask questions. The teacher would then provide an introduction to the day’s lesson, supported by appropriate notes written on the

102 whiteboard, which the students copied down into their note books. During the ‘teaching’ of the material the teacher would generally ask closed questions, either to specific individuals or to the whole class. These episodes of teacher centred activity lasted between 10 and 20 minutes. After the introduction, students were usually requested to engage with a set of exercises from the issued textbook or a worksheet supplied by the teacher. Most of these activities were completed individually, although students generally asked their peers or the teacher for help when needed. During this time the teacher circulated the room checking student progress and answering questions. Occasionally, the teacher would move to the whiteboard to clarify a general concern to a larger group of students, allowing others to continue working. Students typically worked on the set activities until the teacher issued homework and clarified organisational details immediately prior to the end of the mathematics period.

4.2.2 Prior to the assessment

The second of each triplet of classroom observation was conducted during the mathematics period immediately prior to the students sitting the unit assessment. In most instances this period acted as a revision session in which the teacher provided a synopsis of the mathematical content of the unit and addressed any students’ concerns. During the revision session, the teacher’s emphasis was normally on ensuring that students understood the mathematical content rather than specifying the technical requirements to pass the Standard (e.g., you need to get 4 out of the 5 Achieve questions right). The teacher typically emphasised the types and levels of mathematical problem that the students might reasonably expect in the assessment. For example, in the observation of Mr Smith’s class during the first term algebra unit, he emphasised that students could reasonably expect to solve an expression such as x2+8x=400 to achieve at the Merit level. Notably, in this instance he gave an example of a specific mathematical problem but did not highlight the Merit level assessment criteria that this problem is an example of, namely that it requires the use of the quadratic formula.

Observations confirmed teachers’ expressed goals that the mathematical content they present in these revision sessions is designed to maximise the pass rate for the class,

103 rather than maximising individual student’s grades. There was an emphasis on mathematical problems at the Achieve and Merit levels, rather than the Excellence level. During these revision sessions the teacher would often hand out revision material for the students to use as a study resource, complementing any other material that may have been handed out at an earlier stage. In some instances, due to time constraints, the teachers needed to complete teaching the course material during this period, and so could not offer an in-class revision period.

4.2.3 Return of students’ scripts

The third classroom observation in each triplet was conducted when the assessed work was returned to the students. Work was usually returned within a week of the assessment having been sat by the students but, at times, this could be delayed due to school moderation requirements. The structure of the class period when the assessed work was returned was influenced by whether any students were required to complete a ‘resubmission’ of their assessed work. Resubmission6 opportunities are designed to allow students who are close to securing a higher grade the opportunity to find and correct errors in their work. The original script was returned to the student with no marking or feedback on the particular question under consideration. The student was then given a fixed time period, usually 10 or 15 minutes, to find and correct any errors. Whether or not a student was offered a resubmission opportunity was at the professional discretion of the teacher. During this time, the other students were engaged in set work for the new mathematics unit.

If any students needed to undertake a resubmission then this was done in the normal classroom, typically during the first 15 minutes of the period. If no students were required to undertake a resubmission, or after these had been completed, all assessed work was returned. Work was returned on an individual basis with no grades read aloud. In some instances the teacher made private individual comments to students who had done well, or had narrowly missed securing the next grade.

6

A resubmission re-assesses part of the student’s original assessment task. A ‘resit’ is a second opportunity for the student to be assessed against the entire Standard on a new assessment task.

104 Once the scripts had been returned the teacher then provided oral whole-class feedback. This feedback usually started shortly after the last script had been returned, with students being given limited time to look through their scripts. The teacher typically highlighted common mistakes made by the student cohort on selected questions. At times the teacher provided a partial, or full, model answer, at other times, the teacher provided just the final answer to the mathematical problem. The teachers later confirmed the researcher’s observation that the purpose of this feedback session was to help students understand errors, rather than check the teacher’s marking.

Following the teacher directed review of questions, the teachers then invited students to ask questions about specific concerns that had not been addressed in either the written or whole-class oral feedback. Teachers used these student initiated concerns to either further direct the whole-class sessions, or interact with students individually or in small groups. Seeking clarification from the teacher was not common, with typically less than 3 or 4 students in a class asking questions during each of the observed sessions.

During these classroom sessions a lack of focus by some students was noted. Some students were clearly off-task and not looking at their returned work, while others, although focussed on their assessment scripts, were discussing them with their peers, rather than attending to the teacher’s oral feedback. The nature of these student discussions was explored in the student focus group interviews and is addressed in a subsequent section of this results chapter (section 4.6.1).

Once the whole-class oral feedback session had been completed, and any questions answered, the assessment scripts were collected in, and stored in students’ individual assessment folders held by the teacher. Assessment scripts are retained by the school for audit and aegrotat purposes, although students can ask for access to these folders during specified school times.

105