The Enquiring Teacher Aim, focus and purpose of the research The purpose of this small-scale research study is to work collaboratively with another student teacher to plan, deliver and develop a lesson to pupils that will be observed to focus on a specific aspect of children’s learning. The issue that interested me was pupils’ engagement in a lesson and if this varied between pupils. The importance of engaging children in a lesson was acknowledge during my PTE as this is what helps to motivate pupils to become involved in their learning. However, it is something I wish to broaden my knowledge and understanding of to develop my practice. Considering the scope of the study was small, we decided to narrow the aim of our research on: ‘how we can improve pupils’ engagement (regarding learning objectives) by using differentiated success criteria.’ Research context The research took place in two schools located in South Wales. School Y is located in a small village and caters for 422 pupils between 3 and 11 years-old. The school has approximately 3.2% eligible for free school meals and have 7% of pupils who have been identified as having additional learning needs. The class in School Y was a Year 4 class with 24 pupils, 5 girls and 17 boys. School X is an English medium primary school which caters for 424 pupils. The school has a reasonably low percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals, 10% in comparison to the national average of 19%. The school has identified that approximately 11% of pupils have additional needs. There are currently no pupils who speak Welsh at home and only a few speak English as an additional language. I discussed with my research partner that I had opportunities to differentiate my planning to suit learners needs whilst challenging and extending their learning. This was something that I found difficult to do when introducing tasks to the class and identifying what I wanted them to achieve as this was different for different pupils. My research partner also had to take into consideration differentiated planning for her class as they were not all working towards the same level. Together, we decided this would be our narrowed focus to highlight within our research study – ‘how can we improve pupils’ engagement by using differentiated success criteria?’. Short overview of relevant literature To broaden my knowledge around engagement, success criteria and differentiation in the classroom, it was important that I looked further into these by using secondary data such as books, journal articles, government documents and other online materials. Differentiation The ability to differentiate instructions and lessons is considered an important but complex teaching skill (Van de Grift et al, 2011). Mills et al (2014) define differentiated learning as teacher’s ability to acknowledge and identify the learning needs of all learners and how they are able to address these in their practice. Tomlinson (2005), a firm supporter of instructional differentiation, argues that differentiation can involve a range of approaches, including group work, whole class and individual support that are delivered in flexible ways to acknowledge learner needs. Furthermore, acknowledging the need for pupils to be given the opportunity of student voice to consider their experience of differentiated learning and be reflective is expressed within literature (Tomlinson, 2008; Koutselini, 2008). Mirani and Chunawala (2015) argue that by addressing the differentiated instruction of an activity along with pupils interests and ability, teachers are able to maximize pupils’ learning. In schools today, the curriculum is diverse and takes into consideration all aspects of children’s learning and background (reference). It is argued by George (2005), that schools should not base their education system on a one-size-fits-all basis, instead, adopting a more inclusive approach to learning. This requires educators to take into consideration the needs of all children and provides opportunities for children to progress within their learning. This is supported by Professor Graham Donaldson who acknowledges in his ‘Successful Futures’ report that: “..all children should be able to benefit from curriculum and assessment arrangements that will best meet their present needs and equip them for their future lives.” (Donaldson, 2015, p. 5) It is argued by Deunk et al (2015) that teachers who are able to successfully meet the needs of all learners are those who have a deep understanding of students’ ability, their levels of achievement and know how to instruct the learning activity that best suits their ability. This is also acknowledged in the findings by Geel et al (2019) who performed a cognitive task analysis to identify the skills and knowledge used by professionals during complex tasks in mathematics. They found that all professionals highlighted the importance of understanding all pupils, their interests and how to motivate them in their learning. Furthermore, they highlight how teachers are able to gain a deeper understanding of this through classroom observations. Success Criteria The use of success criteria in classrooms is widely implemented across schools in the UK as a strategy for Assessment for Learning (AfL) which have been considered effective in teaching and learning (reference). AfL provides opportunities for pupils to become involved in their learning, with opportunities to develop their understanding and make progress in their learning, through three main areas: questioning, feedback and, peer and self-assessment (William et al¸ 2004; Hodgson and Pile, 2010; Welsh Government, 2010). Glasson (2009), explains how success criteria (SC), a form of formative and summative assessment, is linked to the learning objective and identifies how they can achieve success of the learning objective. This is echoed by Fisher and Frey (2018), who agree that SC allows pupils to address their work and allows them to become self-motivated and active in their learning, promoting greater learner autonomy. If the pupils have a clear understanding of what is expected of them and the steps to success that they need to take, it enables them to take ownership of self-assessing their learning (Absolum, 2010). Children are able to continuously address their success criteria throughout the lesson to assess their work which can help them to make further progress (Glazzard, Denby and Price, 2014). It is often required that children tick off the steps that they believe to have achieved. This enables future learning to be scaffolded as the teacher and pupils themselves will know the next steps of learning will be. John Hattie, a famous professor known for his book, Visible Learning, emphasises the importance of sharing learning intentions with pupils as they should have an understanding of what they should be learning (Hattie, 2012). Furthermore, he recognises the importance of success criteria presented in a way that they understand what success looks like before they begin (Hattie, 2012). Having said this, it is argued that there is a lack of literature that addresses both teacher and learner perspectives into whether the use of AfL strategies are helpful or otherwise (Bennet, 2011). Having said this, a recent study conducted by Crichton and McDaid (2015) looking at two schools in Scotland, focused on the teachers’ and pupils’ perspectives regarding AfL strategies, found that they were aware of the benefits of SC as a tool for AfL. Although, the study went on to explain that it was not always used in the most effective way. Teachers ability to adapt their teaching to meet all learners needs and broaden their knowledge of AfL strategies is something that continues to be addressed within the education sector (Heritage and Chang, 2012). Engagement The importance of engaging pupil’s in their learning is addressed by Griffith and Burns (2012), who consider engagement fundamental to successful learning. Furthermore, they highlight how those pupils who are engaged in their learning, show interest which extends to the level of motivation they have to learn during the lesson. Lesson Study methodology The methodology used is lesson study research. Lesson study (LS) was introduced to the United Kingdom by Pete Dudley in 2001 and is a form of classroom action research which focuses on developing teacher practice (Dudley, 2013). This method of research involves undertaking a cycle of activity collaboratively with another researcher to investigate and improve the aspect of research set out to study so that improvements can be made because pedagogy is better designed and delivered (reference, Department for Education, 2009). The first step in this cycle is to identify a particular topic of interest to focus the LS on. My research partner and I both acknowledged the importance of children being engaged in their learning and have both experiences examples of high and low engagement during our PTE. Thus, we decided to focus our LS on engagement of their learning objective in hopes of developing our own practice for the future. The next step of the approach was to plan how we were going to collect the data, plan a lesson that includes the focus of engagement of the learning objective and identify three case pupils from each class. Conducting the research lesson was the next step in the LS cycle. This involved one research partner conducting the research lesson whilst the other observes and focuses attention on the three case pupils to collect the data. After the lesson is delivered, the interviews will be conducted with the 3 case pupils, providing that they have given assent. The final process in the LS cycle is to reflect on the lesson with the research partner and share data that has been collected in order to revise and adjust. (Figure: Lewis and Hurd, 2011) Lesson study is recognised by Lewis and Hurd (2011) as an important approach to collaborative research as it helps to improve professional development across the profession. This approach was also highlighted many years ago in the 2007 report, ‘How the world’s best school system comes out on top’ report by McKinsey that acknowledged a key feature of successful systems provide opportunities for teachers to work together and learn from each other to develop classroom practices. My assignment is predominantly involving qualitative research as it is concerned with the quality of the data it collects and focuses attention to observations, opinions, feelings and experiences. Qualitative data is _________________ I acknowledge that no research tool on its own is perfect, all have some limitations which is why I have gathered data from a range of tools: observations of learner participants, teacher reflective notes based on Brookfield’s reflective lenses and semi-structured interviews. I am using a triangulation of data that will help to clarify the meaning of the data gathered by using both primary and secondary data within this study (Naughton, Rolfe and Siraj-Blatchford, 2010) By drawing together different methods, the research will be more robust (says who?). The data collected was that of the subjective responses of the non-participant observer and the responses of the chosen three pupils, which was overall qualitative data. In order for us to reflect on the lesson, my research partner and I previously researched reflective models in order to determine something that we found was most appropriate for reflecting on our practice. We came to the decision to use Brookfield’s (1995) four lenses as our model for reflection. This model involves considering the event through four perspectives: autobiographical lens, students’ view, colleagues view and theoretical perspective. The importance of reflective practice is acknowledged by Robins et al (2003) who identifies it as a crucial tool that enables practitioners to understand their pedagogical practice in order to identify their strengths and areas for improvements. This viewpoint is also shared by Roberts (2009) who emphasises the importance of developing the skills needed to be reflective in our practice and considers it as a vital to maximise learning and development. Rushton and Suter (2012) acknowledge how Brookfield’s model provides us with opportunity to be reflective from different perspectives, from which we can reflect on our practice as a whole, and involve others in this process. As our focus for the research was on children’s engagement, we decided to use the Leuven Scale as our tool observation. There are many different forms of observations that researchers can use in order to inform pedagogy. Hopkins (2008) acknowledges this and believes observations play a fundamental role in classroom research as well as supporting the professional development of teachers. There are many strengths of using observation in research that have been recognised by Simpson and Tuson (2003), who acknowledge how observation can enhance data gathered by other techniques and that there are a wide range of observation techniques that can be applied to collect data, making it very flexible. However, it is important to note and be aware of the potential weaknesses observations can have – time, effort and resources; and observer bias (reference). We decided to use a systematic approach to observation by choosing a non-participant as it enables researchers to step outside of the role of practitioner, acting as an objective observer (Palaiologou, 2012). A benefit of non-participant observation is that it is easier to record what is happening during the observations (Curtis, Murphy and Shields, 2014), and we thought the Leuven Scale would enable us to do this. However, Hall (2008) recognises the potential weakness of observer bias in non-participant observation in that the observer may change what is being observed to what they want the observation to find. Throughout our research, we adhered to the guidelines from BERA (2019) to ensure that all research conducted was ethical – this is something that will be addressed later in the assignment. The non-participant observation notes were collected using the Leuven Scale which we adapted to suit our research for observing the engagement of learners (see Appendix _). The Leuven Scale involves looking at the involvement and well-being of learners to indicate the levels at which the learners are functioning. The scales are structured on a scale of 1-to-5, 1 being the lowest level of involvement/well-being in which observers will use to score the learners depending on what they are focusing on. Allen and Gordon (2017) address how the Leuven Scale enables practitioners to address the learners achievement and provides feedback for the learning context. The Leuven Scale has been widely used in educational settings to FINISH AND FIND REFERENCE. Laevers (1994) believed that children who exhibit high levels of involvement, coupled with high levels of well-being result in deeper learning taking place. Our observational schedule we used involved the non-participant observers to quantify the level of engagement of the three case pupils. This observation schedule was planned prior to the research taking place. We used it to observe the engagement at different parts of the lesson to see what level they were operating at in accordance with the scale. For the data collection of the chosen sample participants, we used semi-structured interviews in order to analyse and develop the lesson through the responses given. Semi-structured interviews consist of similar aspects to an everyday conversation, but instead have a clear purpose and approach (Kvale, 2007). It allows for pupil voice, something which Cheminais (2013) values as beneficial for both teachers and pupils. The interviews were face-to-face with the pupils as it allowed me to establish a rapport with the pupils involved, as well as the opportunity to explain a question in more detail if the pupils misunderstood. Currie ( ) acknowledges one particular advantage of semi-structured interviews is that they enable the interviewer to hear different perspectives on the same topic or issue that is being researched. This supports my ontological position for my choice as I believe that pupil’s interactions, views and understanding were all meaningful properties of what my research was designed to explore. Prior to conducting the interviews, we devised a set of open-ended questions that we wished to ask our participants involved in the research (see Appendix _). Denscombe (2014) recognises the importance of open-ended questions to collect qualitative data as it does not restrict participants to respond in-depth. Instead, it helped to develop the pupils’ responses and views on the focused area. Changes to social and welfare policies have been influential in recognising that children should allowed opportunities to speak on issues that pertain to them (Brooker, 2001; Danby, 2002; Alderson, 2008). However, Hopkins (2008) explains the possibility the interviewer might have when trying to get children to explain their thoughts and feelings about what is being questioned. The interviews were audio recorded using a digital device which was used to write up the responses of the participants involved. As part of my reflection process, I used Brookfield’s model to reflect on my practice. Sellars (2017) defines reflection as the purposeful thinking in which practitioners engage with in order to develop and improve their professional practice. This view is also supported by McGregor and Cartwright (2011), who emphasise reflection as a key element of teacher’s practice as it helps practitioner’s to recognise what is effective practice, a skill that is needed for lifelong learning. Brookfield’s (1995) model of reflection is not solely about teacher’s own reflection, instead, it takes into consideration the perspectives of others. Rushton and Suter (2012) addresses the four lenses within this model, explaining how they challenge the assumptions made by others and enables practitioners to view their practice through the four critical lenses: • Autobiographical • Students’ view • Colleagues’ view • Theoretical lens We decided this would be the most beneficial model to use because it allows us to be considerate of the 4 lenses whilst reflecting on our practice, and takes into account self-reflection, feedback and peer assessment as well as the considering the literature in order to improve our practice. For each class, the children that were involved in the semi-structured interview were selected as a sample because the study involved observing children from different ability groups. Therefore, the three pupils from each class were used as the representative sample of the class. Ethical considerations As a researcher, it was important to consider the ethical issues that arise in relation to social research. Ethics refers to: “rules of conduct; typically, to conformity to a code or set of principles.” (Robson, 2002, p. 65) For research within education, this code is set out by the British Education Research Association (BERA). An ethics form was completed and approved by the UWTSD Ethics Committee, before any research was conducted. Once approval had been granted, informed consent of the school was gained to conduct the research study and the use of audio recording as part of the data collected from semi-structured interviews. As the research involved participants under the age of 18, a consent form was provided for parents to sign, depending whether they wanted to give consent for their child to be involved (see Appendix _). I was obliged/required to gain assent from the participants involved in the research. O’Reilly and Dogra (2017), defines assent as the approval by the child of the consent agreed by their parents/carers. This was done in a child-friendly manner which involved two faces on the sheet – happy and sad, for the child to tick accordingly. This also complies with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), article 12 - a child’s right to have a say in matters which affect them. I made participants aware of their right to withdraw, for any or no reason, and at any time (BERA, 2018, p. 18). It was crucial that the anonymity of participants and confidentiality was in mind throughout the research. To ensure anonymity, we used pseudonyms for the participants – Child A, Child B and Child C and for the location of the research – School X and School Y. This made sure that no individuals could be identified in any way. Confidentiality of participants was assured by not disclosing any identifiable information about the data gathered from the participants. The data collected did not include any information such as address, date of birth or background information regarding the participants involved. Lesson Study 1 – results and analysis – 1000 words Lesson objective: To produce The lesson objective was to produce the final copy of …………………………………….They had previously drafted a copy of their limerick poem about a monster which they now had to look at during this level to discuss how to up-level their work to produce the final copy. The class were introduced to the lesson objective at the beginning of the lesson by my research partner in a clear and concise way. Before starting to up-level their work, differentiated success criteria sheets were handed out. My research partner explained that they were going to use this to help them up-level their work and to make sure it included all of the ____ that she was looking for in their poem. How children were to use them was also explained – the children had to check their work against the SC checklist and tick accordingly. The children had to up-level their work in their books before they were able to produce the final copy. Before starting, my research partner allowed time for the pupils to ask any questions as well as checking for understanding. (Please see Appendix ___ for accurate timings) (Please see Appendix ___ for Observation sheet with engagement scale) The observation of engagement began/commenced once the introduction of the lesson had been addressed. Child A – Low ability Child A had a simplified SC checklist to use in order to assess his work – this was suited to the learners ability. At the start of the observation, Child A demonstrated limited level of motivation to engage in the lesson using the SC checklist as they were _____________________. Child A made a brief attempt to assess the work against the criteria, ticking off one step on the SC checklist. Considering what was observed, Child A scored Level 3 on the engagement scale due to being distracted for quite a duration of the lesson by talking to others. In the middle of the observation, Child A had made little progress in the work as they were distracted by others around. However, there was more effort to use the SC checklist than previous. Towards the end of the observation, the child’s level of engagement had not improved. Having said this, Child A’s responses during the semi-structured interview contrasted what I observed. In response to questioning if their level of engagement was higher at certain times of the lesson, Child A stated: “Yes at the middle of the lesson, as it reminded me what I had to do to complete the task.” (Child A) Child B – Average ability Child B also demonstrated moderate levels of engagement throughout the lesson. When observing Child B, it was noted how they made little progress in using the SC checklist as they were distracted at times by talking to the pupils sat next to them. Even when reminded to focus and stay on task, this was a struggle for Child B. During the semi-structured interviews, Child B was asked if they would change anything about the differentiated SC checklist, to which they responded: “Yes, I would like the checklist to be made smaller…not so many points on the sheet.” (Child B) My assumption of this is that, due to the opinion from Child A about the amount of points on the sheet that they needed to address, this might have impacted on their willingness to engage in the lesson. As Child B was capable of upgrading their work to assess against the criteria, this is what resulted in them scoring Level 3 on the engagement scale throughout the lesson as they did not use their capabilities to full extent. Child C – High ability Throughout the lesson, Child C showed signs of engagement and willingness to complete the activity. At the beginning of the observation, it was noted how their concentration on the task was high and they were able to address some of the success criteria frequently and independently to up-level their work, scoring a Level 4. As the lesson progressed, this was still evident and Child C was not distracted by others around them. This part of the lesson was where Child C believed the success criteria enhanced their engagement towards the learning objective, expressing in the interview that they: “…thought about extra things that I needed to add to my work.” (Child C) Towards the end of the lesson, Child C successfully addressed all points on the sheet and ticked them accordingly. Child C was then able to progress onto writing the final copy with the alterations made, scoring a Level 5 on the engagement scale. How could the lesson be improved? After the lesson was delivered and the semi-structured interviews were conducted, my research partner and I discussed how we thought the lesson could be improved (see Appendix__ maybe?). We both agreed that the observation sheet and the use of the engagement scale worked well when observing the three participants across 3 parts of the lesson. We used the feedback from the interview and the lesson to address what improvements could be made. A response that interested us from one of the participants was that they would like it if their classmates could check their work and see if they had included all of the things in order to achieve the learning objective. Complimentary to this idea, this is something that Donaldson (2015) recommended in his report on ‘Successful Futures’, valuing the importance of peer-assessment for providing feedback to their peers against the success criteria. We discussed how we could implement this into the next lesson, providing pupils with the opportunity to self-assess and peer-assess. The second change we wished to implement into the next lesson, involved how the teacher refers to the success criteria throughout the lesson in order to remind them. Reflecting on this lesson, even though the teacher referred to the SC in the introduction, it was not later referred to, in order to remind the pupils which is something that we both acknowledge and wanted to do for the next lesson. Lesson Study 2 – results and analysis The lesson objective was to observe and describe the features of different rocks. Children had to use their prior learning about different rocks in order to make connections with this lesson. A variety of rocks were used to support this lesson, enough for one rock per table, and a PowerPoint presentation that I used at the start of the lesson to provide different information and quizzes about the rocks. I explained the learning objective to the whole class and highlighted that each child had a SC checklist in their books that would help them to be successful in this activity, some different to others (as they were differentiated). I explained what they had to do for the activity and how to use the SC to self-assess and peer-assess prior to them beginning the task. I used questioning as a way of checking children’s understanding as well as thumbs up/thumbs down. Throughout the lesson, I would stop the class at random times and see how far they were in their work and what they were working towards in relation to the SC, reminding them to use the SC to support their learning. Child A – Lower ability From the beginning of the observation, Child A struggled to focus their attention on the task that was set. Once the children were set off to their task, Child A appeared to be engaged in the learning as they were able to contribute to the group and handle the rock that was on their table. However, this only lasted a short period of time as they started to get distracted when they had to start their writing in the books and only produced minimal work expected given the time, acknowledging 1 part of the SC. Therefore, at this stage of the lesson Child A was at Level 2 on the engagement scale. The level of engagement decreased over the middle part of the lesson as Child A was day dreaming, having to be constantly reminded of the task. Having said this, when asked if they felt the checklist affected their engagement, Child A expressed that the SC didn’t help their learning, stating they: “ I already remembered what I had to do.” (Child A) This however, contradicts what was observed. Little more work was produced since the beginning of the lesson and no engagement towards the SC. Towards the end of the lesson, engagement with the SC had picked up a little since last observed and Child A had addressed a second step on the SC. The level of engagement at this point on the scale was Level 2. Child A was able to peer-assess their partners work and provided some oral feedback, engaging well with this responsibility. Child B Child B started the lesson with little engagement towards the SC, however showed engagement with the activity. At times, they were distracted by others on the table and ended up focusing their attention on other things – scoring Level 2 on the engagement scale. As the lesson progressed, Child B’s engagement with the SC had improved as they demonstrated moderate progress by acknowledging the steps and ticking accordingly. Child B was not working to their full capability at this point – scoring Level 3 on the scale. By the end of the lesson, Child B’s engagement had greatly increased. They were using the SC and addressing this as they were writing to make sure they were achieving the steps for successful learning. Child B was focused on their work and motivated to complete the task and they knew the lesson was coming to an end. The level of engagement awarded at this point was Level 5. Child B was able to peer-assess work and provided feedback to their partner about their work, engaged throughout the set time for this. Child C – High ability Child C demonstrated moderate engagement with the SC from the beginning of the lesson. They were able to make a start at the activity, however their attention was drawn elsewhere at times which inhibited their ability to progress towards the SC. Their engagement level at this point was Level 3. As the lesson progressed, the level of engagement remained the same. Child C was not using his capabilities to full extent as they had only made little progress since the beginning of the lesson. The level of engagement towards the end of the lesson had increased to Level 4. Child C was addressing the SC more frequently and focused on the task much more. They did not let others distract them, instead carried on completing the activity which resulted in them achieving more steps from the SC. Child C engaged well with the role of peer-assessing a partners work using their SC checklist to see how they achieved in the lesson and provided oral feedback about the work. Discussion of research findings in relation to related literature and research By reviewing the literature and addressing my research findings I was able to capture a small insight into how the use of a differentiated SC improved pupils’ engagement with the lesson objective. It became clear during the lesson study how the need for SC to be differentiated according to pupils needs was crucial, as previously addressed by George (2005) and later on by Chunawala (2015) , in order to maximise their learning. Across both schools, the use of differentiated learning was eminent across the two different subjects observed. I found out the importance of understanding learners’ abilities and implementing approaches of how to instruct the learning in a way that was achievable for all. It was evident from the research findings how children who were of lower ability were less engaged with the learning objective than their peers, especially those of higher ability. This was not something I came across in the literature, however would be something to research into in the future. I found that the use of peer-assessment within the SC checklist worked well with all three participants as they enjoyed having this role and engaged well with the task, something which the new curriculum in Wales values the importance of (Donaldson, 2015). Even though the overall engagement of the pupils engaged slightly, the observer found that when the children were asked to stop and reminded of the SC, the children did make attempts to acknowledge the SC before picking up where they left prior to stopping. This was something that was acknowledge after Lesson Study 1. I believe the Lesson Study method worked well in order to work together with another student teacher to focus on a particular aspect of classroom learning. It complimented what was highlighted in the literature by Lewis and Hurd (2011), that it enables practitioners to improve their practice through collaborative learning with others in the profession. It was interesting to have the role of observer as well as having the opportunity to deliver a lesson which had the same focus and intervention in order to observe the participants. The role of non-participant observation worked well as it allowed the observer to focus on what was happening in accordance to engagement scale, something valued by Curtis, Murphy and Shields (2014). From this research, I understand the important role teachers have to provide opportunities for children to take ownership of their learning and how children’s’ engagement could be improved through differentiated learning and instruction that is suitable to their level of learning. Conclusion As mentioned previously, I believe that the methods used for this research study were appropriate and useful to explore the topic of engagement in learning. The observation method of collecting the data was reliable as they were replicated in the second Lesson Study. The same scale of engagement was used to observe the participants engagement during the lesson, therefore we knew it would produce data related to the engagement scale. Having said this, the validity of the research could be questionable, as there was an anomaly between what was observed and the interview responses, as they did not correspond. It is important to be mindful that we cannot generalise the findings as it was a small-scale study and carried out in two different schools whereby the context of the lesson was different. Something which we did not do for this Lesson Study was piloting any of the methods. I believe that this could have helped us to make any adjustments or refine the interview questions and what we included in each level of engagement descriptions. This is something that I would take into consideration if I were to carry out a similar small-scale study. To move forward in my teaching in my next school experience, I will acknowledge the literature surrounding engagement in learning and possible AfL strategies that could be used to support this as I know this is addressed in the new curriculum in Wales. I have experienced planning for all learners needs and differentiating lessons to meet their individual needs, which I am grateful for as I know how difficult and important this skill is for teachers to master. This was addressed in the literature by Van de Grift et al (2011) who considers it a complex but necessary teaching skill. Recommendations From this research study, I have gained insight into how children’s engagement can be improved by using AfL strategies such as success criteria, self-assessment and peer-assessment. The findings from this small-scale study could be taken forward by exploring different AfL strategies that could help to improve pupils’ engagement. This would involve looking at relevant documents such as Welsh Assembly Government (2010), as well as literature relating to the strategies. To continue developing my own skills as a teacher, I would seek any opportunities given to use Lesson Study as a method for collaborative research again in my teaching practice. I believe it provides a great opportunity to work together, sharing ideas and reflecting on practice to inform teaching which McKinsey (2007) argued contributed to successful schools. I consider sharing good practice crucial in teaching as it deepens the knowledge and generates creative and innovative ideas by someone in the same profession. If I did the lesson study again, I would work with more than one practitioner, ideally 3 or 4 to gain different perspectives on the lesson and to be able to share many ideas among us. Reflecting on this research study, I acknowledge how it will help me with my professional standards in my teaching practice. It will help me to reflect on my own practice and understand the impact on learners as reflective practice is important for teachers. Alongside this, the research will help me to understand the importance of developing my subject knowledge in a way that will motivate learners. Furthermore, the research study has demonstrated the importance of having a clear awareness of individual needs and targets which will be crucial in my future planning for PTE2.