The ‘Teacher Research Group’ as a collaborative model of professional learning

ABSTRACT

In this study, we adopted a Teacher Research Group model, a collaborative approach to teacher education that draws on the principles of numerous action research models of enquiry. More specifically, a teacher educator worked alongside an experienced physical education teacher over a three-month period to plan, teach and evaluate a series of classroom-based lessons. The Teacher Research Group adopted five teaching strategies that were thought to be significantly related to optimal learning and then refined their use in response to an evaluation of pupils’ learning in the classroom. This article outlines the context for this model, describes its application and finally reviews its value as a means of promoting shared professional learning. Adopting the Teacher Research Group model did lead to changes in teaching strategies and improvements in pupils’ learning outcomes. Moreover, the model was an effective approach to shared professional learning, one that could lead to desirable change among education professionals elsewhere.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher research group
• continuing professional development
• professional learning
• action research
• physical education

Introduction

Teacher education in the United Kingdom often relies on a relatively detached and hierarchical approach where learning about learning occurs as a one-off continuing professional development (CPD) course that is taught away from the classroom by an external teacher educator. CPD courses typically take place during designated training days or in after school twilight sessions. Moreover, a hierarchical expert-novice model is commonly adopted where teacher educators (consultants, senior staff or university lecturers) are recruited to share their expertise with classroom teachers (Darling-Hammond 2006, 2017). Harris, Cale, and Musson (2012) noted that physical education (PE) CPD programmes could not combat systemic weaknesses in teaching when they were typically short in duration, limited in their engagement with teachers and lacking in any ongoing support. They suggested that CPD programmes would be more effective if they engaged ‘teachers and their colleagues in long-term collaborative endeavours that support transformative practice’ (Harris, Cale, and Musson 2012, 4).

In this research, we followed a collaborative Teacher Research Group (TRG) model and engaged in a longer-term process where the teacher (Sean) taught a GCSE PE theory group over a period of three months while the teacher educator (Luke) observed the learning of the pupils. Two associate teachers (also known as student or trainee teachers) also contributed to the teaching and observation of the PE theory lessons and were part of the TRG while they were placed at the school. The research group met after the lessons to reflect on the learning, discuss findings from educational research and jointly plan the next lesson. The overarching aim of this study was to review the value of the TRG as a means of promoting shared professional learning. More specifically, the aim was to analyse how our involvement in a TRG developed our shared understanding of teaching and learning and affected the outcomes for pupils in a Year 10 GCSE PE class.

Literature review

The professional learning of teachers is understood to be an outcome of any activity that is designed to improve teaching practice and transform pupil learning (Kennedy 2014; Prenger, Poortman, and Handelzalts 2018). One-off CPD sessions and more collaborative longer-term approaches are generally valued by educational professionals as they are thought to contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning. That said, the former is seen to be a more transmissive approach and the latter more transformative, as it includes greater opportunities for teacher agency and autonomy (Johannesson 2020; Kennedy 2014). Indeed, for professional learning to be more successful in developing teaching practice and pupil outcomes, it should, according to Desimone and Garet (2015), be designed to allow teachers to be actively involved over a sustained period of time, rather than passively listening as part of a hierarchical expert-novice model. In addition, it should also be organised around the participation of different educators who collectively form an interactive learning network (Desimone and Garet 2015).

The participation of different educators working together in professional learning communities (PLCs) is thought to be a useful collaborative strategy as it can provide support for teachers to rethink and improve their practice (Vescio, Ross, and Adams 2008) and in turn lead to progress in pupil learning (Darling-Hammond 2010). PLCs have common characteristics, such as ongoing critical inquiry, reflection and shared aims (Stoll et al. 2006), but the concept is primarily founded on collaboration and the sharing of experience and expertise. PLCs are typically made up of teachers working together but can also include broader networks that combine teachers with other more diverse colleagues. While professional networks of teachers are thought to lead to school improvement, the latter can be more effective in promoting change between and even beyond schools within broader educational systems (Prenger, Poortman, and Handelzalts 2018). That said, the value of wider networks has been questioned as the challenge of working across boundaries is inevitably more complicated and brings additional costs. Moreover, there is less evidence of specific school improvement when working within more complex structures (Chapman and Muijs 2014). Despite these limitations, PLCs made up of wider and more diverse networks do have access to a broader range of expertise that should provide greater insights and extend opportunities for professional learning (Katz et al. 2008; Prenger, Poortman, and Handelzalts 2018). Thus, there are seemingly good reasons for research that seeks to understand who is involved in successful PLCs and how they collaborate with one another.

Action research is one approach to professional learning that is based on the collaboration of several individuals who share a common aim. It is identified by Kennedy (2014) as a collaborative inquiry model that has the greatest potential for teacher agency and autonomy. It is, in part, thought to be more transformative as it is a cyclical process that is informed by research and classroom practice (Johannesson 2020). This can provide a challenge for teachers as it adds the complexity of mastering research skills and combining them with teaching (Wennergren 2016). The aim for teachers is not to implement evidence-based practice but to align research with practice so that they learn from an evaluation of their own teaching. Adopting this situated approach means that any planned changes are informed by an understanding of existing classroom practice (Johannesson 2020). Moreover, the collaborative aspect of action research allows for increased opportunities for learning, particularly when a critical friend is included in the process. Effective collaboration is more than simply bringing colleagues together, as the inclusion of a critical friend can enrich the process and provide additional insights (Wennergren 2016).

In this research, we used a collaborative TRG model to develop a more adequate understanding of learning in a GCSE PE classroom (Zeichner 2003). As with other models of professional learning, the TRG involves sustained collaboration over a longer period of time. The TRG model also reframes the relationship between a teacher and teacher educator by moving away from an expert-novice approach where teachers are positioned as more passive recipients of knowledge. In the TRG model, the teacher educator and the teacher work together to align expertise in theory and research methods with expertise in the context of the classroom to extend their shared understanding (Burkhardt and Swan 2017; Ioannidou-Koutselini and Patsalidou 2015; Zeichner 2003). Thus, teacher educators are not providers of pedagogical knowledge, rather their role is to work alongside teachers to promote shared thinking, innovation and discovery (Beni, Fletcher, and Chróinín 2018; Jones, Tones, and Foulkes 2019). The collaborative TRG model is also situated within the teacher’s classroom, not the training room, and is founded on a deeper level of shared reflective practice (Burkhardt and Swan 2017; Chróinín, Fletcher, and O’Sullivan 2018; Loughran 2013). This form of reflection is described by Samaras (2011, 10) as ‘a personal, systematic inquiry situated within one’s own teaching context that requires critical and collaborative reflection in order to generate knowledge, as well as inform the broader educational field’.

The TRG model that we adopted shared many of the ‘design, intervene, evaluate’ principles of numerous action research models of teacher enquiry (Zeichner, Payne, and Brayko 2014). It was a cyclical and collaborative model that aimed to transform teaching by systematically developing, implementing and reflecting on teaching and learning. Our TRG model also drew on evidence of transformative professional development (Burkhardt and Swan 2017; Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017; Furlong 2015; Harris, Cale, and Musson 2012; Opfer and Pedder 2011; Schuck and Russell 2005). More specifically, it adhered to the following characteristics: (a) It was a collaborative community of enquiry: we all wanted to develop our understanding of teaching and learning in the context of GCSE PE; (b) It was improvement-aimed: to transform teaching and improve the outcomes for pupils; (c) It involved sustained collaboration: the ongoing process of jointly planning lessons was informed by shared reflection and interrogation of educational research; (d) It was located in the school classroom: the translation of theory into practice allowed for barriers to learning to be interrogated and resolved; (e) It was informed by the experience of understanding how pupils learn; (f) It used a range of qualitative methods, such as field notes from planning and teaching sessions, written reflections, images of pupils’ work and lesson observation notes.

The overarching aim of this study was to review the value of the TRG as a means of promoting shared professional learning and, in turn, pupil achievement. In doing so, the findings may contribute to a deeper understanding of professional learning within a TRG and have possible consequences for teaching in different settings.

Methodology

This project emerged out of a wider proposal that aimed to expand an existing model of collaborative teacher education (Bamber 2018; Darling-Hammond 2017). As such, the research team was led by a PE teacher educator (Luke) who worked with an experienced teacher (Sean) at a local partnership school and, at times, two associate teachers who were completing their school placements. While the teacher was the primary research participant, fifteen year 10 pupils (aged 14/15) consented to participate in the study. The pupils took part in a one-hour GCSE theory class twice a week and shared their work with the research team. To protect the anonymity of those involved, pseudonyms were used to identify pupils and institutions, including the name of the school in which the research was situated.

Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards professional learning are in themselves important in determining the outcome of any CPD (Opfer and Pedder 2011). In this case, Sean’s decision to engage with the TRG model began with his desire to continue to improve his teaching of PE, and in turn to improve the attainment of his pupils in a GCSE theory class. Sean works at a secondary school in the north west of England where 26% of the 474 pupils on roll are eligible for free school meals (Department for Education 2019). The Progress 8 score, showing how much progress pupils made during their secondary education up to the end of their GCSEs, is at −0.64. This is judged to be ‘well below average’, with only 13% of schools in England falling into this lowest category (Department for Education 2019). For the last three years, Sean has worked as a curriculum leader and has more recently been given responsibility for improving exam results in PE and other creative subjects.

Research design

The project took place over a period of three months. Eleven GCSE PE theory lessons were taught and observed during this period, with separate weekly meetings providing time for collaborative reflection and planning of future lessons. During this time, pupils were taught a unit of work that included the study of applied anatomy and physiology, movement analysis and physical training. The content of the lessons related to paper one of the GCSE PE specification, with a focus on the structure and functions of the musculoskeletal system, the nature of aerobic and anaerobic exercise and the short and long term effects of exercise. The first lessons were structured around a pedagogical model that had largely been developed by Sean in collaboration with other teachers within the school. In each lesson, students were introduced to a topic through a low stakes test that was marked by the pupils themselves, with the scores being recorded by Sean. This led to some discussion of the outcomes, with immediate reteaching of any topics that the pupils found more difficult. Pupils also had access to resources that clearly identified a manageable amount of content for them to review in preparation for the next lesson (Finn 2015). This approach was broadly adhered to over the three-month period, although the methods were refined and added to in response to an understanding of the way that the pupils learned (Loughran 2013). The most notable change was the scaffolded introduction of worked examples. This was in response to the inherent complexity of high mark exam questions that required pupils to move beyond basic recall of factual information.

The purpose of the research was not to adhere to one particular teaching approach or assess the effectiveness of one model, that said, the teaching strategies that had been used by Sean did align with Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2017) and the work of Rosenshine (2012). CLT is built on an understanding of how human brains process and store information (Chandler and Sweller 1991; Clark, Kirschner, and Sweller 2012; Sweller 2016; Sweller, van Merriënboer, and Paas 2019). It describes learning as the process of developing a more extensive and intricate knowledge base by taking in new information and relating it to previously stored knowledge. Research on CLT is also used to support Rosenshine’s (2012) model of direct instruction. The pedagogical strategies that are included within Rosenshine’s (2012) Principles of Instruction are thought to align with an understanding, derived from the research of cognitive scientists, on how human brains learn (Creasey 2018). The collaborative work that followed from the TRG tended to follow the same research and aimed to draw on pedagogical ideas developed in a community of enquiry that promoted pupil learning and extended their understanding of the GSCE PE specification (Loughran 2013).

Data collection

Several qualitative data sources were used in the study, which helped build confidence in the findings. Self-generated data included lesson plans and lesson resources as well as eleven personal reflections, which were written at the end of each lesson by Sean. To provide a degree of consistency, Sean used a template to structure his reflections around pupil learning and help him to research his own practice. Two ATs contributed to the lesson by supporting individual pupils while they were placed at the school. They also completed personal reflections at the end of the seven lessons that they were involved in. The teacher educator observed participants in the lesson and noted aspects of learning as they occurred. The eleven sets of observation notes from the lessons also recorded any of the pupils’ comments about the pedagogical approaches that were being used. Finally, pupil-generated data sources included photographs of the pupils’ classwork and class test papers.

Written reflections and lesson observation notes, along with lesson plans, resources, field notes and photographs of pupils’ work, are all considered by Coe et al. (2014) to be useful measures of teaching and learning. They were shared each week between all members of the TRG to allow individual reading of the data and further review of educational research. Areas of interest were identified at the end of the lesson, but other ideas also emerged from individual reflection and were shared via email. Initially, Luke had more responsibility for exploring educational research while Sean developed outline lesson plans. Formal TRG meetings were then held to discuss these data sources, share ideas, and agree on the content of future lessons plans.

Field notes were also taken by Luke during the TRG meetings. They identified the main themes from the lesson review and traced the development of the TRG approach that aimed to question the taken-for-granted assumptions that are bound up in established teaching approaches (Loughran 2013; Schuck and Russell 2005). The dialogue was informed by an understanding of the pupils’ learning and by wider research and aimed to develop ideas about effective teaching within a collaborative community of enquiry.

Data analysis

According to Coe et al. (2014), evaluations of teaching and learning should be approached through continuous analysis and feedback and be reliant on a range of measures that can be triangulated with each other. As such, we engaged in an inductive and recursive analysis of the data. The process of reading and coding the data, allowed themes and patterns to be identified as new data were being generated (Samaras 2011). In particular, we were looking for evidence of pupil learning and how this could be used to guide pedagogical decision-making.

The analytical process was initially completed by Luke and then shared with Sean, who then started to do the same task independently. Thus, the process began with an individual reading of data from the reflections, lesson observation notes, lesson plan, resources, field notes and photographs of pupils’ work. These were coded independently by Sean and Luke to identify particular responses to incidences where a specific learning approach had been used. The second part of the process involved the sharing of our individual analysis to compare findings and identify evidence that confirmed or contested the value of a particular pedagogical approach. Data from pupils’ work was included in this review to find further corroborating or disconfirming data about the effectiveness of the teaching approach (Zeichner 2003).

Drawing data from multiple sources and analysing them individually before sharing our interpretations allowed for greater trust in our conclusions (Samaras 2011). The collaborative community of enquiry that existed between us also promoted deeper questioning and the consideration of alternative interpretations that may have otherwise remained hidden. In addition, the inclusion of pupils’ perspectives provided a further means of examining the impact of pedagogical approaches and informing ongoing decisions about the planning of future lessons (Coe et al. 2014). In this sense, the process was recursive as the data that was generated and analysed each week was used to inform our joint planning of future lessons as the study progressed.

Findings

Five teaching strategies, namely low stakes testing, interleaving, introducing new information in small steps, worked examples and scaffolding, were adopted and then adapted by the TRG during the study. These approaches, which originated in research on CLT (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2017) and Rosenshine’s (2012) direct instruction, were initially adopted as they were thought to be significantly related to optimal learning.

Low stakes testing

Low stakes testing refers to the frequent use of short class ‘quizzes’ that allow for previously learnt material to be reviewed and rehearsed without the anxieties that pupils sometimes associate with summative assessments (Finn 2015). In this study, the pupils were told which area of the syllabus to review in preparation for next week’s low stakes test. They were forewarned in the lesson and, according to Sean, had ‘easy access to the relevant and manageable material for them to be independent learners’ (field notes 1). To this end, the department had paid for knowledge organisers; revision material that provided a clear one-page summary of each of the topics included in the syllabus. The pupils valued this resource, with Sean noting that ‘some of last year’s group are now doing A level PE and they’ve asked for the same resources’ (Reflection 4). There was a very clear routine at the start of each lesson, with workbooks and low stakes test books being handed out as pupils sat down and settled. The pupils had a separate small notebook for their low stakes test, and often the first words spoken by Sean at the start of the lesson were ‘Question number one … .’. The pupils were invariably silent during this part of the lesson and the routine seemingly helped to settle the class and get them engaged in their learning.

The pupils marked their own work and were asked for their grade. Sean recorded this grade on a spreadsheet that was open and in view of all pupils on the whiteboard. This approach was contested by Luke as it seemingly contradicted the value of using low stakes tests to reduce assessment anxiety. Sean stated, however, that he wanted to put the ‘emphasis on students actively engaging in the process of learning independently’ and that they should be ‘held to account in some form, if or when it is clear from the low stakes test that they haven’t done the work’ (meeting field notes 2). This aspect was not in keeping with direct instruction (Rosenshine 2012) or CLT (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2017) but was nonetheless found to help engage the pupils; ‘Martin was really motivated doing the test, he seemed to look forward to doing it’ (AT reflection 2). Sean was also sensitive to the needs of the pupils and always stressed the value of these tests as a means of helping them to practice their recall of knowledge and remedy any areas of weakness. The pupils were asked repeatedly by Luke about this practice and always responded positively, with one pupil noting, ‘I’m the worst in the class and I like it’ (observation notes 11). The pupils seemed to accept the practice by the way they responded. Further discussion and reflection with Sean revealed his view that the aim was ‘not to reduce the stakes, but to get them at the right level so that there’s some pressure and accountability that gets them to engage and spend a bit of time revising’ (meeting field notes 3). They also learnt to see any low scores as an opportunity to identify and overcome mistakes because Sean repeatedly did this with them. That said, the pupils mainly experienced success, with even the weaker pupils often scoring over six out of ten when tackling more challenging content. This promoted confidence and was consistent with Greving and Richter (2019) claim that low stakes tests, as a form of spaced practice, lead to better long-term retention of material than massed practice where the material is studied more intensively but less frequently.

Interleaving

Interleaving was a related practice where the introduction of new content was deliberately interspersed with opportunities to revisit previously learnt material. Reviewing content in this way was thought to strengthen connections to prior learning and develop more fluent recall of flexible knowledge (Rohrer 2012; Rosenshine 2012). There was a generally coherent structure to all of Sean’s lessons, with one activity flowing into the next. The use of low stakes tests did disrupt this pattern as while they were mainly used to revisit information that was built on for the rest of the lesson (lesson plan 3) at other times they were used to review different content that did not match with the rest of the intended learning (lesson plan 5). Following further discussions, Sean also ensured that ‘all of the low stakes tests include some questions that they’ve struggled with previously’ (field notes 4). In this way, he arguably adopted a mastery approach, as questions were repeated and reviewed until pupils achieved success.

The interleaving of content in the low stakes test was extended to other parts of the lessons as the TRG began to recognise the impact that this had on pupils’ learning and engagement; ‘Sam was able to take the concept of long-term training effects and apply it to endurance athletes like we did two weeks ago’ (observation notes 6). This observation aligned with Luke’s reading of research on CLT (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2017) that was shared via email and discussed at the TRG meeting. As such, the teaching approach was adapted so that while pupils knew the purpose and content of the lesson, Sean would also include short activities that deviated from this path to revisit and make connections to prior learning. Interweaving aspects of review and retrieval practice into otherwise coherent progressions in content did provide a planning challenge for the TRG as we aimed to include repetition and practice in varied ways that avoided demotivating the learners. The pupils were initially disrupted by the change in direction but were reassured when Sean explained the purpose of the interleaved approach and shared the evidence that supported its use. Moreover, they began to welcome the distraction as it often provided a short break from some of the more demanding tasks undertaken during the main part of the lesson. One pupil noted, ‘I like it. It’s a shock to the brain, it keeps things fresh’ (observation notes 7).

Introducing new information in small steps

Introducing new information in small steps supposedly recognises the limitations of the working memory and ensures that the learners are not overwhelmed (Clark, Kirschner, and Sweller 2012; Rosenshine 2012). When introducing new information Sean’s teaching was carefully designed, so that complexity and detail were added in a staged manner. Presenting new material in this way, and guiding initial practice, enabled pupils to master the first steps before progressing to the next. It is thought that more complex tasks could then be gradually introduced as pupils developed their schema and could cope with greater intrinsic cognitive load (Leppink and van den Heuvel 2015; Paas, Renkl, and Sweller 2003).

Following a discussion of Rosenshine’s (2012) work, Sean introduced the theme of performance analysis in a subsequent lesson by asking how different types of movements could be described (lesson plan 2). By doing this repeatedly and highlighting correct answers by writing them on the board, the pupils seemingly began to understand a pattern of response where the same concepts were used to analyse different movement skills (observation notes 2). He then led the group through the first part of a worksheet, ‘to address any misconceptions about the use of new physiological terminology’ (field notes 2), before asking the pupils to complete the remaining questions. Finally, Sean moved to an extended answer question that revisited the same information in a more complex way. Again, he checked for understanding by initially asking pupils to evaluate a section of work and explain why it was a good answer (observation notes 2).

In adopting this approach, Sean progressed through a sequence of learning that extended the pupils’ declarative knowledge about performance analysis and also developed their procedural knowledge about how to answer an extended exam style question. He looked to establish fluency in pupils’ recall of a narrow range of information and then aimed to ‘add to this while also extending their ability to apply old knowledge in new situations’ (field notes 2). This was a seemingly coherent process that followed Rosenshine’s (2012) principles of instruction by introducing new information in small steps and using questions to check understanding at each level before progressing to the next.

Some pupils made progress by following this approach, as Sean noted that ‘they could recall basic information and begin to explain how to structure an answer to an extended question’ (field notes 3). That said, it was clear from a review of the pupils’ responses in the TRG meeting that most pupils found extended questions to be more challenging (meeting field notes 3). According to Willingham (2006), it is not easy to achieve a flexible level of understanding where old knowledge can be applied in new situations. It depends on the fluent recall of information from the long-term memory and also on the transfer of this information from a familiar to a new problem. Flexible understanding can be improved with practice (Willingham 2006), but following further reading by Luke, the TRG began to look at the use of worked examples as a more effective means of promoting this aspect of learning. This was thought to be a different way of developing pupils’ declarative knowledge about the content of the syllabus and also their procedural knowledge of how to apply this knowledge in new situations, particularly when answering unfamiliar extended exam-style questions.

Worked examples

Worked examples were used to share and model the process of solving a problem. They provided pupils with detailed examples of solutions and supported their analysis of how the problem was solved. This approach is thought to reduce the cognitive load of learners, allowing them to focus on the essential parts of the problem and to understand the specific steps that are needed to perform a task (Leppink and van den Heuvel 2015; Rosenshine 2012).

The TRG reviewed the use of worked examples, and Sean developed a framework that complied with feedback from the exam board. Pupils were encouraged to structure their answers to longer exam-style questions so that they made a point, used a connective, extended their point and related it to a sporting example. Sean asked pupils to study answers to identify the four different components and showed exam board mark schemes where this approach was recognised to be effective in ‘picking up the higher marks’ (observation notes 5). This approach cohered with the principles of instruction (Rosenshine 2012), and pupils were interested in ways of improving their grades, but there was no obvious improvement in the quality of classwork (pupil work 3, reflection 6). Initially, this was again attributed to the need for ‘more time and practice’ (observation notes 5), but it was also noted by Sean in the TRG meeting that some pupils were ‘simply overwhelmed by a question that requires an extended answer, particularly when it’s phrased in a more complex manner’ (meeting field notes 6). This observation led to further reading, by both Sean and Luke, and the adoption of a scaffolded approach to the use of worked examples.

Scaffolding

Scaffolding is the use of a temporary support that is removed as the learner gains confidence and understanding when tackling a difficult task (Rosenshine 2012). Over a series of lessons, the TRG refined the use of worked examples, with scaffolds being used in the transition to independent problem-solving. The pupils began by studying the steps needed to solve the problem, then they finished partially worked examples before finally solving problems on their own (Leppink and van den Heuvel 2015).

This scaffolded approach was evident in week eight when Sean revisited the topic of long-term adaptations to exercise. At the start of the lesson, Sean used a past exam question and the associated mark scheme to review the pupils’ prior learning and develop their understanding of how to structure their answers. He then provided a worked example with the different parts of the answer highlighted in different colours to show the required pattern of response; point, connective, extended point and sporting example. Finally, he provided a third worked example and asked more process questions about how they might respond to the question and what they needed to include in a successful answer (observation notes 8). Repeatedly studying fully solved examples in different ways was thought to lower the cognitive load of learners as they began to recognise and understand the pattern of response (Leppink and van den Heuvel 2015). Sean then added a level of scaffolding to the lesson (lesson plan 8) by sharing a partly solved example where sections of the answer were missing. The pupils filled in the missing sections and reviewed their work to ensure success. Finally, pupils returned to the first worked example, but now only had the exam question and were asked to complete an unsolved example.

Pictures of pupil’s work from different lessons were analysed, and those from lessons that followed a scaffolded approach were found to show greater evidence of declarative and procedural knowledge (pupil work 5). Sean noted that ‘they were able to recall information and present it in a way that got them into the higher marks’ (meeting field notes 8). The pupils also recognised the progress that they had made, with one claiming that his answer was better than the one provided by the exam board (observation notes 8). That said, Sean felt that it would have been helpful for pupils to mark their own work during the lesson so that they could all immediately see their success and gain greater confidence in answering longer exam questions (reflection 8). This worked with the low stakes test but was not possible given the complexity of marking an extended answer question.

When reflecting on these difficulties, Sean noted that while some issues remained unresolved, ‘being involved in the study has opened my eyes to different ideas and different ways of doing things’ (field notes 11). One of the ATs similarly stated that he enjoyed ‘talking through different ideas and feeling that my contribution was valued’ (AT reflection 6). Finally, Sean also noted that being part of the TRG had prompted him to ‘return to the research on teaching, something I’ve not really done since my PGCE’ (field notes 11).

Discussion

Reducing effective teaching to a list of component parts is inevitably open to criticism as teaching is a complex, multidimensional practice that takes place in diverse and dynamic social contexts. That said, Rosenshine (1983) does claim that it should be possible to list a range of strategies that can at least guide discussions of effective teaching. As such, this study adopted teaching strategies that were informed by wider research and then looked to adapt and add to them in response to an analysis of their impact on pupil learning within one educational setting.

The evidence around the effectiveness of direct instruction is developing (Sweller, van Merriënboer, and Paas 2019). Stockard et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis of more than 400 studies and found ‘positive and significant’ effects of direct instruction on learning outcomes. Coe et al. (2014) similarly found ‘strong evidence’ that the specific instructional practices such as questioning, assessment, reviewing prior learning, providing model responses and scaffolding, had an impact on improved student outcomes. In this study, we also found evidence, in the written and verbal responses of the pupils, for the effectiveness of the five strategies that were derived from research on direct instruction (Rosenshine 2012) and CLT (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2017; Sweller, van Merriënboer, and Paas 2019).

The TRG did, however, identify challenges that would impact the effectiveness of these strategies when implemented in the classroom. Sean is an experienced teacher with a clear understanding of the declarative and procedural knowledge that pupils require to succeed in their exam-based work. His understanding of the material being taught, and how pupils engaged with it, enabled him to respond effectively to the reactions of the pupils and adjust the planned content while teaching the lesson (Coe et al. 2014). Deep subject knowledge is recognised as a hallmark of the most effective teachers (Coe et al. 2014) and had Sean lacked this attribute, then the impact of the five strategies on pupil learning could have been impeded. Similarly, Sean also established high expectations within the class, used effective questioning techniques and ensured a high success rate when introducing a new topic, to give pupils confidence and move beyond the feeling of being overwhelmed (Rosenshine 2012). In this way, the five teaching strategies were useful as they did develop the pupils’ knowledge and understanding, but they cannot be understood in isolation. Their successful implementation was dependent on a range of other pedagogical skills and positive interpersonal relationships also being in place.

The shared pedagogical knowledge of the TRG also contributed to the planning of relatively complex sequences of learning that aimed to include repetition and practice, but to do so in varied ways that avoided demotivating the pupils. Moreover, these aspects of review and retrieval practice were also interwoven into otherwise coherent progressions in content (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2017). This disruption to the introduction of new knowledge provided opportunities to revisit, rehearse and make links with previously learnt concepts (Leppink and van den Heuvel 2015; Paas, Renkl, and Sweller 2003), but did provide a planning challenge for the TRG. The structure of the lesson also initially disrupted the pupils, but they were notably reassured when the rationale for the approach was shared with them. The inclusion of pupils in discussions about the efficacy of the TRG model not only provided a valued source of feedback on the impact of the teaching strategies (Coe et al. 2014) but also helped establish a positive collaborative atmosphere where everyone was invested in the process of learning more effectively.

A commitment to learning also contributed to the success of the TRG. Sean developed his research skills by initially collaborating in the analysis of data and then doing so independently. He also began to read academic research papers on education and share his own thinking on how to introduce and adapt the different teaching approaches. Over the duration of the project, Luke similarly assumed more responsibility for planning lessons and used the school lesson plan template to capture his own ideas. In this way, the TRG allowed the relationship between the teacher and the teacher educator to be reframed. It moved away from an expert-novice approach where one party is positioned as the more passive recipient of knowledge. In the TRG model, Sean and Luke worked together to align expertise in theory and research methods with expertise in the context of the classroom to extend their shared understanding in a reciprocal manner (Burkhardt and Swan 2017; Ioannidou-Koutselini and Patsalidou 2015; Zeichner 2003). This approach addressed a challenge encountered by some teachers who engage in action research of having to master research skills and combine them with teaching (Wennergren 2016). The TRG included a more diverse range of educators whose different skills and perspectives extended opportunities for reciprocal professional learning (Katz et al. 2008; Prenger, Poortman, and Handelzalts 2018).

Conclusion

In this study, we adopted a TRG model that drew on evidence of transformative teacher education and professional learning (Burkhardt and Swan 2017; Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017; Furlong 2015; Harris, Cale, and Musson 2012; Opfer and Pedder 2011; Schuck and Russell 2005). More specifically, a teacher educator worked in collaboration with a PE teacher over a three-month period to plan, teach and evaluate a series of lessons. The TRG adopted five teaching strategies that were thought to be significantly related to optimal learning (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2017; Rosenshine 2012) and then refined their use in response to an evaluation of pupils’ learning.

The strategies were thought by Sean to be effective in promoting the pupils’ learning, and our findings have been shared to extend the knowledge base of teaching and TRGs. There are, however, clear limitations to educational research, particularly as teaching is a complex, multidimensional practice that takes place in changing social contexts. As such, it is always difficult to claim that pupil learning is a direct outcome of one specific teaching approach or that adopting the same approach elsewhere will result in the same outcomes. In this way, the TRG model was valuable, as it moved beyond some of the limitations associated with traditional educational research by being located in a Year 10 classroom, where theory could be transformed into practice in a more authentic manner.

Adopting a TRG model also allowed us to move away from traditional top-down CPD approaches that are taught away from the classroom. Instead, the teacher and teacher educator had the opportunity to engage in the co-design and implementation of teaching strategies, making this a deeply embedded and highly contextualised approach to reciprocal professional learning (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, and Gardner 2017; Ioannidou-Koutselini and Patsalidou 2015). Professional learning is thought to be more effective when it is based on sustained collaboration, where colleagues develop a trusting and non-threatening reciprocal relationship that promotes reflection and open discussion on relevant aspects of pedagogy (Jones, Tones, and Foulkes 2019; Opfer and Pedder 2011). The TRG model promoted genuine collaboration, not least because it developed shared understanding through joint reflection and dialogue. It does depend on the participants’ willingness to commit to the project over a longer period of time, but the rewards were found to be mutually productive, and the model could seemingly be used in different contexts to facilitate changes in teaching approaches. In this way, the TRG model was an effective approach to professional learning, one that lead to changes in teaching strategies and improvements in pupils’ learning outcomes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).