Learning and impact – Perspective from Helen Timperley
Glenda’s and Melanie’s reflections highlight the differences between their conversation from the previous screen and the many feedback conversations I have analysed that are based on teacher self-reflection. In both the teacher education literature and in practice, self-reflection is typically developed through a process of self-evaluation. Melanie says that she used to begin her feedback conversations by asking the teacher how he or she thought the lesson had gone. From my experience of reading transcripts of such conversations, these kinds of questions continue throughout the conversation, with the ISTE asking the questions or providing practical suggestions for how the teacher might change his or her practice. The ISTE’s other main contribution is to build the teacher’s confidence through praise.
On the previous screen, I outlined some key principles evident in this case that were consistent with the findings in the TPLD BES. Here I will contrast those principles with more traditional approaches to feedback conversations following an observation of teaching. The first contrast relates to criteria for judging the effectiveness of the observed practice. In more traditional approaches, this effectiveness is usually referenced to the practice itself, not to the impact of the practice on students’ learning. Yet there is little evidence that referencing effectiveness to practice alone has any benefit for student learning.
Secondly, in more traditional approaches, the theories underpinning the ISTE’s questions, suggestions, and praise are not made explicit. In the absence of specific connections to theory, the criteria for effectiveness are self-referential to the ISTE and teacher – that is, they are based on what one or both believe about effectiveness. In addition, opportunities for reflection are usually limited to the practicalities of the observed lesson with limited generalisation to other lessons or students.
Thirdly, the ISTE’s expertise in pedagogical content knowledge remains implicit in their questions and suggestions. ISTEs often repeatedly ask particular questions of teachers if they have an important point to make but are reluctant to state it. This may have contributed to the length of the sessions Melanie experienced in her previous feedback conversations.
The associated process in a traditional interaction is one in which the ISTE controls the conversation through initiating questions rather than co-constructing shared meanings. The teacher’s role in the interaction is to answer the questions and to adopt some of the suggestions.
Finally, the teacher is learning how to self-reflect rather than self-regulate. Self-reflection and self-evaluation are often valued by teachers, as Melanie notes at the beginning of the case, but there is little evidence that they lead to improvements in practice in ways that benefit student learning. Part of the reason for this limited impact is that they limit opportunities for the ISTE to contribute their external expertise.
In contrast, Melanie and Glenda illustrate how professional knowledge and skills can be developed through co-constructed analysis of practice. This analysis uses impact on student learning as the measure of effectiveness and an explicit theoretical basis as a point of reference for both the teaching practice and the analysis of that practice.
