H810 ECA EMA

Angela Phillips H810 ECA
Page 1 of 32
Introduction
As an Advanced Skills Teacher (AST) specialising in secondary mathematics, I have had the opportunity to work within many different schools within Bradford, UK. The majority of my role involved teaching students face to face, however secondary schools are increasingly trying to utilise web based programs and new technologies within the classroom and for homework projects. As part of my role I have had the opportunity to be involved with a case study to introduce new technologies into secondary schools within Bradford. The purpose of the study was to see if new technologies could further engage students (Dahlstrom et al., 2011), (Pierce et al. 2005) and therefore improve academic performance. At no point during the case study was the accessibility for students with special educational needs or disabilities raised by any of the educational professionals involved, including myself. After starting H810, I realised that many of the Web 2.0 technologies that I use in the classroom and have been recommending to other educators, are not accessible for all students.
OFSTED (2010), states, “Just over one in five pupils – 1.7 million school-age children in England – are identified as having special educational needs... However, we also recognise that as many as half of all pupils identified for School Action would not be identified as having special educational needs if schools focused on improving teaching and learning for all, with individual goals for improvement.” This quote supports the recommendation of Seale (2006), that if accessibility is planned for all learners, regardless of whether there is a student with a known educational need in the class, there would be an educational benefit for more than the students with known accessibility issues.
The Special Educational Needs (SEN) and inclusion policy within the school I worked at is clear (Queensbury, 2011a), (Queensbury, 2011b), and all staff are responsible for ensuring the students who are in their classes are able to access the curriculum. The SEN team are responsible for supporting teaching staff to ensure staff are able to differentiate their lessons for students with SEN or disabilities. However, the use of new technologies within school is not the responsibility of the SEN team. The SEN team do not have the capacity or the training to become responsible for supporting teaching staff with the implementation or adaptation of new and web 2.0 technologies.
The majority of students have access to web based applications at home (Office of National Statistics, 2011) and are many are confident with new technologies and Web 2.0. Pettit and Kukulska-Hulme (2011), suggest that students are using mobile devices for a range of different activities, including web based activities. Dahlstrom et al. (2011) suggests that mobile technology was found to be the technology of choice for students, 67% of students had an iPod and 55% had a smart phone. As the majority of students are using technology in their everyday life it appears to be the logical that students will expect to use technology in their learning. I have experienced that some teachers are keen to embrace the potential learning benefits to using web 2.0

Page 2 of 32
applications and new technologies in the classroom. However, the National Union of Students (2010) suggests that some teachers are often not as technologically proficient as some of their students. With the lack of digital literacy (Ginsburg et al., 2000) and the lack of time and training given to teaching staff in the use of these technologies (Carlson, 2002) the effective use of these technologies has been questionable. In my opinion within secondary education, the use of new technologies and web 2.0 is in its infancy. Many staff are finding technologies that they are confident using and implementing the technology within their lessons without any form of planning or review of any of the technologies. I suspect accessibility has not be considered.

Page 3 of 32
Issue 1 - Who is responsible for the effective use of technologies within school? How is this monitored?
Queensbury School (2011a) states, “The SENCO [Special Educational Needs Co- ordinator] will... Provide professional guidance and continuing professional development for all staff to secure high-quality teaching and effective use of resources for students with SEN”. The policy implies that the SENCO is responsible for ensuring effective use of resources, which could include new technologies and web 2.0 applications. The policy also states that, “The staff at Queensbury School are committed to the inclusion of all students. We therefore... Identify and overcome potential barriers to learning”. The quote suggests that all staff within the school are responsible for ensuring that any barriers to learning are identified and overcome, which would include accessibility barriers. The two quotes suggest that it is a responsibility of all staff to identify and overcome accessibility issues. Where this is not within the capabilities of the staff member the SENCO is to provide support and training. . However, as previously stated within the introduction the SEN team do not have the time or capacity to ensure that all new technologies and web 2.0 applications are accessible for all.
Another key question that needs to be addressed is how is accessibility being monitored? The monitoring of effective teaching and learning within schools falls to the teaching and learning team. The teaching and learning team consists of two Assistant Head Teachers (AHT) and two AST, including myself. The team is responsible for improving teaching and learning across school. To ensure standards are improving and to highlight areas of strength and limitations within the teaching across school, all teachers are formally observed twice per academic year. The observations are conducted and teachers are graded following the schools adapted criteria, based on OFSTED guidelines, see appendix 1. The criteria does not take into account the accessibility of the learning activities in the lesson. As the accessibility is not included as criteria for lesson observations, it could be perceived that it is not a key objective of the judgment. Therefore I conclude that accessibility is not being monitored within formal observations it will not appear to be a key consideration of the school. Accessibility does not appear to be a key focus within many schools, Cox (2013) states, “Ofsted and the learning of our students are the main incentives, although regarding Ofsted there are numerous other things our organisation is focusing on for Ofsted. I am sure accessibility is way down on the list.”
As Queensbury School is a computing specialist school (Queensbury School, 2012) the introduction of new technologies and web 2.0 applications has been endorsed by the Information Communications Technology (ICT) department within school. The ICT department has encouraged teaching staff to use these technologies within lessons and to set homework using the technologies. The teaching and learning team have also encouraged the use of new technologies, as good pedagogical practice (Pierce et al. 2005). The technologies are rapidly being introduced, but there are no clear

Page 4 of 32
guidelines as to how the effectiveness or accessibility of these technologies is monitored.
There is a lack of responsibility for new technologies, as responsibility appears to be shared between several different departments/teams depending on issue arising. For example, if the technology is misused the responsibility for the technology becomes the Head of Year (HOY), if the technology is not working it becomes the responsibility of the ICT technicians, if the technology has not had the required learning outcome it becomes the responsibility of the teaching and learning team or the Head of Department (HOD). However, none of the departments/ teams wants to have responsibility of new technologies and web 2.0 applications.
I have devised figure 1 to demonstrate the responsibilities within school at present, in relation to new technologies.
Figure 1: A diagram to show how new technology is viewed within the responsibility framework.
Figure 1 clearly demonstrates that there is no obvious individual, department or team that is fully responsible for new technologies and web 2.0 applications, all the stakeholders mentioned have some responsibility for the effective use of technology and web 2.0 applications within school.

Page 5 of 32
As staff use a wider range of new technologies and web 2.0 applications, it is impossible to keep up with the different technologies being used within school. During formal observations in June 2012, I observed four lessons on a particular day. During those four lessons I witnessed the use of iPod touches reading QR codes, flipcams to make video clips, handheld microphones to make audio clips, digital cameras for photographs, Wallwisher to share ideas (Xiphar, 2008), Twiducate (2012) to collaborate/peer assess and YouTube (2012) to show video clips of TV advertisements. I appreciate that the teachers who were observed during that day were showcasing their teaching, but it is an indication to the range of technologies used.
All the technologies used during the formal observations that day could potentially have differing accessibility issues. One technology could make learning more accessible one student, but exclude another. An example of this is watching video clips from YouTube (2012), a student with dyslexia could find it much easier to access video clips than read a transcript with photographs, however a student with hearing issues may not be able to access the video clips sound and not have access to the learning activity.
As some teaching staff are using different technologies, without evidence of planning or analysis for both the pedagogical or accessibility issues, it is difficult to judge how effectively these technologies have been in assisting learning for all. In my opinion, as the use of emerging technologies can be very impressive and engaging for students, it can skew the judgement of the quality of the learning resource. Smith (1998) states, “Students are willing to stay focused on substantial mathematical tasks much longer with technology than without. But there are risks here. If the task is not carefully designed and supervised, students are likely to waste a lot of time addressing questions the teacher never thought of. And, even with well-designed tasks, there is a risk of students subverting the learning process by making their own shortcut from CE to AE -- that is, by refusing to think about what they are doing. Even worse, flashy but poorly designed tasks can seduce students into spending lots of time avoiding thought.”
In conclusion to the first issue highlighted, there needs to be a clear structure of responsibility for new technologies and web 2.0 applications within school. Once the responsibility framework is in place, then the person/team/working party responsible can set clear guidelines as to how the technologies can be most effectively used and monitored to help to ensure accessibility. However, if the person/team/working party is encouraged to use Activity Theory (Seale, 2006), (Engestrom, 2001) to transform the way new technologies and web 2.0 applications are used in school, it could encourage a more effective outcome.

Page 6 of 32
Issue 2 – Who are schools ‘brokers’? How can we get ‘brokers’ to create connections between communities?
Within Bradford secondary education, government funded schools have always had an external support network, linked to the local educational authority. The authority has always provided educational consultants, with many varied specialities. For example, if a school needed support with behaviour management, the school could contact the local educational authority and a specialist consultant would come to the school and advise the school on the best way to proceed, using the specialism within school and within the local authority. As the consultants were specialist within their field, they had the time, expertise and resources to influence change. Seale (2006) states, ”Brokers need to:  have legitimacy so that they can influence the development of practice;  be able to link practices by facilitating transaction between them;  be secure in living on the boundaries of practices.”
In my opinion the role of ‘broker’ within secondary education has traditionally been held by educational consultants. However, due to the financial cuts that have been made in the UK educational system, the majority of the Bradford education authorities educational consultant have found new employment or been made redundant (BBC News, 2010). Within Bradford in 2010 there was a team of 6 secondary mathematics educational consultants. By the end of 2012 this had fallen to one secondary mathematics consultant.
Prior to 2010 all schools under the local educational authority control were allocated an amount of consultancy time per year. So all schools, worked with the ‘experts’ in a given field at some stage of every academic year. Schools now need to pay for consultancy time, if they require support. Within the school in which I worked, this had lead to senior leaders looking to the staff within the organisation to provide support, rather than using an expert.
As there is little support received from the educational consultants, with new initiatives, often there is no clear chain of responsibility is established. The consultants would traditionally help broker the connections (Seale, 2006) and help establish ‘working parties’ or ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger, 1998b). The educational consultant would also ensure that all parties involved were adequately trained, so they had the capacity to cascade the information to the rest of the school. The consultants would offer support and ensure the different parties supported and challenged each other. As there is now no free access to the remaining educational consultant the majority of training available is what can be provided free in house. The implementation of new technologies and web 2.0 applications into school has not been managed effectively and very little training is taking place. Carlson (2002) states teachers need training if technology is to be introduced effectively.

Page 7 of 32
As the school does not have a clear ‘broker’ it is important that the person who is given this responsibility is highly regarded by the key personnel, see figure 1. From experience, I know that if the ‘broker’ does not have the respect of the key personnel the job of the ‘broker’ will be very difficult. If the ‘broker’ is respected and given the authority to act to achieve the desired outcome, the key personnel will try to ensure the success of the project.
In conclusion to issue two, it is difficult to establish who or which team, department hold the responsibility for new technologies and web 2.0 applications, see figure 1. Traditionally an educational consultant would have acted as broker to ensure the smooth implementation of these technologies. However, now the school will have to appoint a credible broker to ensure the effective implementation of accessible technologies.

Page 8 of 32
Issue 3 - Students fail to enforce their rights as set out by the UK Equality Act of 2010.
The Equality Act of 2010 (Crown Copyright, 2010) states that schools, “must not discriminate against a student...in the way it provides education for the student...in the way it affords the student access to a benefit, facility or service...by excluding the student.” The Act makes it clear that the school is responsible for ensuring that students are treated equally and have access to learning.
The SEN and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA), (Crown Copyright, 2001), states that a school must prepare an accessibility strategy, “In ways which are determined after taking account of their disabilities and any preferences expressed by them or their parents.” The Act makes it clear that the students’ perspectives of how they access learning must be taken into account.
Although the legislation is in place to ensure equality and accessibility within education Seale (2006) suggests that students find it difficult to enforce their rights. I have had experience of students with Irlen’s Syndrome (Perceptual Development Corp and Irlen, 1994) who have needed worksheets and exercise books with paper of a certain colour. In several of these situations, I have been the only member of staff to provide the required coloured resources. I have asked one particularly confident student why she had not requested the same from other members of staff, to which I got a reply of, “I don’t want to cause any trouble.” In all the situations, I asked the SENCO to speak to the other teachers of the students to ask for the resources to be produced as per the students Individual Educational Plan (IEP). If students do not feel able to voice concerns over the colour of a photocopied worksheet, I would be very surprised if they felt empowered to highlight accessibility issues with more complex technologies.
The school in which I worked has been trying to ensure that the students become independent learners, who are able to make educational decisions. Rainer & Matthews (2002) state that if learners are truly going to be owners of their learning, educators need to make sure they give learners the opportunity to:  Take responsibility for their leaning;  Have control over their learning;  Have the opportunity to share their ideas; and,  Have the confidence to stand by their ideas. If students are able to start taking control over their learning and the choices of resources they use, I would expect the students to become more able to highlight

Page 9 of 32
accessibility issues within the classroom or while using new technologies or web 2.0 applications. An important consideration is that students with different issue will have different accessibility problems. A dyslexic student may find listening to audio helpful, where as this would be inappropriate for a student with hearing difficulties. If students are encouraged to take control of their learning, they are more likely to voice where difficulties arise and to make choices within their education that can aid both accessibility and learning. Within school students are encouraged to comment on their education and complete a student voice questionnaire each year for each subject, please see appendix 2 for details of the Mathematics student voice questionnaire. The students are asked a series of questions and they are asked to rank their responses, this helps inform each teacher, department and the school as a whole as to how the students perceive the strengths and limitations of the institution. However, there is not a question on the student voice questionnaire relating to either accessibility or new technologies/web 2.0 applications. The lack of this type of question on the questionnaire indicates that accessibility is not a key priority for the school. With the implementation of new technologies and web 2.0 applications into school, it would be sensible to ensure that students’ views are taken into account. During an inspection, Ofsted instruct all schools to send a parental/carer questionnaire to every student to gain their views of the school. Ofsted are now encouraging college students to offer feedback about their college online (Burns, 2012). This indicates that the students opinions on their education will help inform Ofsted’s judgements about schools and colleges.
In conclusion to the third issue, the students need to be empowered to know their rights and feel able to express their needs in a safe and supporting environment. If students feel able to have their say and let educators know when there are issues, then real changes can take place. As the students will be the people who will know if accessibility has been achieved, for their circumstance, then they are the key stake holders to feedback accessibility issues.

Page 10 of 32
Discussion
The introduction of new technologies and web 2.0 applications into education is inevitable, technology in the developed world is used widely (Starkey, 2012) and schools need to ensure that students are prepared for the world in which we live. Teachers at the school in which I worked are being encouraged to use new technologies and web 2.0 applications, but there is no evidence of planning for accessibility. The use of these technologies has increased dramatically, but there is no formal process for monitoring the pedagogical benefits and accessibility benefits or limitations, as previously discussed.
The benefits of the introduction of accessible new technologies and web 2.0 applications into school.
 Varied lesson content for the students (Britland, 2012).
 Learning activities are becoming more engaging (Britland, 2012), (Pierce et al. 2005).
 Learning activities can be more accessible for students with particular needs (Seale, 2006).
 Staff are developing their technology skills.
 Staff are deviating from traditional/comfortable practice.
 Staff are sharing learning resources.
 Staff are discussing new practices and sharing ideas.
 Homework set and completed using web 2.0 technologies are available to use in lessons virtually instantly (Sheeran, 2012).
 Setting homework online can reduce the amount of marking to be completed by staff and gives students instant feedback on their progress (MyMaths, 2012).
 Lesson observations conducted where new technologies or web 2.0 applications are used effectively are well received by Ofsted, senior management and local educational authority representatives.
 Students with more apparent needs, such as hearing, vision or mobility issues are normally identified by the SENCO. This enables accessibility to be planned in advance, as teachers are aware of students needs.
The limitations of the introduction of accessible new technologies and web 2.0 applications into school.
 Accessibility is only addressed when a teacher is aware of a student with more apparent needs, such as hearing, vision or mobility issues. Accessibility is unlikely to be address otherwise.
 Accessibility needs to be address before the learning activity is designed, not as an extra after planning has taken place (Seale, 2006).
 Students may not have the digital literacy to use the applications (Ginsburg et al., 2000).

Page 11 of 32
 Teachers may not have the digital literacy to use the applications correctly (National Union of Students, 2010).
 Teachers may not have the capacity to recognise areas of the technology or web 2.0 applications that may cause accessibility issues (Seale, 2006).
 As there are numerous different technologies and web 2.0 applications available, it is impossible for anyone to be confident using all the different variety of resources. This would make it impossible for there to be an appointed technology ‘expert’ within school (Conole, 2011).
 Resources need to be made available to ensure staff are trained on how to use the technologies (Carlson, 2002).
 Resources need to be made available to ensure that accessibility is planned into the use of new technologies and web 2.0 applications (Carlson, 2002).
 Resources need to be made available to monitor the pedagogical benefits of the technologies (Carlson, 2002).
 Teachers need to be confident with the technologies before they are used in a learning environment, to ensure they are focused on accessibility and pedagogy rather than learning to use the technology themselves (National Union of Students, 2010).
 Students’ opinion is not sought to ascertain whether the technologies used have aided learning or whether the technologies have been accessible.
The impact on my professional practice and how to address the limitations of the introduction of accessible new technologies and web 2.0 applications.
As an AST, it is my role to be at the forefront of professional practice. I am also responsible for ensuring that teaching and learning improves across school. Therefore I am obliged to act on the issues and limitations identified within this document. However, I do not have the technical skills or the required skills with SEN and disabilities to implement a school wide technology policy alone.
Conole (2011) states, “No one individual can be an expert in all the tools and the potential ways in which they can be used. The approach needs to shift to harnessing the networked aspects of new technologies, so that individuals foster their own set of meaningful connections to support their practice, whether this be teachers seeking connections to support them in developing and delivering their teaching, or learners in search of connections to support and evidence their learning.” In my opinion I feel that bringing all the key stake holder together to implement a new technologies policy would produce better results than an individual holding sole responsibility for the project.
The first stage in improving the provision of accessible new technologies and web 2.0 applications is to appoint a suitable broker, as described by Seale (2006). The key attributes for a broker are as follows:

Page 12 of 32
 Have authenticity so that they have the respect of the people they are working with, which will enable the development of practice.
 Mediate between the different teams/departments to link practice.
 Be a leader in learning and be at the forefront of educational practice.
The broker needs to have the capacity to co-ordinate and align the perspectives of all the different individuals/teams/departments involved. After examining the roles relating to new technologies, see figure 1, the teaching and learning team is the only team, who regularly interacts with all the teams/departments who have a stake in the introduction of accessible new technologies and web 2.0 applications. The teaching and learning team assists all the other teams in some manner. By appointing a broker from the teaching and learning team, this encourages all the teams/departments will participate in working towards the use of accessible new technologies and web 2.0 applications within the school.
The teaching and learning team includes two Assistant Head Teachers (AHT) and two Advanced Skills Teachers (AST). It would appear to be more appropriate for an AST to become a broker, as part of the AST role involves staying at the forefront of educational practice. The AST role is highly regarded within secondary education, as all AST have to pass a rigorous assessment process to be awarded the AST title (Crown Copyright, 2009). The AST also have more time available to devote to any new initiative.
I have constructed figure 2, to demonstrate the links between the teaching and learning team and the other individuals/teams/departments within school. The diagram demonstrates how the links between the broker and other key stakeholders already exist.

Page 13 of 32
Figure 2: The Broker’s relationship between the other stakeholders
Once a broker has been appointed, the next stage would be to establish a working party, or as described by Wenger (1998a) a ‘community of practice’. Wenger (1998b) states, “Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” A working party would need to be established with representation from all the key individuals, teams and departments, as described in figure 1 and 2. However, there is a key stakeholder missing from the diagram, the students who use the technology. If the working party is going to recommend a use-centred approach to new technologies and web 2.0 applications (Seale, 2006), it is vital that the students who will be using the technologies are involved in the implantation of them. Students who have different SEN or disabilities would provide a variety of perspectives of accessibility. As school is unable to pay for professional accessibility advice, it would be advantageous, for all concerned, to use the expertise within school. The students will feel that their opinions are being heard and that they have some control over the process.

Page 14 of 32
I have constructed figure 3 to represent the key stakeholder who need to be included within the working party.
Figure 3: Accessible New Technologies Working Party Focus
Engestrom (2001) and Seale (2006) describe the key concepts of Activity Theory as follows:
 The ability to transform something, rather than just doing it.
 Have the motivation and consciousness to implement strategies that have immediate and clearly defined goals.
 The ability to mediate, for example relating to the division of labour.
 The understanding of key elements of practice that are already embedded and that some elements will continuously change and develop.
 Activities are not isolated and will have implications to wider practice, as well as wider practice having implications on any new or emerging activity.
It would be a recommendation that the working party aims to use activity theory, alongside a learner centred approach to implement the use of new technologies and web 2.0 applications within school.
The working party would need to be formed by volunteers from each key group, as demonstrated in figure 3, who are motivated to effectively implement accessible new technologies and web 2.0 applications into school. It is vital that senior management within school allow time and resources to enable the working party to be successful.

Page 15 of 32
The brief of the working party need to be clear, the main aim is to implement accessible new technologies into school effectively. The working party need to consider the following:
 Which accessibility guidelines are going to be used to both plan and assess accessibility?
 How are new technologies and web 2.0 applications going to be monitored for accessibility?
 How are new technologies and web 2.0 applications going to be monitored for pedagogical benefits?
 Are the opinions of the wider school community going to be collected? If so, how are they going to be collected?
 How are students going to be in a position to enforce their rights as set out by the UK Equality Act of 2010?
Once the key decisions, above have been made, I would make the following recommendations to the working party:
 There needs to be a series of training events held for staff to ensure that there is awareness across the school as to what constitutes accessible technologies. It is important for all educators to realise that while one technology may make the learning more accessible for one student, it may isolate a different student from the learning activity.
 All staff need to ensure that accessibility is part of the planning process and that it is not considered as an afterthought. I would recommend that the schools lessons planning proforma is changed to include accessibility considerations. Please see appendix 3 for the current lesson planning proforma and appendix 4 for the revised lesson planning proforma, with changes highlighted.
 There are ‘experts’ for different technologies and web 2.0 applications, as it is impossible for there to be one technology expert within school (Conole, 2011). This will also enable many different members of staff to develop and have a key responsibility within school.
 ‘Drop in’ training sessions for teachers to learn how to use different technologies, run by the ‘experts’ in the technology. This will improve teacher’s technology skills and help to ensure that the teachers have used the technology in a controlled environment, where accessibility and educational pedagogy can be considered before they use the technology or web 2.0 applications with students.
 ‘Drop in’ training sessions for students to improve digital literacy skills. The sessions could be run by technology competent students and/or educators.
 Staff opinion of different technologies and web 2.0 applications needs to be collated and shared. This could be an online database, where staff list a technology that they have trialled. The database could include information

Page 16 of 32
such as the ‘expert’ or ‘experts’ for the technology, accessibility issues and any solutions, how the technology has been used and any student feedback.
 Student’s opinions on the use and accessibility of technology should be sought.
If students are included within the accessible new technology working party and their opinions are sought on the implementation and use of new technologies, I feel that they may be more inclined to ensure that their accessibility needs are met. If students are to become independent and responsible learners, they need to feel able to question decisions about their learning.
I would make the following suggestions to aid student feedback:
 If a new technology or web 2.0 applications is used during a learning activity, students could all be given a technology review sheet to complete. The sheet could include questions on the accessibility of the technology, the engagement or if it enhanced learning, for example. Teachers would then have feedback at the end of the lesson to aid their own professional lesson analysis. The review sheet could also draw the teacher’s attention to benefits or issue highlighted by student, that the teacher had not considered. The teacher could then pass any relevant information to be entered into the schools technology database.
 Students could have access to an online review sheet to complete at any time for any technology or web 2.0 application used in learning activities. The online review sheet could include the type of application, accessibility comments, comments on engagement and if and how the technology enhanced education. This would enable students to give feedback anonymously about the technologies used in their learning.
 There could be a student technology feedback box, located within a student recreation area within school. This would enable students to then post their comments relating to the technologies used in their learning during lesson free time.
 The student voice questionnaire, see appendix 1, should include questions relating to accessibility and pedagogy.
In my experience if students feel that their opinion and feelings are taking into consideration, then they are more likely to express their preferences or highlight difficulties when they arise.
Conclusion
In conclusion, new technologies and web 2.0 applications are being introduced rapidly into school without taking into account accessibility or pedagogical issues. At present there is no accountability for the use of technology and there is not an individual, team or department that hold responsibility for the effective, accessible use of technology. Students’ opinions are not sought on how technology is used within their

Page 17 of 32
education. However, school is focused on ensuring students become independent, lifelong learners.
As part of H810 I have investigated different academic viewpoints relating to the use of technologies within education and can conclude that I agree with Seale (2006), who states, “accessibility will benefit all students, not just those with disabilities.”
As the use of technology within the school in which I worked is in its infancy, I believe that it is imperative that the introduction of technology needs to be managed. The management of accessible new technologies and web 2.0 applications needs to be lead by someone who is motivated, committed and has the ability to unite the different individuals, teams and departments involved in the process. I would recommend that an AST is there for given the role of the ‘broker’.
Once the broker has agreed objectives, then a dedicated working party needs to be established. The working party needs to include students, in particular students who may have difficulties using the technologies. The working party should then work together, assisted by the broker, to ensure the technologies used within school are accessible and pedagogically sound. The working party needs to ensure students are empowered to give their opinions on learning and accessibility.
Word Count 5723

Page 18 of 32
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Page 19 to page 25 - Queensbury School’s Observation Criteria
Appendix 2 – Page 26 – Queensbury School’s Student Voice Questionnaire
Appendix 3 – Page 27 – Queensbury School’s Current Lesson Proforma
Appendix 4 – Page 28 – Revised lesson Proforma

Page 19 of 32
1. Planning – prior to lesson
Planning
Benchmark   Impact on learning and student progress
1 Is there a lesson plan that
 Sets clear learning objectives
 Phrases the objectives in terms of
student learning (not tasks)
 Indicates high level challenge work
 Indicates appropriately differentiated
work
 Identifies key words
 Includes the role of Learning
Associates
 Identifies assessment opportunities
 Identifies homework
Queensbury School
Quality Assurance Lesson Observation Form
Subject Class or group No. Present
Teacher’s name: Observer’s name:
Date: Lesson:
Focus for the lesson observation:

Page 20 of 32
2. Establishing an effective learning environment
Establishing a positive learning environment
Benchmark


Notes:
2
Is the start of the lesson
 Orderly?
 Punctual?
3
Are the resources for the lesson (e.g. equipment, support staff, ICT):
 Ready at hand?
 Appropriate?
 Used effectively?
4
 Is the classroom organisation and management appropriate to the planned task?
5
How effective is the use of:
 Key words?
 Development of literacy?
 Classroom rules?
 Rewards and praise?
 Marking schemes?
 Assessment for learning?

Page 21 of 32
3. Teaching characteristics
Teaching
Benchmark


Notes:
6
At the start of the lesson:
Does the teacher explain to students:
 The learning objectives? (knowledge, understanding, skills)
 Points out the ‘challenge’ learning objective?
 Link to prior and future learning?
 The tasks to be completed to achieve the learning?
 How students may judge success?
 Is the starter activity relevant, brief and does it have pace?
7
During the lesson:
Does the teacher:
 Provide content and activities with appropriate levels of challenge?
 Differentiate work to meet students’ needs?
 Provide opportunities for the development of key skills?
 Provide opportunities for students to work independently?
 Make explicit expectations of application, accuracy and presentation?
 Chose an appropriate range of learning activities and methods that enable all students to learn effectively? (VAK)
 Maintain an appropriate pace to the lesson?
 Manage the students effectively to support good learning for all students?
 Develop good working relationships with students?
 Guide students to assess work for themselves?
 Provide regular opportunities for assessing students?
 Make good use of other adults in the room?
 Make clear to students what to do to improve as a result of thorough and accurate assessment?
 Ensure that students with additional needs are able to succeed because work is matched to their needs?
8
 Is the classroom organisation and management appropriate to the planned task?

Page 22 of 32
Teaching
9
How effective is the use of:
 Key words?
 Classroom rules?
 Rewards and praise?
 B4L policy?
 Assessment for learning?
10
At the end of the lesson
Does the plenary
 Allow sufficient time for reviewing learning objectives?
 Demonstrate the progress students have made?
 Consolidate learning outcomes?
 Encourage self-reflection?
11
At the end of the lesson how effective are the following
 Setting and relevance of homework?
 Punctual, orderly end to the lesson?
4. Student Learning
Learning
Benchmark


Impact on learning and student progress
12
During the lesson:
Do all students make sufficient gains in new or consolidate old:
 Knowledge?
 Understanding?
 Skills?
List all the gains here





Page 23 of 32
5. Student Characteristics
Benchmark


Personal development and well-being
13
During the lesson:
Do all students
 Behave appropriately during the lesson?
 Show initiative and responsibility?
 Work well with the teacher?
 Work well with each other?
 Remain on task? (engagement)
 Work in a secure environment?
 Respond well to health and safety requirements during the lesson ?(if appropriate)
 Know what to do to improve as a result of thorough and accurate assessment?
 Enjoy their learning?

Page 24 of 32
6. Student Progress
Progress


14
By the end of the lesson:
Do all students
 Make gains in knowledge?
 Make gains in understanding?
 Develop new skills?
 Develop Literacy skills?
15
Do the students:
 Make progress pitched at the correct level for their ability and level?
 Have the opportunity to reflect on the progress they have made?
Is sufficient progress made by all students?
Yes No
How does the member of staff check all the students have learned what they should have?

Page 25 of 32
Summative Judgement
 Learners make exceptionally good progress
 At least good in all or nearly all aspects
 Exemplary practice in significant elements
Outstanding
1
 Learners make good progress
 Learners show good attitudes as a result of effective teaching
 Learners are encouraged to work independently
 Learners know what to do to improve as a result of thorough and accurate assessment
 Learners are guided to assess work themselves
 Learners with additional needs are able to succeed because work is matched to their needs
 Teachers demonstrate good subject knowledge
 Teachers employ a range of styles confidently
Good
2
 Learners enjoy their learning
 Learners make the progress that is expected of them
 Teaching may be good in some respects
 Teaching is inadequate in no major respect
Satisfactory
3
 Students in general or particular groups of students do not make progress because teaching is unsatisfactory
 Students do not enjoy their work
 Students do not work independently
 Students may be excessively passive
 Students are not sufficiently engaged or challenged
 Students do not know how to improve
 Students behave inappropriately
 Behaviour management is inadequate
 Level of challenge is wrongly pitched
 Teacher’s knowledge of subject and course requirements is inadequate
 Teachers do not have a clear understanding of students needs
Inadequate
4

Page 26 of 32
Appendix 2
Please complete:- Male/Female Class Date
Survey – Attitude to learning Mathematics in KS4
We would like to know how you feel about Maths so we can improve our teaching and your success at GCSE. Please indicate your personal views by ringing a number from 1 to 6 to shoe how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below.
Statement
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
A
“I am pleased with my progress in Maths”
1
2
3
4
5
6
B
“I try my best in Maths”
1
2
3
4
5
6
C
“I find Maths difficult to understand”
1
2
3
4
5
6
D
“I find revising for Maths tests/exams easy”
1
2
3
4
5
6
E
“I understand my teachers explanations in class”
1
2
3
4
5
6
F
“My Maths teacher wants me to succeed”
1
2
3
4
5
6
G
“I’m quite worried about Maths this year”
1
2
3
4
5
6
H
“I enjoy Maths”
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
“I learn a lot about Maths from my classmates”
1
2
3
4
5
6
J
“I’m responsible for my learning in class”
1
2
3
4
5
6
K
“I always do my Maths homework”
1
2
3
4
5
6
L
“My teacher helps me learn in class”
1
2
3
4
5
6
M
“Pupils behavior stops me learning in class”
1
2
3
4
5
6
N
“My work is marked often enough by me or my teacher”
1
2
3
4
5
6
O
“My work is always marked by me or my teacher”
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
“I know which areas of Maths I am weak at”
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q
“I will get my target grade in Maths this year”
1
2
3
4
5
6
R
“I know how to improve my work”
1
2
3
4
5
6
S
“I don’t need to do well in Maths GCSE”
1
2
3
4
5
6
T
“In Maths we do lots of different activities”
1
2
3
4
5
6
U
“My teacher makes learning Maths interesting”
1
2
3
4
5
6
V
“I will learn a lot from my prelim/ mock exams”
1
2
3
4
5
6
The best thing about Maths is…
One thing that would really help me to be more successful in learning Maths in class this year would be…
Thank you, please return this completed form to your teacher

Page 27 of 32
Appendix 3 – Queensbury School’s current lesson planning proforma
Lesson
Teaching group:
Objective/grade:
Challenge objective:
EDCC:
Entry/ Starter
Main Student Learning Activities
Differentiation
Activities to check progress
Homework
Resources

Page 28 of 32
Appendix 4 – Queensbury School’s current lesson planning proforma
Lesson
Teaching group:
Objective/grade:
Challenge objective:
EDCC:
Entry/ Starter
Main Student Learning Activities Differentiation/Accessibility
Activities to check progress
Homework
Resources (including any revised resources for accessibility)
Accessibility and effective pedagogy considerations for any technologies used

Page 29 of 32
References
Britland (2012) The Guardian - Tools for plugging ICT into any lesson: my top five resources [online] 25 September 2012 available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher- network/2012/sep/25/top-five-tips-embedding-ict (accessed 14 January 2013)
Burnes, J. (2012) BBC News - Education & Family - ‘Rate your college’ Ofsted urges students [online] 24 September 2012 available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19680527 (accessed 14 January 2013)
Carlson, S. (2002). ‘The Missing Link in Educational Technology: TRAINED TEACHERS’, TechKnowLogia, [online ] October-December, Knowledge Enterprise Inc., available from http://www.techknowlogia.com/TKL_Articles/PDF/435.pdf (accessed 14 January 2013)
Conole, G. (2011) ‘Stepping over the edge: the implications of new technologies for education’. Also available online at http://oro.open.ac.uk/13175/ (accessed 14 January 2013) Cox, D. (2012) Cathing up again...! H810 – 12I Topic 34 Tutor Group Forum Activity 34.1 Seale Chapter 12 [online] 3 January 2013 17:24 available from http://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=195872 (accessed 14 January 2013) Crown Copyright (2001) Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act (2001) [online] available from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/10/pdfs/ukpga_20010010_en.pdf?view=extent (accessed 14 January 2013) Crown Copyright (2009) Advanced Skills Teachers – Promoting Excellence [online] available from http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/a/ast%20guidance%20english%202009.pdf (accessed 14 January 2013) Crown Copyright (2010) Equality Act 2010 [online] available from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents (accessed 14 January 2013)
Dahlstrom, E., de Boor, T., Grunwald, P. and Vockley, M. (2011) ‘ECAR National Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2011 (Research Report)’, Boulder, CO,

Page 30 of 32
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research [online] available from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1103/ERS1103W.pdf (accessed 14 January 2013).
Engeström, Y. (2001) ‘Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization’. Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2001 [online] available from http://www.handover.eu/upload/library/jimaw6szeyuluh4tho6oq.pdf (accessed 14 January 2013)
Ginsburg. L., Sabatini. J., & Wagner. D. A. (2000)CHAPTER 6 Basic Skills in Adult Education and the Digital Divide [online] available from http://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/themes/ict/41284692.pdf (accessed 14 January 2013)
JISC (no date) Accessibility Essential 3 [online] available from http://www.jisctechdis.ac.uk/AccessibilityEssentials/2007/AE3/index.html (accessed 14 January 2013)
My Maths Ltd (2012) MyMaths.co.uk Bringing Maths Alive www.mymaths.co.uk. (accessed 14 January 2013)
National Union of Students. (2010) Student perspectives on technology – demand, perceptions and training needs’ Report to HEFCE by NUS [online] available from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2010/rd1810/rd18_10.pdf). (accessed 14 January 2013)
OFSTED (2010) The special educational needs and disability review – a statement is not enough [online] available from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/special-educational-needs-and- disability-review/ (accessed 14 January 2013)
Office of National Statistics (2011) Statistical bulletin: Internet Access - Households and Individuals, 2011 [online] available from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access--- households-and-individuals/2011/stb-internet-access-2011.html (accessed 14 January 2013)
Perceptual Development Corp and Irlen, H. (1994) Irlen - Irlen Syndrome is a specific type of perceptual problem. It can affect reading, academic and work performance http://www.irlenireland.com/symptoms.html (accessed 14 January 2013)

Page 31 of 32
Pettit, J. and Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2011), ‘Mobile 2.0: Crossing the Border into Formal Learning?’ [online] available from http://oro.open.ac.uk/22867/ (accessed 14 January 2013)
Pierce R., Stacey K., and Barkatsas, A. (2005) A scale for monitoring students - attitudes to learning mathematics with technology http://www.pgce.soton.ac.uk/ict/SecondaryICT/PDFs/learningmathattitudescale.pdf (accessed 14 January 2013)
Queensbury School (2011 a) Queensbury School SEN Draft Special Educational Needs policy 2011-2012 [online] available from http://www.queensbury.ngfl.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/09/SEN-POLICY-DRAFT-2011-2012.pdf (accessed 14 January 2013)
Queensbury School (2011 b) Queensbury School SEN Draft Inclusion Policy 2011-2012 [online] available from http://www.queensbury.ngfl.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/INCLUSION- POLICY-DRAFT-2011-2012.pdf (accessed 14 January 2013)
Queensbury School (2012) Special Educational Needs [online] available from http://www.queensbury.ngfl.ac.uk/policies/special-educational-needs/ (accessed 14 January 2013)
Rainer, J. D. &. Matthews M. W. (2002) ‘Ownership of Learning in Teacher Education’, Actionin Teacher Education, 24:1, 22-30. [online] available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2002.10463264 (accessed 14 January 2013)) Seale, J. (2006) E-Learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice, Abingdon, Routledge; [online] available from http://learn2.open.ac.uk/ mod/ subpage/ view.php?id=153062 (accessed 14 January 2013)
Sheeran, K. (2012) English Homework 10N2 http://wallwisher.com/wall/mrs_sheeran_10n2 (accessed 14 January 2013) Starkey, V. (2012) Arizona SCITECH Festival –Connect – How Technology affects our everyday lives http://azscitechfest.org/blogs/how-technology-affects-our-everyday-lives (accessed 14 January 2013)
Smith D. A. (1998) Renewal in Collegiate Mathematics Education http://www.math.duke.edu/~das/essays/renewal/learning.html (accessed 14 January 2013)

Page 32 of 32
Twiducate (2012) Twiducate Social Networking for Schools http://www.twiducate.com/ (accessed 14January 2013)
UK Association for Accessible Formats (2012) Describing Images 2: Charts and Graphs [online] available from http://www.ukaaf.org/component/jdownloads/finish/6-pdf/102-g014pdf (accessed 14 January 2013)
W3C (2008) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 [online] available from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (accessed 14 January 2013) Wenger, E. (1998a) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. [online ] available from http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=heBZpgYUKdAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Wenger,+E. +(1998)+Communities+of+practice:+learning,+meaning+and+identity.+Cambridge:+Cambridge+University+Press.&ots=kdph0kbA_k&sig=pMFK2HoWzr_bedYu86lF_3jNHxw#v=onepage&q=Wenger%2C%20E.%20(1998)%20Communities%20of%20practice%3A%20learning%2C%20meaning%20and%20identity.%20Cambridge%3A%20Cambridge%20University%20Press.&f=false (accessed 14 January 2013) Wenger, E. (n.d.) http://www.ewenger.com/theory/ (accessed 14 January 2013) Wenger, E. (1998b) Communities of Practice: A brief introduction [online] available from http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/06-Brief-introduction-to-communities- of-practice.pdf (accessed 14 January 2013) Xiphar (2008) Wallwisher, http://wallwisher.com/ (accessed 14 January 2013) YouTube, LLC (2012) YouTube http://www.youtube.com/ (accessed 14 January 2013) BBC News (2010) West Yorkshire Councils Predict 5,000 job cuts [online] 1 March 2010 available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/8540024.stm (accessed 14 January 2013)

H810 ECA EMA

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to H810 ECA EMA

More from Angela Phillips

Recently uploaded

H810 ECA EMA