The purpose of this assignment is to develop my research skills. The overall purpose of the assignment is to find ‘what are the pupils and staff perceptions of Assessment for Learning?’ (AfL). ‘Assessment for learning is the process of finding out where learners are within a learning continuum, where they need to go and how best to get there.’ (Welsh Assembly Government, 2010, p. 3). The main question that will be focused on whilst undertaking the research is ‘is questioning an effective AfL tool in the classroom for deepening thinking?’. To answer the research question, a small-scale research study will be conducted in a large Primary School in Wales which has approximately 385 pupils. Whilst undertaking the research, three research tools will be used which include: questionnaire, interview and observation. Throughout the assignment, AfL questioning strategies and the critical analysis of educational research tools will be the main focus. The data collected from the research study will be analysed to form a conclusion to the main research question at the end of the assignment.

It is vital that all teachers and practitioners working with children and young people are able to conduct their own research which can then benefit not only their future practice, but the pupils that they teach. Successful Futures emphasises that sound pedagogy will be essential in order to move forward with the ‘Curriculum for Wales’. The document also outlines for this to be implemented correctly “[it] requires high quality teachers with a sound understanding of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of teaching as well as the ‘what’” (Donalson, 2015, p.71) 

Research into other aspects of a school which include learning, leadership and school improvement all have an influence on classroom practice. This can then lead to new understandings as a result of numerous aspects being researched. (Durrant, 2016, p.10). 

AfL is used in schools to aid teachers to understand where pupils currently are with their learning and how they can help them to progress with their future learning. There are many views on AfL and how it is used in schools. According to The Assessment Reform Group (1999, p.7) ‘assessment for learning must involve pupils, so as to provide them with information about how well they are doing and guide their subsequent efforts.’ Without involving the pupils, AfL would not be beneficial to the pupils or the teachers. However, Sadler (1989) has observed that even when students were provided with valid and reliable feedback about the quality of their work from teachers, it does not necessarily mean that improvement follows. Peddar and James (2012) do not support Sadler’s observation as they believe that both teachers and students are accountable for the achievements made by promoting successful AfL in the classroom. This enables teachers and students to be accountable for themselves as well as collectively due to the fact that learning interpretations are made together as a class and not in isolation. However, Didau (2014) points out that you cannot adjust future teaching based on assessing what a pupil has learned in an individual lesson as this means that AfL has been predicted by the assumption that it is possible to assess what pupils have learned in this way. 

There are many methods that can be used in the classroom to enable pupils to review their work critically and constructively. Questioning, which uses open questions that are expressed in an appropriate manner to encourage pupils to explore their own ideas and reasons is essential when gathering information about what pupils have learnt. (Assessment Reform Group, 1999, p.8). This is supported by Black and Wiliam (1998, p.11) as they believe that ‘discussions, in which pupils are led to talk about their understanding in their own ways, are important aids to improved knowledge and understanding.’ Similarly, Christenbury and Kelly (1983, p. 2) state that ‘through questioning, students can pursue an aspect of a topic that appeals to them or can logically defend a theory or belief that they hold, thus sharpening thinking skills.’ However, Christenbury and Kelly (1983) also recognise that questioning is not suited to all situations in the classroom and that is ‘fruitless’ to direct questions to pupils if they do not have enough information or background knowledge on the topic that is being questioned.

Many teachers do not plan and have dialogue in their lessons, which could give pupils further opportunities to learn. Research shows that teachers give pupils less than one second to answer a question and if not one pupil answers, they move on to ask another question. As a result of such a short amount of wait time, it limits the types of questions that can be asked and answered which only allows for questions which have memorized facts to be answered (Black et al. 2004). If pupils had more time to think about an answer to the question, the pupils may be able to give a better response. Hodgen and Webb (2008) support this view as they believe that for higher order questions, increasing the wait-time to approximately three seconds can have positive effects such as the pupils giving longer answers, more pupils contributing, and pupils are able to comment on each other’s answers and ideas.

When asking pupils questions, it is important to ensure that everyone is engaged and is listening to the question being asked. There are numerous strategies that can be used by the teacher to involve all pupils. Hodgen and Webb (2008) note that ‘no hands up’ can be a positive strategy to use when asking questions as it encourages all pupils to participate by giving an answer. If a pupil is unsure, the teacher is able to go back to the student after a few pupils have given their answers. By doing this, the pupil is still able to participate and has had the opportunity to listen to other pupils’ answers and have time to think of answer of their own. In order to develop thinking and AfL strategies, the Welsh Assembly Government (2010, p.66) included ‘no hands up’ as a strategy to improve the quality of questions and talk. They agree with Hodgen and Webb’s view of ‘no hands up’ and state that as the teacher can select any pupil, all pupils are expected to contribute, and all need to have an answer ready as they could be chosen to answer. Although there are many positives of using the ‘no hands up’ strategy, one limitation could be that it is difficult for teachers to randomly select pupils to answer questions and may therefore be ‘drawn to the ‘usual suspects’ for a good strong response’ (Wiliam, 2014). 

In order to conduct the research study, various research methods were used to answer the research question. The methods used included questionnaires, interviews and an observation. As the research study was of a small-scale, the sample size that was chosen by the researcher varied for each method. The research study was conducted in a mixed year 4/5/6 classroom. The researcher chose a sample size of five year 6 pupils to complete the questionnaires and to participate with the interviews. This decision was made as the researcher felt that they would obtain higher quality responses by choosing the older pupils of the class to participate in these parts of the research study. The researcher chose a sample size of six teachers to complete a questionnaire, three teachers from the Foundation Phase and three teachers from Key Stage 2, however only five teachers completed the questionnaire. The researcher chose to give questionnaires to teachers from across the school to gain a better insight in how AfL and questioning is conducted and how effective it is for varying ages of pupils. For the observation, the researcher chose to observe the introduction and plenary of a class lesson which involved a sample size of twenty-six mixed year 4/5/6 pupils. 

The questionnaires were created on Microsoft Forms. A questionnaire was created for the pupils to complete (see appendix A1 for blank copy) and a separate questionnaire was created for the teachers (see appendix A2 for blank copy). The benefits of using questionnaires as a method included: both the pupils and teachers were able to fill them in online which was free, and the data was collated into graphs and tables on Microsoft Forms which saved time for the researcher. The Welsh Government (2015, p. 25) agrees with these points as they state that questionnaires will be ‘low cost if completed online’ and that if questions are pre-coded, they will provide answers which are easier to analyse. However, a limitation of using questionnaires through Microsoft Forms was that as the questionnaires were emailed to the teachers to fill in during their own time, not all of the participants completed the questionnaire. Wilson and Fox (2009, p.89) agree that there are many benefits of using questionnaires as a research method however, they also recognise that questionnaire have limitations which include: the researcher must ensure that most of the selected sample will complete the questionnaire and also that ‘participants may not recall information or tell the truth about a controversial question.’  

The interviews (see appendix A3 for blank copy) were conducted individually, just outside of the classroom in view of the class teacher. During the interviews, the researcher wrote down the pupils’ answers and re-read what had been written down to the pupils to check that the information was correct. Immediately after the five pupils had been interviewed, the researcher transcribed the interviews onto a Word document. The researcher took a structured approach when creating the interviews for the pupils which was beneficial for the researcher as this made it easier to gain the data that was relevant to answer the research question. Although having pre-planned questions can be beneficial to the researcher as it requires minimal interview skill, Cobb (2016, p.77) argues that by using the same set of questions prepared in advance [it] may [give the researcher] a limited range of possible answers.’ This was a limitation which was noted by the interviewer. Another benefit was that by interviewing pupils individually, the pupils were not influenced by their peers when answering questions as they may have been if interviewed in a group. This is supported by Cobb (2016) as she states that if a pupil was interviewed in a group, the pupils may interact with one another which could possibly affect their own response, this would then reduce the potential of getting the perspective of each individual pupil. A possible limitation of this research method was that the researcher was someone who had previously taught the pupils. This was noted as a limitation by the researcher as this factor could have resulted in the pupils possibly giving answers based on what they thought the researcher was looking for or to try and please the researcher. This is supported by Wilson and Fox (2009) as they state that it could be ‘problematic’ to interview a student that you have taught, as you will have already developed a relationship with the pupil which could have various attitudes to each other. McAteer (2013, p.76-77) also agrees with the above view from Wilson and Fox and adds that the pupil may not feel that they can decline to participate and may be apprehensive about ‘what effect their participation may have on their life within the school.’ McAteer also questions if the pupils will feel that they are able to truthfully respond to the questions asked and if they will feel uncomfortable answering probing questions? Throughout the interview, the researcher reassured the pupils that their answers would be confidential and that their class teacher would not be aware of the answers they gave. The pupils were also told by the researcher that if at any point, they wanted to stop the interview or not answer a question that they were able to. 

An observation tool was created by the researcher prior to undertaking the research (see appendix A4 for blank copy). The researcher created the research tool as an aid in order to know what to focus on during the observation. Benefits of doing an observation include: the researcher is gathering primary data themselves rather than relying on secondary data and the observation took place in a familiar setting for the pupils which was the classroom which enabled the researcher to have a observe the reality in the classroom. The Welsh Government (2015, p.26-27) states that ‘natural settings can afford a more realistic study’, which supports the researchers view. Although the Welsh Government are aware that there are many benefits of the observation method which also include that by having schedule it can eliminate bias, they also state that it can be difficult for the non-participant observers to see things from the perspective of the pupils. A limitation of an observation is that the teacher may have changed the types of questions that they asked the pupils and the pupils may have changed how they behaved during the observation. Another limitation that the researcher noted is that the observation was not completed as anticipated as the researcher was only able to observe during the introduction of the lesson as the teacher did not do a plenary due to the nature of the work that the pupils were doing. Kumar (2014) states that when people are aware that they are being observed, their behaviour may change for numerous reasons and this can include their productivity, and this may occur for many reasons. 

A recurring limitation that was noted by the researcher was that the researcher only had one day to conduct the research study as it was of a small-scale. If the research study was conducted over a longer period of time, the researcher could have had a larger sample size which would have enabled the researcher to gain more data. Also, the researcher could have observed more lessons in different classroom to obtain more data on how questioning is used as an AfL strategy in classrooms and could have made more observation notes.   

Prior to undertaking the research, an ethics form (see appendix B) was completed in order to ensure that all ethical issues had been considered and that all possible aspects of the research study were considered and reviewed in line with British Educational Research Association (BERA) guidelines. It was important to gain consent from the headteacher of the school in order to undertake the research study with pupils (see appendix C for consent form). As the pupils are under the age of 18 which is the age that you are able to give consent, the researcher ensured that they gained assent from the pupils before they participated in the research study. The pupils and teachers were made fully aware that they did not have to participate in the research study and that they could withdraw from the study at any time. The pupils and teachers were also made aware that any data collected as part of the research study would be anonymous and confidential to ensure that the research study was following BERA guidelines. As stated by BERA (2018, p.15) 
‘the best interests of the child are the primary consideration, and the children who are capable of forming their own views should be granted the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting them.’ 

By conducting the research study using numerous methods which included: questionnaires, interviews and observation, the researcher was able to gather a triangulation of data consisting of both quantitative and qualitative data in order to answer the research question. Through analysis of questionnaires, interviews and observation, may key themes came through. It was found that all five pupils liked the use of ‘no hand zone’ in the classroom (appendix D1) and it was found that the teachers use a range of AfL strategies relating to questioning (appendix E1) and all teachers thought that ‘think-pair-share’ initiates deeper thinking in learners (appendix E5). 

The questionnaires that were completed by five pupils mainly focused on the use of ‘no hand zone’ as the researcher was aware that the pupils are very familiar with this strategy. The aim of asking the questions was to find out how the pupils felt about the use of ‘no hand zone’ during being questioned and if it helps them to think more about their answers. Other questions were included as the researcher was also interested in finding out about if the teacher gives the pupils enough wait time when asking questions and how this affects the answers that they give in class. 

Four out of five pupils selected that they do not mind when the teacher uses ‘no hand zone’ and one out of the five pupils selected that they feel confident when the teacher uses ‘no hand zone’ to answer questions (see appendix D3). This suggests that the pupils feel content to answer questions if chosen during ‘no hand zone’ being used. Following this question, when asked to give a reason for the answer that they gave in question 3, one pupil said ‘to give people a chance to say some answers’ (see appendix D4). The importance of pupil involvement in AfL has previously been mentioned by The Assessment Reform Group. The use of ‘no hand zone’ was said to be one of the most effective by one teacher (participant 4) who wrote ‘ensures all pupils are engaged and ready to answer’. Hodgen and Webb (2008) support the use of ‘no hand zone’ as previously mentioned as they state that it encourages all pupils to participate by giving an answer and can be seen as a positive strategy to use. However, another teacher (participant 5) wrote that mini whiteboards or post it notes were most effective in their class and wrote ‘some people may not want to voice their answer’ (appendix E5). One limitation of the ‘no hand zone’ strategy which was noted by Wiliam (2014) as mentioned earlier, was that teachers may be drawn to asking the same pupils questions as it is difficult to select a pupil randomly. A possible reason for these different answers could be that the two participants were from different year groups and therefore their preferred strategy works best for their class. 

However, even though the five pupils previously selected that they all like the use of ‘no hand zone’ in the classroom (appendix D1), when asked if they prefer to put their hand up or for the teacher to use ‘no hand zone’, four out of five pupils selected that they would prefer to put their hand up (appendix D5). When the researcher observed the introduction of a lesson (appendix G), the teacher did not use ‘no hand zone’ when asking the pupils questions. Instead the teacher used the ‘hands up’ strategy when asking the pupils questions and seemed to get a generally high response rate. However, by using ‘hands up’ not all of the pupils would have interacted or possibly thought of an answer to the questions being asked. The strategy used by the teacher could have been as a result of not having planned questions to ask the pupils which could have possibly provoked deeper thinking by the pupils. Also, as the teacher did not use ‘thinking time’ frequently, only once throughout the introduction, this could have had an impact on the answers that the pupils were giving. Black et al. (2004) as aforementioned, support these points at they believe that if teachers do not plan lessons and have dialogue in their lessons, and these points could give pupils further learning opportunities. They also state that if pupils have a short amount of wait time, this can only allow for certain types of questions such as closed questions, which do not help pupils to think beyond memorized facts.

During the interviews, the pupils were asked if they think more when they are asked a question which will have one answer or if they think more if they are asked a question that can have more than one answer. Four out of the five pupils said that they think more if they are asked a question that can have more than one answer (appendix F1, F3, F4, F5). The Assessment Reform Group (1999, p.8) as aforementioned, states that it is essential to use open questions when gathering information about what pupils have learnt. Open ended questions enable pupils to use deeper thinking skills in order to respond to the question. Black and Wiliam (1998) support this by previously stating the importance of discussions that are led by pupils. A question on the questionnaire for the teachers asked ‘which AfL questioning strategy/strategy do you think initiate deeper thinking in learners?...’ (appendix E7). All five participants selected ‘think-pair-share’ as a strategy that they thought initiates deeper thinking in learners. When asked to give reasons to their response to the previous question, participants 2 and 3 stated that ‘pupils are able to bounce ideas off each other’, participant 3 went on to say that it ‘can allow children to discuss things that they might not have thought of themselves. This then leads the children into asking questions and developing their thinking’ (appendix E8). This is supported by Christenbury and Kelly (1983) who previously stated how pupils can sharpen their thinking skills through being questioned as this allows the pupils to pursue a certain aspect of a topic that appeals to them, which they can they go on to discuss in more depth. 

To conclude, the aim of this assignment was to improve my research skills and to find out if questioning is an effective AfL tool in the classroom for deepening thinking. This study has found out that generally pupils respond in quite a positive way to questioning strategies in the classroom and that teachers find many questioning strategies effective in their classrooms. However, although ‘no hand zone’ was liked and understood by pupils, across all ages generally, teachers feel that ‘think-pair-share’ is the most effective AfL strategy for initiating deeper thinking for numerous reasons (see appendix E8). 

Going forward, I will use ‘think-pair-share’ more and will consider using ‘no hand zone’ depending on the age of the class that I will teach on PTE3. I will ensure that I take into account all of the data that I have collected and reflect on how this can aid me moving forward to my next PTE. I will definitely consider how the pupils feel about different strategies in the classroom and will involve the pupils in their learning as frequently as possible. 

Whilst undertaking this research study, I have learnt many new skills such as how to make a suitable questionnaire for pupils and how to conduct an interview. I have learnt how important it is to follow BERA guidelines whilst carrying out research in an educational setting and the importance of ethics when planning a research study and ensuring that ethical practice is at the centre of the study. I have also learnt that being sceptical is key when undertaking research and also when analysing both primary and secondary data. I have also learnt how important it is to be a part of such an inquiring profession.