You are on page 1of 292

()

www.cpm.kz

, 2012

. , ,

.


...................................................................................................................................4
? ....................................................4
..................6
.....................................................6
.....................................................................11
..................................................................11
...............................................11

...........................................................................14
.......................................17
..................................................................................................................18
.........................23

......................................................................................24
..............................................................................................26
...................................................................31
......................................35

.........................................................40
...................................................................................................................42
........................................................................47
..........................................................................53
Lesson study .................................................................................................................59
- .............................................................................................................61
...................................................................................................63

- ....67
..72
............................75
.............................................................................................................77
( )
........82
...................................................................................................84
.........................................................................................................................86
..............................................................................................92
..................................................................................................96

(1-)
.
, ,
, : XXI ? :
XXI ?.

( ) .

1-.
,
.
, , XXI
.
()
XXI
.
, .
, ,
,
(Schleicher, 2012) (1- ).
| | programme


,
(PISA) .
1-:
:
,
, - .
,
, ,
,
.
.
,
, -
.

;
; ,
- .
-
,
, -, .
, ,

.
:
, .
XXI .
,
, ,
. ,
, : Republic () . ,
.
,
.
, , -
-.
| | programme


, , -
, , , - , .

, ,

(Barber and Moushad, 2007).
(Strong, Ward & Grant, 2011).
-

-
.
, .
. ,
(Bolam,
McMahon, Stoll et al., 2005). - ,
(Frost and Durrant, 2003). ,
.
, .
(Frost, 2011).
, -
,
, .
,
, ,

.
.
, , -
.

()
(Hattie, 2009).
, ,
.

, , .

,
| | programme

, ,
.

,
, .

, - , ,

.
, ,
.

-
.
, , - , .
,

, -
.
, , - ,
.

- . .
,
- (2-).
, , .
, . (1992)
, - :
-
. -
,
.

| | programme

2-. ,
-
,
.
,
, .


, ,
. ,
.
:
(, ..), ( , ..),
( , ..)
.
, . ,
, ,
- .
, .

, , ,
- .
, ,
, , ,
. :
-
. ,
,
- .


.

| | programme

.
. , .

, . (Shulman,
2007)
(1-).
1-:


, -

. - ,
/ /
.

, ,

,
.
, , ,

.
,


,
.



. ,
, , , ,
.

,
,

- .

,
. ,

. ,

.
| | programme


,
. ,
, .

10

.
, , , ,

.
, .

, -
.
, ,
. ,
.
.
:
1) ,
, ;
2)
, ;
-

;
3) ,
,
?, - ?, ?
;
4) , ,
, , ,

.
:

.

.
,

- .
| | programme


,
.

.


.

.
:
- ;
- - ;
- ;
-
;
- .

.


:
( , ..)

.
,


.
:
:

;

, ;
Lesson Study ;
;
;
| | programme

11

12


;
,
, , -
, , ;
.

:
,
;

;
- ,

.

:
, Lesson Study- ;
;
, - ;
;
,
.


Barber, M., & Mousahd, M. (2007). How the best schools systems came out on top [
]. Availabale at
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-best-performing-schools-come-out-on-top/
Accessed on 19th November 2011.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey,
K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and Sustaining Effective
Professional Learning Communities [ii i
]. The Department for Education and Skills.
Fenstermacher, G., & Richardson, V. (2005). Making Determinations of Quality in Teaching
[ ]. Teachers College Record, 107 (1), 186-213.
Frost, D. (2011). Supporting teacher leadership in 15 countries: the International Teacher
Leadership project [15 i ii iiii : ii
iii ]. Phase 1, A report, Cambridge: LfL at the University
of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
| | programme

Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Rationale, Strategy and Impact [ii
: , ]. School Leadership &
Management, 23 (2), 173-186.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning [ ]. London: Routledge.
OECD Definition and Selection of Key Competencies [
]. Paris, France: OECD, May 27, 2005.
Pjares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct
[ :
]. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307-332.
Schleicher, A. (Ed.). (2012). Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st
Century: Lessons from around the World [
: ]. OECD Publishing.
Shulman, L. S. (2007). Good teaching [ ]. Box content in S. Loeb, C. Rouse & A.
Shorri (Eds.), Introducing the Issue in The Future of Children, 17 (1), 6-7.
Stronge, J., Ward, T., & Grant, L. (2011). What Makes Good Teachers Good? A cross-case
analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and pupil achievement [
?
]. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339.
doi: 10.1177/0022487111404241

13

| | programme

14



.
, ,
. ,
, .
XXI
.
, , ,
.

.
, - .
, , ,

.

,

.
, XXI
. ,
.
,
-
. ,
(Desimone et al., 2002;
pfer and Pedder, 2010).
.


(Sinek, 2009)
,
? .
:
| | programme

.
, XXI
.

.
,
, ,
, . , , ,
.
, ,
,
.
, ,
,
- .

, :
, :
, ?
. Apple (Sinek, 2009), (DarlingHammond, 2006; Timperley 2009, Schleicher 2012, MacBeath, 2012).


.

(2010)
(3-).

3-.

| | programme

15



.
.

16

Darling - Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education [


]. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. X, 1-15.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study [ :
]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (2), 81-112.
MacBeath, J. (2012). The future of the teaching profession [
]. Education International Research Institute and the Leadership for Learning
Cambridge Network. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.
OECD Definition and Selection of Key Competencies [
]. Paris, France: OECD, May 27, 2005.
Opfer, V. A., & Pedder, D. (2010). Benefits, status and effectiveness of Continuous
Professional Development for teachers in England [
, ]. Curriculum Journal, 21 (4),
41-431.
Schleicher, A. (Ed.) (2012). Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st
Century: Lessons from around the World [
: ]. OECD Publishing.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264xxxxxx-en
Sinek, S. (2009, September). How great leaders inspire action [ -
]. Speech at TEDx Portland.
Available at www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES) [
: ]. Wellington, NZ:
Ministry of Education. Available at http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0017/16901/TPLandDBESentire.pdf

| | programme

4-.
-
.
- .
( ) .
- ,
. .
-
,

.
.

. , - , , ,
.
,
( -
,
).

| | programme

17


- (4 )

:
. .


:

.

18
4


1-
1-: .
.

.
24-:
.

.
.
12-: .
34-: ?
.

12-: .
34-: ( )

.
- 1-: .
.
23-: .
.
4-:
( ).

- 14-:
.
-, -
.

.

2-
. 14-: .

: .
.
.

:
.

1-4-: ?


.

| | programme

.

:
.

14-:
? .

.
.

.

:

.
:

1-7-: .
() ?
. .
.
.
8-:

.

.

:
- .

.

Lesson Study .

:
.

:
.



.

2
3

3-
14-: -
.

.

18-:
.


.
14-: ?


.
14-:
Lesson Study
.
14-:
.
4-
14-: :
. .

18-:
.


.

8
8

| | programme

19

20

14-:
- .
8
5
12-: - .
.
34-:
.
: 1 45 .
: 160 .
(5 )
:

;
( )

;
- ;

;
.
: -
.
: 1 45 .
: 120 ( 4 *6 ).
- (4 )

1-
8
1
- 1-: -
,
.
.
2-:

.
34-:
.
4

- . 1-2-: -
.
34-: - .
- . 12-: .
3-4-: -
.

| | programme

4
5

- . 12-: - .
3-4-: - .
.
- . 1-4-: -
, .
2-
-
14-: -

.
(Microsoft Office
PowerPoint ,
10-12 ).
.
12-:
.
3-4-:

(1-).
.
1-2-: (1-).
34-:

(
).
.
1-4-:

(1-).
.
1-2-:

(2-).
34-: (2-).
3-

1-2-:

(2-).
34-:
.

1-2-:
.
3-4-:

.
14-: . .
,

(PowerPoint
, 20 ).

8
8

| | programme

21

14-: ,

(PowerPoint
, 20 ).
5
.
1-:

.
2-:
.
3-4-:
.
4-
1
.
12-:
- .
3-4-:
.
2
.
12-:
?
3-4-: .
3
.
14-: .
4
- 14-: .
,

(PowerPoint , 20 ).
5
- 14-:
.
,

(PowerPoint ,
20 ).
: 1 45 .
: 160 . 440
.
4

22

. .

-
I

II
III
IV

| | programme

9.0010.30
10.3011.00
11.0012.30
12.3014.00
14.0015.30
15.3015.45
15.4517.15

8
8



:
1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. .

, :

,

,

:
,
..

Lesson study

-


,


,

5-.

| | programme

23



, ,
, , , , .
, ,
- ,

.
, , , , , , .
, :
;
;
;
-, ;

.

24

:
;
;
;
.

1956

(6-).
: ,
.

.

6-.
| | programme

,
. ,
. , , -
.

,

. , ,
.

,
, ,
.


Alexander, R. J. (2001). Culture and Pedagogy: International comparisons in primary
education [ : ]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching. Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.)
[ . (4-)]. York: Dialogos.
Glaser, E. M. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking [
]. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. J. (2008). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: alternative
pedagogies for a changing world [ :
]. Available at http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wpcontent/
uploads/ch3_final_wolfealexander_argumentationalternativepedagogies_20081218.pdf
Accessed February 19, 2012.

| | programme

25



, ,

. :
,
- ;
;

;
- ;
, ;
.

26

.
, , .
.
, . ,
, , . ,

. :
;
;
;
.

. , , ,
. ,
,
.
- .
-
()
;
(Vygotsky, 1978).
,
.
, , ,
.
.

,
.
.
, :
, .
| | programme

(Perry et
al, 2002):
;
,
- .



.
(Lave, 1988; Lave and Wenger,
1991),
. (1993)

,
.

,
, .
:
(1) ; (2) ;
(3) ; (4)
(7-).

7-.
,
.
, -
.
| | programme

27

?
,
- , ,
.
,
.


.
, .
,
,
.
,
: , -
, , , ,
(8-).

28

8-.

,
.
(2008) (9-) (2009)
.
, - ,
.
.

| | programme

9-.
,

.
.
.
:
. , ,
, ,
.
,
.
, - ,
.


Bronson, M. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and Nurture [
- : ]. New York London: Guilford Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education [ ]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Chaiklin, S. (1999). Developmental teaching in upper-secondary school [
]. In M. Hedegaard & J. Lompscher (Eds.),
Learning Activity and Development. Oxford: Aarhus University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow []. Harper Perennial.
Forrest-Pressley, D. L., MacKinnon, G. E., & Waller, T. G. (Eds). (1985). Metacognition,
Cognition & Human Performance [,
]. New York: Academic Press.
| | programme

29

30

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice [ ]. Cambridge University Press.


Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation
[ : ]. New York, Cambridge University
Press.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology [
]. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk,
NY: Sharpe
Matlin, M. (1998). Cognition (4th edition). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.
Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street Mathematics and School
Mathematics [ ]. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. J. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating TeacherStudent Interactions that Foster Self-Regulated Learning [
- - ].
Educational Psychologist, 37 (1), 515.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation,
learning, and well-being [- :
, ] In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook on
motivation at school (pp. 171196). New York: Routledge.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life [ ]. Cambridge
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society [ ]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Whitebread, D. (2000). Organising activities to help children remember and understand [
].
In D. Whitebread (Ed.), The Psychology of Teaching and Learning in the Primary School.
London: Routledge.

| | programme


(1978)
:
;
;
.


,
. . ,
.
. -
, .
,
.
.
, .
: , ,
,
, .
.

, , , ,

. i , ; i ii , ii
. iii i, -,
i . iiii,
, i
.
(1996) . ,
:
,
.
. , . ,
, , ,
, .. .
| | programme

31

: , ,
(, , , ..) , (, , , ,
...) .
,
.

32

(, IQ) ,
, .

.

.
,
.
- , , ,
.
.

.

,
, .

, ,
, , .
, : ,
.
?
(1993)
:
;
-
;
,
;
;

.
| | programme

,
, .
-
. ,
, .

, .
- .
, ,

, , . ,
, . ,

, .

33


Dauban, J., & Crossland, J. (2009). Working with Gifted and Talented Children at an Iron Age
Hill Fort in North Somerset [ .
]. Primary History, 51. Spring, 2009.
Historical Association, UK.
Eyre, D., & Lowe, H. (2002). Curriculum Provision for the Gifted and Talented in the Secondary
School [ ]. David Fulton.
Eyre, D., & McClure, L. (2001). Curriculum Provision for the Gifted and Talented in the
Primary School [
]. David Fulton.
Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the Very Able [ ]. London: The
Stationery Offce.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons [ : ].
New York, NY: Basic Books.
McAlpine, D., & Reid, N. (1996). Teachers observation scale for identifying children with special
abilities [
]. Wellingtom: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). The social and emotional
development of gifted children: What do we know? [
: ?]. National Association of Gifted
Children. Prufrock Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What Makes Giftedness? Re-examining a Definition. [
? ]. Phi Delta Kappan, 60,180181.
| | programme

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Comprehensive
Plan for Educational Excellence [ :
]. Mansfi eld Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Seal, C. (2006). How can we encourage pupil dialogue in collaborative group work?
[ ?]. National
Teacher Research Panel Conference summary.
US Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National Excellence and
Developing Talent [ ].

34

| | programme



() ,
. -
- (, , , ,
..) . ,
.

.
( , , )
. , 80- . . 34
. 3 5

.

, . : ?
. 1983 , 5
,
( ).

, ,
.
.

. (Leslie, 1987; Fodor, 1992) , .
.
(Baron-Cohen, 1995; Frith et al.,
1994).
, .

,
(Barron, 2002) ,
.
, .
(1956)
. ,
, , , .
| | programme

35

, ,
.
- . (1970)
- , .
.

. ,
.
, , - , , . ,
, , , ,
.

36



.

, 1950- .
,
(Goswami and Bryant, 2010).

, .

.
.
.

- . ,
- .
. ,
.

. (2010) - , - - . ,
-
.
,
. : ,
.
| | programme

-
. ,

,
. ,

, .

.
,
.
,
, . ,
.
.

,
.

.
, . ,
, , ?
,
,
. .

.
-
. -
. -
, , -
.


Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control
processes [ : ]. In K.W.Spence
& J. T. Spence (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research
and Theory (Vol. 2, pp.89-195). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory [ ]. In G. H. Bower
(Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol.
8, pp. 4789). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory [ ]. New York:
General Learning Press.
| | programme

37

38

Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind [


: ]. Boston: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Barron, B. (2002). Creative work in relational context and its developmental significance
[
]. Human Development, 45, 367371.
Chen, Z., Sanchez, R., & Campbell, T. (1997). From beyond to within their grasp: Analogical
problem solving in 10- and 13-month-olds [ : 10 13
]. Developmental Psychology,
33, 790801.
Davidson, J. E., Deuser R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura,
Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing [: ]. Cambridge.
Mass: MIT Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving [
]. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp.231
236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry [ :
]. American Psychologist, 34, 906911.
Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., & Flavell, E. R. (1995). Young childrens knowledge about thinking.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development [
. ]. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (1), Serial No. 243.
Fodor, J. (1992). A theory of the childs theory of mind [ ]. Cognition, 44, 283296.
Frith, U., Happe, F., & Siddons, F. (1994). Autism and theory of mind in everyday life [
]. Social Development, 3, 108124.
Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: Introduction
[ : ]. American Psychologist, 52, 32
34.
Goswami, U., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Melting chocolate and melting snowmen: Analogical
reasoning and causal relations [ :
- ]. Cognition, 35, 6995.
Goswami, U., & Brown, A. L. (1990). Higher-order structure and relational reasoning:
Contrasting analogical and thematic relations [
:
]. Cognition, 36, 207226.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect [ ]. Psychological Bulletin, 53,
267293.
Hagen, J. W., & Hale, G. A. (1973). The development of attention in children [
]. Paper presented at the Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, October, 1972.
Howe, C., & Mercer, N. (2010). Research survey for The Cambridge Primary Review
[ -]. In R. Alexander (Ed.),
Children, their World, their Education. London: Routledge.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence
[ : ]. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Classics in the History of Psychology [ . ].
| | programme

Kohlberg, L. (1963). Heinz Steals the Drug [ ]. Retrieved on 5/28/2009


from http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/classes/psy2664/Heinz.htm.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development [ ]. Vol. I:
The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretence and representation: the origins of theory of mind [
: ]. Psychological Review, 94, 412426.
Piaget, J. (1977). The Role of Action in the Development of Thinking [
]. In W. F. Overton & J. M. Gallagher (Eds.), Advances in Research and
Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Childrens development of
analogical reasoning: insights from scene analogy problems [ : ]. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249271.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80s [80-
]. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Sternberg, R. J. (1983). Criteria for intellectual skills training [ ]. Educational Researcher, 12, 612.
Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and Adult Learning [ ].
London: Routledge.
Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? [ ?].
American Psychologist, 40, 385398.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language [ ]. Cambridge, MA. MIT
Press.
Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity []. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichaels Manual
of Child Psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function
of wrong beliefs in young childrens understanding of deception [ :

]. Cognition, 13, 4168.

| | programme

39



?
- ,

.
, .
, , .
.
,
.

40


, ,

.
, -
.
,
:
1.
.
2. ,
, .
3. .
4. .
- , .
5.
, ,
. , . - , , ,
(Smith and MacGregor, 1992).

.
, ,
, , ,
.

(: Beckman, 1990; Chickering and
Gamson, 1991; Collier, 1980; Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, and Associates, 1992; Johnson, Johnson,
and Smith, 1991; Slavin, 1980, 1983).
| | programme


Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative Learning: Preparation for the Workplace and Democracy
[ : ]. College Teaching, 38(4), 128133.
Chickering, A. W, & Gamson, Z. F. (Eds.). (1991). Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice
inUndergraduate Education [ : ].New
Directions for Teaching and Learning,no.47.San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Collier, K. G.(1980). Peer-Group Learning in Higher Education: The Development of
Higher-order Skills [ :
].Studies in Higher Education, 5(1), 55-62.
Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., & Associates (1992). Collaborative Learning: A
Sourcebook for Higher Education [ :
].University Park: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning,
and Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Improving Student Learning in College Classrooms [
]. Springfield, Ill: Thomas.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative Learning: Increasing
College Faculty Instructional Productivity [ :
]. ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No.4.
Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington
University.
Slavin, R. F. (1980). Cooperative Learning [ ]. Review of Educational
Research,50(2), 315-342.
Slavin, R. E.(1983).When Does Cooperative Learning Increase Student Achievement?[
?]. PsychologicalBulleti
n,94 (3), 429-445.
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What Is Collaborative Learning? [
?].National Centre on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at
Pennsylvania State University.

| | programme

41

42



. :
;

;
;

.
,
, , . . , : . ,
, ,
,
.
(2005) -
. ,
- - - , ,

. , ,
.
.
(2008)
. ,
, .
,
.

.
(2004) -
, , ,
. ( )
- (2000) , .
,
.
| | programme

, . - ,
:
-;
;
.
- :
1) -

;
2)
;

:
1)
;

2)
,
3) - ,
, , ;
;
3) ,
4) , .
.
:
1) ;
2) , ;
3) - ;
4) ,
;
5) ( ,
, ).
, , . ,
.

,
. (1976) (2000) ,

. . ,
; , - , ;
. , . , ; , . , ,
, , ? .
- , .
.
, ,
.
| | programme

43


.
-
, .
, , , .

44


-- () . :
(): ?
(): .
(): .
(Mercer, 1995).
.
,

, .
:
.
.
( ) .
,
, , , . ,
. ,
.
.
, .
: , , ,
, ,
.
:
, ,
, - ?
.
: , ,
?

, :
;
;
;
;
;
| | programme

;
- ,
;
, ;
.

,
.
, ,
.
, - ,
. (2001)
.
:
, , ;
, ;
-
;
;

;
( ,
);
;
;
.

, , .
,
.
,
. (2002) ,

.
,
. ,
:
1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. - -.
6. .
( )
, . ,
| | programme

45

,
.
,
-, .
,
,
- .

46

Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk [


: ]. Cambridge: Dialogos UK.
Barnes, D. (1971). Language and Learning in the Classroom [ ].
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3 (1), 2738.
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum [
]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Galton, M., & Hargreaves, L. (2002). Transfer from the Primary School: 20 Years On [ : 20 ]. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners
[ : ].
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (2008). Exploring talk in school: inspired by the work of Douglas
Barnes [ : ].
London: Sage
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of thinking. A sociocultural
approach [ . ]. NY: Routledge.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Language, school and classrooms (2nd ed.) [, ].
London: Methuen.
Wragg, E., & Brown, G. (2001). Questioning in the Primary School [
]. Routledge Falmer.

| | programme


. : ( )
( ).
.
, - .
:
;
;
/;
/ .

1960 , , .
-.


.
,
,
.
,
(, )
,

. ,
,
, () .


, ,
- ,
. ,
. ,
: ,
:
. :
;
;
- .

| | programme

47



,
. -, ,
,
,

.
,
. . ,
.

48

, , , . . ,
,

.
- -
, ,
.
.

.
.
.

, ,
. ,
,
(Assessment Reform Group, 2002b).

- .

/ .

,
,
. ,
,
. ,
.
| | programme

(2002) :

,

.

. ,
.
, . . ,

. ,
.


.

.
(PISA)
-

. ,
,
.
, . ,

.
, ,
.

. ,
, ;

,
.
( )
( ) .
, (
) .
.
,
, .
| | programme

49


,
,
.

50


, : ,
. .
. ,
;
.
(, - ).
,
, , , .
. . ,
.
, ,
.
.
- .
, ,
() .
.
. ,
, ,

. PISA (
) ,

.
.

. ,

.

, . ,
-
.
.
| | programme

:

.
- .


(10-).

, :
.
,
- .
, .
-
, .
-

.

10-.


Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy [ ]. Wiley-Blackwell.
Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles [
: 10 ]. University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Assessment Reform Group. (2002b). Testing, Motivation and Learning [,
]. University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1989a). Assessment and Classroom Learning [ ]. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5 (1), 5-75.
| | programme

51

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom
assessment [ : ].
Kings College London, School of Education. Now available from NFER/Nelson.
James, M. (2002). Assessment for Learning: what is it and what does research say about it?
[ : ]. Learning how to
learn project, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.

52

| | programme




(2004)

.

. (2006)
.
.

, - ,
. -
, , ,
,
. ,
,
.
(2004)
:
: /
.
.
. ,
.
:
, .
:
.
, , ,
,
.
: ,
.
.
,
.
:
, , , , .

, ,
.
| | programme

53

54

: , . ,
.
, , , .
, , ,
. .
( ).
- ( -
-).
( -
).
( -).

. ()
. :
- ;

;
;

.
.
,
.
(Elliot, 1991).

. , -, ,
.
-

, .
-
. ,

. ,
-
.
: ;
; , . (, , ,
) . , ,
,
.
| | programme


:
;
;
,
;

;
;

;
, -
.
()
.
, - . - , :
, , , -
.
, .
,

.
i , ,
.

. .
i
ii , .
.
.
,
. ,
.
,
.
.
1-. .
2-. .
3-. .
4-. .
5-. .
6-. i .
7-. i iii
.
| | programme

55

,

.

56

,
i ,
, , i .
, , .
i . , : i ;
ii. i ,
.
,
, ,
.
, .
, .
, . .
, .
, .
.
HertsCam- ( ) Network Events

. web-
.

(2007) .

, .
Lesson study
Lesson study ,
,
. Lesson study
( ) . Lesson study :
1-: , ,
.
2-: Lesson study Lesson study- .
3-: Lesson study- : ,
, -
.
4-: Lesson study-
.

| | programme


,
.
. - (CFAT)
. :
, , ,
.
, .
; - , ,
.

.
-
:
; ,
.


:
;
;

;

;
;
.

. (2005)
,
.


Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey,
K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and Sustaining Effective
Professional Learning Communities [ii i
]. The Department for Education and Skills.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change [ii i
]. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
| | programme

57

58

Elmore, R. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement [


]. Harvard University, paper prepared for the international conference
on Perspectives on Leadership for systematic improvement, NCSL 2006.
Frost, D. (2011). Supporting teacher leadership in 15 countries: the International Teacher
Leadership project [15 i ii iiii : ii
iii ]. Phase 1, A report, Cambridge: LfL at the University
of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Rationale, Strategy and Impact [ii
: , , ii
]. School Leadership & Management, 23 (2), 173186.
Harris, A. (2009). Deep Leadership [ ]. Nottingham: National College for
School Leadership.
McBer, H. (2004). The five pillars of Distributed Leadership in Schools [
]. Nottingham: National College for School
Leadership.
Hoyle, E. (1974). Professionality, profesionalism and control in teaching [,
]. London Educational Review, 3 (2), 4254.
James, M. (2005). Teacher Learning for pupil Learning [
]. In Teaching Texts, Learning centred leadership II (pp. 127-138).
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop
as Leaders (2nd ed.) [ : i
(2-)]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong claims
about successful school leadership [
]. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Lieberman. A., Moore-Johnson, S., Fujita, H., & Starratt, R. (2007). Where Teachers can lead
[ ]. Developing teacher leadership, the ILERN Materials.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
McBeath, J. (2004). Distributed Leadership in Action: A study of current practice in schools
[- : ]. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
MacBeath, J., Frost, D., Swaffeld, S., & Waterhouse, J. (2006). Leadership for Learning:
Making the Connections [ : ]. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
National College for School Leadership. (2004). Learning to Lead [ ]. NCSLs
Stratgey for Leadership Learning. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
West-Burnham, J. (2009). Rethinking Educational Leadership [
]. London: Continuum Books.

| | programme

Lesson study

Lesson Study , 1870-
.
Lesson Study
, 2007
.

. Lesson Study-
.
Lesson Study
. Lesson Study . ,
Lesson Study-
- . , Lesson Study

- . Lesson Study-
.


. Lesson Study-
.
,
.
, Lesson Study
. ,
- .
,
.

,
.
.
,
,
. Lesson Study- ,
.

Lesson Study . Lesson
Study -
,
. Lesson Study
,
.

| | programme

59

60

Lesson Study -
. , .
,
Lesson Study-
, .
Lesson Study
:
Lesson Study , -
- .

, , ,
- Y-
.

.
,
- , .
,
.
,
,
, .

.
.
:
,
;
;
;

.
Lesson Study- .
Lesson Study ( )

.

| | programme

-
- -
- - () (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009)

. - ,
,
, .
, - (, ) .
-

.
-, -
-

- .
, . -
-
. ,
- .
-
-
- , -
.
, , , . ,
,
, . - , , ,
,
.
,
.
, ,
- .
, -
.
- , -
. -
,
.
- -
.

| | programme

61

. , -
, , .
-
.
.
.
- ,
. -

.
, - :
,
- ;
- ;
,
;
,
.

62


Altrichter, H., & Gstettner, P. (1992). Action Research: a closed chapter in the history of German
social science? [- : ?].
Educational Action Research, 1 (3), 329-360.
Altrichter, H., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers Investigate Their Work [
]. London: Routledge.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: knowing through action research [
: - ]. London: Falmer Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2009). Educational Action Research: A Critical Approach [-
]. In Noffke, S. & Somekh, B. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Educational Action Research. London: Sage.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the
Next Generation [ : -
]. New York: Teachers College Press.

| | programme


,

.
.
, . :
- (. coaching) - , ,
. ( ) ,
.
, ,
, ,
, .
:
, .
- (mentoring) , (,
) ( ) ,
- .
, , -
. , , , .
:
,
.

-
.
, - , . , - :
;
- ;

.

,
,
(2-).
| | programme

63

64

2-.

- - -
-;
;
- - , ;
;
;
- (
- , )
/ ;
;
- - , , - ;
, -
, , ;

- , , /
;
;
- ,
- ;
-
;
,
- .

;
-
.
-
-
: ,
.
, ;
: , , , (Garret-Harris & Garvey, 2005).
- ,
,
, (Oxley, 2003).



.
.
.


.

, - .

| | programme

11-.
,

.

.

:
1. .
.
2. .
.
3. . ;
,
.
:
1.
.
2.
.
3. .
4. .
5.
.
6. ,
, ,
.
7. .

| | programme

65



,
- .
(Egan, 1998) 1975 .
, .
-
;
; (12-).

66

12-.


Egan, G. (1998). The Skilled Helper. A Problem Management Approach to Helping (6th ed.) [
. (6-)]. Brooks Cole.
Garrett-Harris, R., & Garvey, R. (2005). Towards a Framework for Mentoring in the NHS [NHS
]. Evaluation Report on Behalf of NHS. Sheffield Hallam University.
Oxley, J., Fleming, B., Golding, L., et al. (2003). Mentoring for Doctors: Enhancing the Benefit
[ : ]. A Working Paper on behalf of the
Doctors Forum (http://www.academicmedicine.ac.uk/uploads/Mentor1.pdf).
Rodgers, J. (2004). Coaching Skills: A Handbook [ : ]. Open
University Press.
| | programme


-

- ( - )
. -, ,
.
, ,
,
,
.
, ,
. .
,
.
(2006)
, ,
.

,
. ,
, - .

13-. (http://tpack.org/)
| | programme

67

()
. ,

, . ,
, .
11 18

, . ,
, . ,
. -
. ,
.

68

()
,
, . , ,
, .
, ,
.

, - ,
. ,
, ,
. 14-
.

14-.
| | programme

,
.
()

:
(Shulman, 1986).

. ,

, .
, , ,
, ,
. ,
.

.
,
- .
()
(, , ..) .
,
.

, - ,
, . ,
,
, .. .
()
()
() .
, ,
.
,
.
,
() . ()

. -
. - | | programme

69

,
,
.
, ()
,
() . 2006
, ,
,

. , ,

. , ,
.
,
,

.


70

Beauchamp, G. (2006). New technologies and new teaching, a process of evaluation [


, , ]. In R. Webb (Ed.), Changing
teaching and learning in the primary school. Buckingham: Open University Press
Becta. (2003). Primary School: ICT and Standards. An analysis of National data from
Ofsted and QCA [ : . Ofsted QCA
] Coventry: Becta
Birnbaum, I. (1990). The assessment of ICT capability [ ].
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 6, 88-99
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPCK in Practice: Using and elaborated model
of the TPCK framework to analye and depict teacher knowledge [
: ]. TechTrends, 53 (5), 60-69.
Cox, M. J. (1997). The effects of information technology on students motivation [
]. Coventry Council for Education
Technology.
Cox, M. J., & Webb, M. (Eds.). (2004). A review of the research literature relating to ICT
and attainment [- ].
Coventry, Becta/London: DfES.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and
their influence on learning [
]. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3), 227-241.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive
technology to implement interactive teaching [
]. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 24 (1), 61-73
| | programme

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge
in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology [
: ,
]. Computers & Education, 49 (3), 740-762.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge [ :
]. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching [
: ]. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.
Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) [
] Accessed November 2011 http://www.tlrp.org/findings/Schools%20
Findings/Schools%20Findings.html

71

| | programme



,
.
(15-).
:
.
: ,
.
: ,
.
: , ,
.
: - .

72

15-.

.
. , ,
- .
. ,
. : ,

.

. ,
, - , . ,
, .
| | programme

:
.
: ,

.
( ) ,
( ) , .
, -
. ,
.
, .
,
. - ,
.
.
.
, , . , - ,
. , , ,
.
- - ; ,
.
: ,
.

,
, .
, ,
.
,
, .
,
- ,
. ,
.

, ,
, ,
. .
,
, , .

| | programme

73

74

,

. ,
. , :

, ( ?
? ?);
,
( ,
);
,
( ?);
(
, ).
.
. ,
:
.

.
, ,
.
. :
;
;
; .
. ,
,
.
. . ,

.
. ,

. , , ,
. ;
, ( )
. -

.

| | programme

16-. , ,

,


.

, .
- .

:
, ;
;
;
;

;

;
.

- . ,
:
, ?
?
, ?
,
.
| | programme

75

:
;
;
.

,
. ,
.

, . , -
.

76

| | programme



. ,
.
:
;
.
-
. -
- .
-
, - ;
.
,
.
,
.
, . ,
,
. -

.
. :
1. ,
;
2. ;
3. / ,
.
. - -

. .
:
;
.

.


.
, ,
.
| | programme

77

.
,

.
. -
, . , , -

, , .

78


1) - (4000 ):
(
).
,
.
( ,
).
, .
(
- ;
; -
,
);
.
,
.
2) , :
.
( 1000 ):

( ).
.
.
.

(1000 ).
3) ( )
(2000 ), :
: (
).
,
, .
| | programme

.
.
:
,
.
,
.
,
.


. .
.
:
7
;
-
;

;
.
:
- (10-12 ).
,
,
.
, (20 ).
(
5 ). ,
. : , , ,
,
...
,
(20 ).

, , :

.
| | programme

79


, :
, ...
, ,
(
).
,
:
... ... .
... .

, , , .

80

:
1. ,
;
2. ;
3. / ,
.


.
1.
,
.
:

(, ..)
.
2.
.
:
, ,

;
Lesson Study- ,
;
| | programme

, /
;

;

;
,

;

;

;

;

;
, ,
-
, .
3.
,
.
:
;
;

;
,
;
-
.

| | programme

81

( )

82

,
- ,
, :

(Mittler, 2008).
, , :
,

(Mittler, 2008, page 6)
,
, :

(2008 ) (6-)
.
, , : (Jordan and
Powell, 1995). ,
.
, , : (Lewis et al, 2006).
, ,

.
. ,
:
(1962 ), (1991), ... .
( , 1991).
(
) . , , , , , ,
,
, :
( ) (2007 )
. [ at www.qca.org.uk].
, . (1993 ) (2-).
.
, . , . () (1992 )
. : .
, A. (2001 ) :
, . 28, (1), 24 29.
, . (2003 )

, 26 2003 , www.connects.org.uk/conferences.
(,
(2007) . : .
| | programme

, . (1996 ) :
, . . () , . : .

.
, : DfES, 2005; DfES,
2005; DfES, 2005.
: -, ; ,
( ; ); ;
; ,
, .
:
, . , . (1989 ) PMLD- -
.
, 10 1989 .
, . (1987 ) :
.
PhD; .
,
-; ; ,
, : , . . (2007)
(ASD) ,
[: www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp] (2008 . 24 ).

. ,
.
- ,
:
, . (1980 ) . .
12.9.80
, C. (2007 ) , . 2007 , 18 20 .
:
BBC2 (1995 ) , . 7.9.95. : BBC .

.

. , ;
;
.

| | programme

83

84


.
, -
. , .
,
. , .
,
.
10 - :
1.
.
2.
. http://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/
category/publications/guidelines/
3. , , .
, ?
4.
/ -
. -
. .
5. ,
.
6. ,
.
.
7. ,
(, , )
.
8. .
.
9. (, , , )
.
10. /
.
,
. ,
/
, ,
? ,

.
| | programme

.


.
. ,
, : -
.

,
, .
.
:
(
);
, - ;
,
;
, ;

;
, .
,

.
,
(, ). , ,
.

: , , , , ..; -
;
,
.
,
, , - -
, .
.

| | programme

85

86

- ()
, (.. .. . ).
,
.
. Bersin & Associates
: (conversation), (connection),
(collaboration), (content), []
(consumption), (control)
(contribution).
(. , - -
) .

. , ,
,
,
.

, ,
.
. ,

.
.
, .
, (..).
:
(, ) .
. ,
, .
,
.
,
, .

.
()
.

| | programme


()

,
.
,
, .

. ; ,

,


()
.

.
, :
, ,
,
, .

. ,
..
/ (. cnvergere ) -
() . ,

, .
-.

- - , ; ,
.
, ,
,
,
,
.
: ,
, - .

(. create , creative , )
,


, -
, .

| | programme

87

. ,
. , .
, . ,
.

, (,
, -, ..)
, ,

.
.
,

.
,
.
,
.
,
,
(), , ,
,
. ()
: , .
,
.
, .
, ,
. ,
,

. - ,
-
- .

. ,
.
(J.H. Flavell, 1976).


.

88

| | programme


()

()


(, , , ,
).
1. . 2. ,
.
, - .

- ,
.
. , ,
-

. .
,
-
.
, ;

;

. :

; -
,
; .
: , .
, ,

.

.
,
.

| | programme

89

90

,
-
- .
:
? ?
- ?
(. reflexio ) - ,
, ,
. : 1.
. 2.
. 3. .
.
,
, .
- .
/
.
,

.

, - .
. constructivus . () , () .
-
, -
. , .
, //
// .
, ,
,
.
.
, , ,
.

| | programme

Lesson Study

;
,

.
,
.
,
.
- (mentoring) ,
, -
.
, , -
.
: ,
.
- .
(. authentikys ) ,
.
-
- ,

.
, ,
.
.

, .
(, ), -
.
-
. 70-
.
Lesson Study- , , , ,
, . Lesson Study-
,
Lesson Study, , .
,
, -
, , , , ,
.
| | programme

91

92

1. . , , . [, , ].
, , : .., .., .. -: , 1996. 92 .
2. ..
. [ ].
.: 1997. 296 .
3. .. . . . [. . ]. .: 1980.
4. .. . : . . [
. : ]. .: ,
1991. 176 .
5. .. : .
. 2- ., [ : ].
2-, .: , 2011. 432 .
6. .. .
[ ]. .: , 1997. 286 .
7. .., .. : , , ; .. . [ : , , . - ].
.: , 2002.
8. .. . , 2003.
9. .. .., .. [ .., .. ].
.: , 1998.
10. .. .
. [ . ]. 14, . 1991. 4. 519 .
11. .. . . [ -
. ]. 1996. 4. 518 .
12. , . . ( ),
[ ( )]. .: ; ,
2005. 1136 .
13. .., .. : . [ : ]. 1-, .. .: , 2002. 239 .
14. .. : ..
[ : ]. .: , 2010. 288 .
15. .. : - . [ ]. .. .: , 2008.
16. .. : . . . . : . [ : . . . . ]. .:
-, 2006.
17. .., .. : . . [ ]. : . . -., 2000.
572 .
| | programme

18. .. . [ ].
.: , 2005. 240 .
19. .. : . . .
. . [ :
]. .: , 2004. 288 .
20. .. . [ ]. .:
, 1996. 544 .
21. .., .. : . [ : ]. -: , 2009. 160 .
22. . :
: 2005( ISBN: 9965-9800-04).
23. .. . , 1999.
24. .. : .. [
: ]. 5-. .: , 2008. 192 .
25. .., - .. : . [
: ]. : -, 2003.
26. .., - .., .. . [ ]. 2- : , 2003.
27. .. : , , . . [ :
, , . ]. :
, 1995. 176 .
28. .. : .
[ : ]
, 2010. 84 .
29. .. : - .
[ : - ]. .:
, 2002. 128 .
30. .. : . [
]. .: , 2005.
31. .. . . .
. , 2010. 113 .
32. . - :
: . . 13.00.02. , 2001.
33. . . [ ].
.: , 2002.
34. .. . [
] .: .
1996. 416 .
35. .. . [
]. , :
(ISBN 978-5-9770-0284-4, 978-5-89395-892-8), 2008.
36. .. :
. [ ]. .: , 1983. 96 .
37. .., .., .. . [
]. .:, 1990. 192 . (.
- ).
| | programme

93

94

38. .. : . [ :
]. .: , 2006. 168 .
39. .. : : . [ : : ]. .: -, 2008. 368 .
40. . . :
.. , 2011. 201 .
41. . . 1998.
42. .. . .
[ . ]. : , 2008.
43. . -
. , 2004.
44. .
. : 2005.
45. .. - . ,
, 2005.
46. . . [ ]. :
, 1968.
47. ..
. , 2007.
48. ..
: [ . ]./ .. .: , 2010. 224 .
49. ..
. [ ]. .:
, 2009. 448 .
50. .., .. . // .
1. 2006. 121 .
51. .. DOC .
[DOC . ]. .: ,
1998. 256 .
52. .. - [ - ]. .: , 2011.
53. .. . , 2000.
54. . . . 4, 2005.
55. .. / .., .., ..;
. .: , 2009. 318 .
56. . . [ ]. / . ., ., .. .: , 2000. 512
: . ( ).
57. ..
. . [ .
. ]. .: . . , 2000. ISBN
5-691-00577-4.
58. .. : . [ : ].
.: , 2010. 120 .
| | programme

59. .. [ ]. -: , 1999.
60. .. , , . [, , ]. / . .: , 1991.
61. .. -. [
]. .: , 1966. . 254292.
62. .. : :
[ : : -
] .: , 1996. http://www.u-mama.ru/files/books/odar_reb.zip
63. .. [ ]. .: , 1979.

95

| | programme



.
: , , -, 2, 3-
: +7 7172 79 96 11, +7 7172 79 96 14
E-mail: info@cpm.kz

96

| | programme

()

www.cpm.kz

, 2012

.
,
, .


...................................................................................................................................102
..............102

..............................................................................................................104

.....................................................................................................................................105
.............................................................................................109
..........................................................................................110
......................................110

...............................................................................113
..............................................................116
.......................................................................................................................117
........................................124
............................................................................................125
.......................................................................................125
, .......................................................................................................127
.....................................................................133
......137
...................................................................142
...................................................................142
.............................................................................................................144
...............................................................149
........................................................................................155
Lesson study .....................................................................................................................161
Action research ...............................................................................................................162
...................................................................................................................165
................................................................170
-
.......................................................................................................170

...............................................................................................175
...............179
,
....................................................................................................................181


( ) ......................................................................186

.........................................................................................188
.............................................................190
.......................................................................................198
............................................................................................201

( 1) . ,
, , , : 21 ? ,
- 21- ?.

() (
).

102

1.

,
. , , , 21- .
21- , ,
( - ), ( - ).
( ,
) ,
. | | programme

, , ,
-
, (Schleicher, 2012) (. 1).
, , (PISA).
1: , , :

,
, , :
?

, , ,
, .
.
, , ,
.

, ;
;
,
.

, , , ,
.
,
.
, :
, .

, 21- , . , , , .
( ) . ,
(The Republic) .
| | programme

103

, ,
, . , , , .

, .


, , , , , .


,
, (Barber and Moushad, 2007).
(Strong, Ward & Grant, 2011).
- 104
,
. , ,
, . ,
(Bolam, McMahon, Stoll et al, 2005),
, (Frost and Durrant, 2003). ,
, , , ;
, , (Frost, 2011). ,
,
.
, , ,
,
.
. , ,
.
| | programme

,
, .

, , , ,
(Hattie, 2009). , , . ,
, , ,
, , , . , , , ,
, . ,
, , , , ,
, .
, - 105
, ,

, .
, , ,
.

, , ,
,
,
. :
-
;
-
;
- , .

, , , .

| | programme


,
, ,
. , , ,
( 2).
, , . (1992) , ,
, ,
, . , , ,
, -
.

106
2. ,

, . , , ,
, .


,
,
. , ,
.
, ( .), (
, .), (
.) .
,
:
| | programme

, ;
,
.
, , ,
.

,
, ,
.
.

: . , .,
.

, , : , ,
. peo ec
107
, , c ee.
eo, ,
. , p (Shulman, 2007)
( 1).

. , , , . ,
.
,
, ,
.
, .

| | programme


(Shulman, 2007)

108

1.


,
. , / /
.

; ,
,
. , , , ,
.
-
,
,
.
-

: , , ,
. - ,
,

.


.
, , , .. ,
. , , , , .

, , ,
, | | programme

. ,
, . , , . .

, ,
:

1. -, , .
2. , ,
, , .
3. , , , : ?,
?, ? . .
4. , - , ,
,
, - 109
, .
:
, .

.
, ,
.

,
.
, .
, -
, , .

| | programme

1.
.
2.
, , :
- ;
- ction research;
- ;
- ,
;
- .
3.
.

:
,
( , , 110
. .) .
,
,
, ,
.
, :
:

;

;
Lesson Study;
;
;
;
, , , , ;
ction research
.
:
| | programme


, , , ;
,
,
;
- , ,
.
:
Lesson Study;
;
;
;
, ,
.

111


Barber, ., Mourshed, . & McKinsey (2007) Report Consistently high performance: Lessons from
the worlds top performing school systems [
].
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram,
M., Atkinson, A. and Smith, M. (2005). Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning
Communities [ ]. The
Department for Education and Skills.
Fenstermacher, G. & Richardson, V. (2005). Making Determinations of Quality in Teaching
[ ]. Teachers College Record, 107 (1), 186-213.
Frost, D. (2011). The International Teacher Leadership project, inform 12 [
, 12]. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
www.leadership forlearning.org.uk
Frost, D. and Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Rationale, Strategy and Impact [
: , ]. School Leadership and Management, 23 (2), 173-186.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning [ ]. London: Routledge.
MacBeath, J. (2012). The future of the teaching profession. [ ]. Education
International Research Institute and the Leadership for Learning Cambridge Network. Faculty of
Education, University of Cambridge
OECD (2005) Definition and Selection of Key Competencies [
]. (Paris, France: OECD, May 27, 2005).
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct
[ :
| | programme

. ]. Review of Educational
Research, 62 (3), 307-332.
Schleicher, A. (2012). (Ed.). Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st
Century: Lessons from around the World [
21- : ]. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264xxxxxx-en
Shulman, L. S. (2007). Good teaching [ ]. Box content in S Loeb, C
Rouse & A. Shorri (Eds.), Introducing the Issue in The Future of Children, 17 (1), 6-7.
Stronge, J., Ward, T. & Grant L. (2011). What Makes Good Teachers Good? A cross-case analysis of the
connection between teacher effectiveness and pupil achievement [
?
]. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339. DOI: 10.1177/0022487111404241

112

| | programme




,
.
, ,
, .
, 21-
, , , , ,
, , . , , .

: . ,
, , .
113



, 21- .
, . ,
, , .
,
, - .
,
, (Desimone et al., 2002; pfer
and Pedder, 2010). , .


(Sinek, 2009) , -, , , , ?.
, : - ? - ?.
| | programme

, ,
21- .

.
, , ?, ,
. , , ( , ),
, . ,
- ,
,
. ,
?,
?, ,
, .
, :
- : ?
- : ?
- - ?
114 , Apple (Sinek, 2009)
(Darling-Hammond, 2006; Timperley 2009, Schleicher 2012, MacBeath, 2012).

,
?
. (2010) , (. 3).

3. ,
| | programme

,
,
, , .
,
.


Darling - Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education [
21- ]. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57 No. X, 1- 15.
Desimone, L., A.C. Porter, M.S. Garet, K.S. Yoon, and B.F. Birman (2002). Effects of professional
development on teachers instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. [
: ]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (2), 81112.
MacBeath, J. (2012). The future of the teaching profession [ ]. Education
International Research Institute and the Leadership for Learning Cambridge Network. Faculty of
Education, University of Cambridge.
OECD Definition and Selection of Key Competencies [
] (Paris, France: OECD, May 27, 2005).
Opfer, V. and Pedder, D. (2010). Benefits, status and effectiveness of Continuous Professional
Development for teachers in England [, 115
]. Curriculum Journal, 21 (4), 413
431.
Schleicher, A. (2012). (Ed.). Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century:
Lessons from around the World [ 21- :
]. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264xxxxxxen
Sinek, S. (2009, September). How great leaders inspire action [
]. Speech at TEDx Portland. Available from www. ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_
great_leaders_inspire_action.html
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development:
Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES) [ : (BES)]. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.
Available
from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16901/
TPLandDBESentire.pdf

| | programme

,
,

4.
:
.
.
,
. 116
ction research, ,
, , ,
. , ,
. , ,
,
-.
-
, - ,

.
, , .

ction research.
- , , , ,
. , ,
, (
, - ction research).

| | programme


(4 )

/
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

:
, .

.
:

.
.

1
1: . - 8
. .
2-4: .
.
1-2: 8
.
3-4: ?
.
1-2: - 8
.
3-4: :
( ).

1: - 8
.
2-3: , . .
4: ( ).
- 1-4: - 8
.
. .
.

| | programme

117

1.

2.

3.

118
4.

5.

.
: ,
.

.
:

.

.
:

.
:

.

:

2
8
1-4: , .

,
.

1-4: . 8
, ;
.
8
1-4: .

.

.
.
1-7: .
8
().
.
.
.
8:
.

| | programme

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

1.

2.

3.
4.

3
1-4: 8
. - .
:
- .
.
1-4: - 8
.

. -
.
( )
.
- 1-4: .
8

. .
1-4:

Lesson Study Lesson Study.


.
- 1-4: .
:

4
- 1-4: : , ,
: .
- .
.
- 1-8: - .

(
)
.
.

119
8

- 1-4: - 8

.
.
| | programme

5.

8
1-2: ction research.
3-4:
: 160

120

: 1 45 .
(5 )
:
1. .
2.
( ).
3. ction research .
4. , .
5. .
: .
: 144
: 120
( 4 *6 )
: 1 45 .
(4 )

-


/

1
1.

2.



,
.
ction research

1: , - 8
,
.
2: .
3-4:

.
1-2: 8
ction research .
3-4: ction research.

| | programme

1-2: .
3-4: ction research.
ction research
1-2: ction research.
3-4: ction research. .
1-4:
ction research
ction research
.
2
- 1-4: ction research .

ction research.
( Power Point 10-12 ).

2.

3.

4.

5.

1.

3.

4.
5.

1.

ction research

1-2: ; .
3-4:
-
.
1-2: -.
3-4: ( ).
1-4: -.
1-2:
-
.
3-4: -.
3

1-2: - 8
-.
3-4: .

| | programme

121

2.

3.

4.

5.

122
1.

2.

3.
4.

- 1-2: .
.
3-4:

.
- 1-4:
.
- ( .
)
( Power Point 20 ).
- 1-4:
.
- (
)
.
( Power Point 20 ).
.
1: .
2: .
3-4: .
4
1-2: .
.
3-4: , , ,
.
1-2:
.
.
3-4: .
1-4: .
.
- 1-4: ,
.

.
( )
( Power Point 20 ).

| | programme

8
8

- 1-4: ,
.

.
( )
( Power Point 20 ).
8
: 160
: 440
: 1 45
5.



1
2
3
4


9.00 - 10.30
10.30-11.00
11.00 - 12.30
12.30 - 14.00 -
14.00 - 15.30
15.30 - 15.45
15.45- 17.15

| | programme

123


:
1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. .
, :

124



:
,
. .

Lesson study

Action research


-
,

5.

| | programme




, , , , .. , ,
, .
. , , , , , , .
,
; .
, , , , , , .
, , ,
, , :
, ;
;
125
;
;
.
:
;
;
;
.

, , ,
1956 .
: , . -

.

| | programme

6.
,
.
, - . ,
- , , 6.

,
, 126 .
, , .
, ,
,
, , .


Alexander, R. J. (2001). Culture and Pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education
[ : ]. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching. Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.) [ . ]. York:
Dialogos.
Glaser, E. M., (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking [ ]. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Wolfe, S. & Alexander, R. J. (2008). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: alternative pedagogies
for a changing world [ : ]. Available from http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/ch3_final_wolfealexander_argumentationalternativepedagogies_20081218.pdf
(accessed February 19, 2012)

| | programme

,

,
, , . , , :
,
,
;
;
;
- , , ,
;
, ;
.
. ,
, , . ,
. , ,
. , , , . , 127
.
:
, ;
;
;
, .

. , ,
, . , ,
.
, , ,
. - .
. () , . . .
- (Vygotsky, 1978). , ,
,
.
, .
| | programme

(). ,
. . ,
, ,
.

(Perry et al, 2002):
;
;
.

, , , ,
.
(Lave 1988; Lave and Wenger, 1991),
. . (1993), ,
128

,
.

: ,
, .
, , : ; ;

(. 7).

| | programme

7.
. , , , .
, , 129
.
,
, , , , , .
,
, . , , , , ,
. ,
.
,
, .
,
: , , , , , , , (. 8).

| | programme

8.
,

.
130 , , (2008) , (2009) - . , , , - .
, .

9.

| | programme

, - . ,
,
. , .
, , . ,
, . ,
,
. ,
, ,
, , .


Bronson M., (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and Nurture [
: ]. New York London: Guilford Press.
Bruner J., (1996). The Culture of Education [ ]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
131
University Press.
Chaiklin, S., (1999). Developmental teaching in upper-secondary school [
]. In M.Hedegaard & J. Lompscher (Eds.) Learning Activity
and Development. Oxford: Aarhus University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M (2008). Flow []. Harper Perennial.
Forrest-Pressley, D.L., MacKinnon, G.E. & Waller, T.G. (Eds.) (1985). Metacognition, Cognition
& Human Performance [, ]. New York:
Academic Press.
Lave, J., (1988). Cognition in Practice [ ]. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E., (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation [
: ]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leontiev, A.N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. [ ]. In Wertsch, J. (ed), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: SharpeMatlin
M., (1998) Cognition (4th ed.) Orlando: Harcourt Brace.
Nunes, T.; Schliemann, A. D. & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street Mathematics and School Mathematics.
[ ]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perry, N.E., VandeKamp, K.J.O., Mercer, L.K. & Nordby, C.J. (2002). Investigating TeacherStudent Interactions that Foster Self-Regulated Learning. [ , ]. Educational
Psychologist, 37 (1), 5-15.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation,
learning, and well-being. [ :
, ]. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),Handbook
| | programme

on motivation at school [ ]. (pp. 171-196). New York:


Routledge.
Tharp, R.G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life [ ]. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Mind in Society [ ]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Whitebread D, (2000). Organising activities to help children remember and understand [ ].
In Whitebread D (Ed.) The Psychology of Teaching and Learning in the Primary School. London:
Routledge.

132

| | programme


(1978)
:
;
;
.

, . ,
, .
, - . ,
. ,
- . ,
,
. , , .
, , ,
.
133
: , , , - , .
.
, , ,
.
; , -
. , ,
, , ,
.
(1996 .) ,
. , , :
, - .
. ,
. , , , , -
, , , ,
| | programme

. .
, , ,
(, , - .), (, , ,
, . .).
, .

134

:
(, IQ) , .
, ,
.

.
, .
,
, ,
,
.
, , .
.

,
, .
, , , , , , ,
, , ,
.
, ,
, : , .

(1993)
, :
;
,
;
| | programme

, ;
;
, .
,
, , .
. ,
, .
, .
. ,
, , , , , , .
, . ,

, .


Dauban, J. & Crossland, J. (2009). Working with Gifted and Talented Children at an Iron Age Hill
Fort in North Somerset [ , . ]. In Primary
History 51 Spring 2009. Historical Association, UK.
Eyre, D. and McClure, L. (2001). Curriculum Provision for the Gifted and Talented in the Primary
School [
]. David Fulton.
Eyre, D. and Lowe, H. (2002). Curriculum Provision for the Gifted and Talented in the Secondary
Schoo [ ]. David Fulton.
Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the Very Able [ ]. The Stationery
Offce, London.
Seal, C. (2006). How can we encourage pupil dialogue in collaborative group work? [ ?]. National
Teacher Research Panel summary.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What Makes Giftedness? Re-examining a Definition [ ? ]. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, (pp. 180181).
Renzulli, J. S. and Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Comprehensive
Plan for Educational Excellence [ : ]. Mansfi eld Center, CT: Creative Learning
Press.
| | programme

135

McAlpine, D. and Reid, N. (1996). Teachers observation scale for identifying children with special
abilities [ ]. Wellingtom: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M. and Moon, S. M. (2002). The social and emotional
development of gifted children: What do we know? [
: ?]. National Association of Gifted Children.
Prufrock Press.
US Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National Excellence and Developing
Talent [ ].

136

| | programme




()
, ,
, . , (, ,
, , . .), . ,
, .

. ( ,
. .). , 1980 . . , 3-4- .

3- 5- -.
,
. , , . 137
: , ?. 1983
, 5-
,
, , .
,
,
. ,
,
.

, (eg, Leslie, 1987; Fodor, 1992) , , ,
, , .
. ,
,
(Baron-Cohen, 1995; Frith et al., 1994). , , .

| | programme


- ,
(Barron, 2002) ,
, .

, .. , . (1956) .
, , ,
, , , , , - .
, , .
. (1970) ,
- ,
,
. . ,
. , . , ,
138
, . , , ,
, . , , ,
, , .

, .
, , 1950-
.
, , (Goswami
and Bryant, 2010). , , , , ,
.
, . ,
. ,

, .
, , , ,
| | programme

, . , , . , .
. . . (2010) , , . , ,
, ,
, , . , , ,
. ,
: , , .
,
, , , , , .
,
139
, .
,
, , ,
.
, , , , .
, ,
. ,
.
,
, , .
,
. ,
, .

. ,
,
, , ...
... , ...? | | programme

, .
,
.

.
, .
,
,
.


Atkinson, R.C. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes.
[ : ]. In K. W. Spence and J.
T. Spence (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory
(Vol. 2, pp. 89 -195). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A.D. & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of
Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory [ : ] (Vol. 8, pp.4789). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory [ ]. New York: General
140
Learning Press.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind [ : ]. Boston: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Barron, B. (2002). Creative work in relational context and its developmental significance. [ ]. Human Development,
45, 367-371.
Chen, Z., Sanchez, R. & Campbell, T. (1997). From beyond to within their grasp: Analogical problem
solving in 10- and 13-month-olds [ :
10 13 ]. Developmental Psychology, 33, 790-801.
Davidson J.E., Deuser R. & Sternberg R.J (1996). In Metcalfe J. & Shimamura A.P., Metacognition;
Knowing about Knowing [: ]. Cambridge. Mass: MIT Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. [ . ]. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence [
] (pp.231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental
inquiry [ : ]. American Psychologist, 34, 906 - 911.
Flavell, J.H., Green, F.L. & Flavell, E.R (1995). Young childrens knowledge about thinking. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development [ .
]. 60 (1, Serial No. 243).
Fodor, J. (1992). A theory of the childs theory of mind [ ] Cognition,
44, 283-296.
Frith, U., Happe, F. & Siddons, F. (1994). Autism and theory of mind in everyday life [
]. Social Development, 3, 108-124.
| | programme

Gentner, D. & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: Introduction [C


: ]. American Psychologist, 52, 32-34.
Goswami, U. & Brown, A. L. (1989). Melting chocolate and melting snowmen: Analogical reasoning
and causal relations [ :
- ]. Cognition, 35, 69-95.
Goswami, U. & Brown, A.L. (1990). Higher-order structure and relational reasoning: Contrasting
analogical and thematic relations. [ : ]. Cognition, 36, 207-226.
Guilford, J.P. (1956). The structure of intellect. [ ]. Psychological Bulletin,
53, 267-293.
Hagen, J.W. & Hale, G.A. (1973). The development of attention in children [ ]. Paper presented at the Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, October, 1972.
Howe, C. and Mercer ,N .(2010) Research survey for The Cambridge Primary Review. [- ]. In Robin Alexander
(Ed) Children, their World, their Education. London: Routledge.
Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence
[ : ]. Basic Books,
New York, NY.
James, W. (1890) The Principles of Psychology. Classics in the History of Psychology. [
. ].
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development [ ]. Vol.
141
I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretence and representation: the origins of theory of mind [ : ]. Psychological Review, 94, 412-426.
Piaget, J. (1977). The Role of Action in the Development of Thinking [ ]. In W.F. Overton & J.M Gallagher (Eds.), Advances in Research and Theory.
New York: Plenum Press.
Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G. & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Childrens development of analogical reasoning:
insights from scene analogy problems [ : ]. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249-271.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80s [ 80-]. Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Sternberg, R.J. (1983). Criteria for intellectual skills training. [ ]. Educational Researcher, 12, 6-12.
Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and Adult Learning [ ]. London:
Routledge.
Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? [ ?].
American Psychologist, 40, 385-398.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language [ ]. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In Carmichaels Manual of Child Psychology [. ]. Vol. 1, edited by P.H. Mussen. New York: Wiley.
Wimmer, H. & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of
wrong beliefs in young childrens understanding of deception. [ :

]. Cognition, 13, 41-68.
| | programme


- ,
,
.
, ,
. ,
,
. .
.

- , , - .
, , , .

142
, :
1. ,
, .
2. - ,
, , .
3. .
4. , . .
5.
,
, . , .
,
,
, ,
(Smith and MacGregor, 1992).

| | programme


. , , , , , ,
, ,
. , , (: Beckman, 1990; Chickering
and Gamson, 1991; Collier, 1980; Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, and Associates, 1992; Johnson, Johnson,
and Smith, 1991; Slavin, 1980, 1983;).


Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative Learning: Preparation for the Workplace and Democracy [ : ],CollegeTeaching,38 (4),128-133.
Chickering, A. W, and Gamson, Z. F. (1991) (Eds.). Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice
in Undergraduate Education [ : ].New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no.47.San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Collier, K. G. (1980). Peer-Group Learning in Higher Education: The Development of Higher-order
Skills [ : ].Studies in Higher Education, 5 (1), 55-62.
Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V, and Associates (1992).Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebookfor
143
Higher Education [ : ].University Park: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment,
Pennsylvania State University.
Guskey, T.R. (1988). Improving Student Learning in College Classrooms. Springfield, Ill: Thomas,
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. (1991).Cooperative Learning: Increasing College
Faculty Instructional Productivity [ : ](ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No.4). Washington,
D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University,
Slavin, R. F. (1980). Cooperative Learning [ ]. Review of Educational
Research,50 (2), 315-342.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). When Does Cooperative Learning Increase Student Achievement? [ ?].PsychologicalBulletin,94
(3), 429-445.
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What Is Collaborative Learning? [ ]. National Centre on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at
Pennsylvania State University

| | programme


,
, , :
;
, , ;
;
, .
, , , , , . . ,
, , :
. . , ,
, , ,
.
(2005) , . ,
144 , -,
.
- . ,
, , . , , ,
, .
(2008) , , , ,
, .
, .
.
(2004) , , ,
. (,
) ,
, (2000) . ,
.
, . , , , :
| | programme

-;
;
.
-, :
, :
1) - 1) ,
.
.
2) 2)
, .
.
3) , 3) ,
! , !.
.
4) ,
.
, :
1) .
2) , .
3) .
4) , ; , .
5) ( ,
).
, ,
. , ,
, , ,
.

, . (1976) (2000) ,
,
. , , , ,
, ,
, . , . ,
. , , , , ; (
) , , :
?. .
, . ,
, .

| | programme

145


, .
, . , , ,
.

,
, --
(). :
(): ?
(): .
(): .
,
, (Mercer, 1995).
, . ,
, . ,
146
: . .
.
, ,
, . ;
. ,
. ,
.

, , .
: -
( ,
, , , , . .).
:
, ,
. , , : ? . .
: - , : - ? .

:
| | programme

;
;
;
;
;
;
, ;
;
, .








, ,
.
, , . , , , , . (2001)
, , :
, , ;
, ;
147

;
;

( );
( , ) ;
;
.
, ,
, . , ,
.
, , , , . (2002) ,
, , , ,
. , , .

:
1. .
2. .
3. .
| | programme

4. .
5. -.
6. .
( , ) , . ,
: ,
, .
,
. , , ,
, .


Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk [ : ]. Cambridge: Dialogos UK.
Barnes, D. (1971). Language and Learning in the Classroom [ ].
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3 (1), 27-38.
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum [ - ]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
148 Galton, M. & Hargreaves, L. (2002). Transfer from the Primary School: 20 Years On [
: 20 ]. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners [ : ]. Clevedon :
Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: how we use language to think together [ :
, ]. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N., and Hodgkinson, S. (2008). Exploring talk in school: inspired by the work of Douglas
Barnes [ , ].
London: Sage.
Mercer, N. and Littleton, K., (2007). Dialogue and the development of thinking. A sociocultural
approach [ . ]. NY: Routledge.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Language, school and classrooms (2nd ed.). London: Methuen.
Wragg, E.C., and Brown, G. (2001). Questioning in the Primary School. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

| | programme

- , ,
,
. :
( ) ( ).

.
, .
:
;
,
;
/ ;
, , / .

() 1960- , . . ,
, - 149
. ,
,
.
, , ( , ),
, ,
.
, ,
, , -
().


, - , , , , , .
: , , .
, , :
, -
. , :
| | programme

;
;
, .

, ,
, , . , ,
, ,
. , , , . , , .
. ,
.

, , : , .
.
150 ,
. ; , , ( , , ,
. .).
.

,
. , , , ,
.

, , , . , , , ,
(Assessment Reform Group, 2002b).

, , ,
. / , .

| | programme


,
, - . , ,
, ,
. , ,
, .
(2002)
:
- ,
,
, - , , .

. , . , , , ,
. , , ,
, : ,
, , . .

151
.
, . , (PISA), , ,

. ,
.
.
, , . ,
, ,
, . ,

. , ,
. , , ,
.
( ) , ( ), . ,
( ),
, .
| | programme


. , ,
, ,
, . , ,
,
, , .

, , , , .
.
1. .
, , ;
.
2. , ( , ).
, , , . .
3. . .
152
, , . ,
, , .
4. .
. ,
, () .
, .
5. .
, - . , ,
. , , PISA ( ), . - .
6. .
, . , ,
,
.
| | programme


, () . ,
, . ,
, ,
.
, :
;
,
- .

, ,
, , .
, , ,
, :
1. .
2. , , ,
.
153
3. .
4. , , , .
5. ,
.

10.
| | programme


Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy [ ]. Wiley Blackwell.
Assessment Reform Group (2002a) Assessment for Learning:10 Principles. [ : ]. University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Assessment Reform Group (2002b). Testing, Motivation and Learning [,
]. University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1989a). Assessment and Classroom Learning, Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice [ , : , ]. 5 (1), 5-75.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom
assessment [ :
]. Kings College London, School of Education (now available from NFER/Nelson).
James, M. (2002). Assessment for Learning: what is it and what does research say about it? [ : ?]. Learning
how to learn project, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.

154

| | programme


(2004) ,
, . -,
. (2006) ,
, , . , , .
, , , , . - ,
; , , ; .
, , ,
, .
. (2004) ,
:
.
/ . 155
. , . .
.
, .
.
, . , , . ,
,
, .
.
, , , ,
, , ,
.
, .
. ; . , ,
, .
,
, - .
.
, . , - , . | | programme

, , ,
, . :
( ).
( , ).
( ).
( ).

. () ,
,
:
;
;
;
.
. ,
.
156
,
, (Elliot, 1991).

, , .

, ,
, ,
. . ,
, . ,
, , .
, , , . (, , ,
) . , , , .

| | programme


:

;

;
, , ;
, ;
;
;
,
.
()

, ,
. , : , , ,
, . - 157
, .
,
, .

, . , ,
. .
, .
, ,
.
, , , , .
, ,
.
:
1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. , .
7. .
| | programme

, ,
.


, , , .
, , , .
,
, . , , , , . ,
. ,
- - .
,
.
. , , .
158
, . HertsCam () Network Events
HertsCam (). web .

. (2007) . ,
, , .
Lesson-study
Lesson-study , , ,
, . Lesson-stady
. Lesson-study :
1. ( )
.
2. Lesson-study .
3. , , Lesson-study: , , , .
4.
Lesson-study.
| | programme


, . ,
, , . , ,
, (CFAT). :
; , , . -
, . , , ,
, ,
.

, ,
. - : , ,

, .

, , :
159

;
;
;
;
( ) ;
.
. (2005) ,
,
, ,
, .


Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram,
M., Atkinson, A. and Smith, M. (2005). Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning
Communities [
]. The Department for Education and Skills.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change [
]. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
| | programme

Elmore, R. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement [ ]. Harvard University, paper prepared for the international conference on Perspectives
on Leadership for systematic improvement, NCSL 2006.
Frost, D. (2011). Supporting teacher leadership in 15 countries: the International Teacher Leadership
project [ 15- : ]. Phase 1, A report, Cambridge: LfL at the University of Cambridge Faculty of
Education.
Frost, D. and Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Rationale, Strategy and Impact, School
Leadership and Management [ : , , ]. 23 (2), pp. 173-186.
Harris, A. (2009). Deep Leadership [ ]. Nottingham: National College for School
Leadership.
Hay McBer (2004). The five pillars of Distributed Leadership in Schools [ ]. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Hoyle, E. (1974). Professionality, profesionalism and control in teaching [,
]. London Educational Review, 3 (2), 42-54
James, M. (2005) Teacher Learning for pupil Learning [ ] In Teaching Texts, Learning centred leadership II, pp127-138, Nottingham: National
College for School Leadership
Katzenmeyer, M. and Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop
as Leaders [ : ] (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
160
Lieberman. A., Moore-Johnson, S., Fujita, H., and Starratt, R (2007). Where Teachers can lead
[ ]. Developing teacher leadership, the ILERN Materials,
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong claims
about successful school leadership [ ].
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
McBeath, J., (2004). Distributed Leadership in Action: A study of current practice in schools [ : ]. Nottingham:
National College for School Leadership.
MacBeath, J., Frost, D., Swaffeld, S. and Waterhouse, J. (2006). Leadership for Learning: Making
the Connections [ : ]. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge Faculty of Education.
National College for School Leadership. (2004). Learning to Lead [ ]. NCSLs
Stratgey for Leadership Learning. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
West-Burnham, J. (2009). Rethinking Educational Leadership [
]. London: Continuum Books.

| | programme

LESSON STUDY


Lesson Study , 1870-
. Lesson Study , , 2007
.
, .
, Lesson Study
,
. , Lesson Study.
, Lesson Study , . Lesson Study
, , , (Action research),
. Lesson Study
, ,
. Lesson Study
. ,
, , - 161
, .
Lesson Study . , ,
. , , ,
, . ,
,
, .
, .
, , , . Lesson
Study ,
. Lesson Study ,
. Lesson Study
. Lesson Study ,
,
.

| | programme


Lesson Study . , , - . , ,
, , ,
, Lesson Study .
Lesson Study , , :
, Lesson Study, ,
;
, , ,
, , , X Y , ?;
Lesson Study ;
,
, ;
, ,
;
162
, - , ;
;
.
:

, , ;
;
;
;
Lesson Study.
Lesson Study ( , )
,
.

ACTION RESEARCH

ACTION RESEARCH -
Action research -
, (CochranSmith & Lytle, 2009), ().

| | programme

, ,
, , , .
, , -, ,
(, ) .
, -,
,
.
, -
,
,
, .
Action research . Action research - . , : , .

Action research

Action research , .
, . ,
,
163
. Action research ,
,
, .
, . , , ,
, Action research.
Action research , ,
- , .
Action research
, . , , , . , Action research , , ,
,
,
.
Action research
. , , .
.
Action research | | programme

. Action research
, , ,
.
,
Action research - :
;
, , .
Action research
-,
;
,
, .


Altrichter H., & Gstettner, P. (1992). Action Research: a closed chapter in the history of German social
science? [Action research: ?]. Educational
Action Research, 1 (3), 329-360.
164 Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: knowing through action research [ : Action research]. London: Falmer Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2009). Educational Action Research: A Critical Approach [Action research:
]. In S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Educational
Action Research. London: Sage
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next
Generation [ : ]. New York: Teachers College Press.

| | programme

,
.
, , .
.
, , . :
(. coaching) - , , .
, ,
, ,
, , , ,
,
, , .
(. mentoring) ,
, , ,
, ,
.
, .

, , , ,
.
, ,
, , . :
( )
;
- ;

.
, , , ,
( 2).

| | programme

165

166

,
;
;
; ; ;
( ;
) , / ;
;
, ,
; ,
- ,
;
,
, , / ;
;
;

;

;
,
.

.


, , .
, , , (Garret-Harris & Garvey, 2005).

, , , (Oxley, 2003).


,
,
. -
.
| | programme

, ,
,
.
, , .

11.


. , ,
.

:
1. . .
2. . , , .
3. . ;
.
:
1.
.
2.
.
3. .
4. .
5. .
| | programme

167

6. , , , , ,
, .
7. .


, ,
.
(Egan, 1998)
1975 . , -
.
, ; -
-
(. 7).

168

12: ,

, , ,
,
.

| | programme


gan, G. (1998). The Skilled Helper. A Problem Management Approach to Helping (6th ed.) [ . ].
Brooks Cole.
Garrett-Harris, R., & Garvey, R. (2005). Towards a Framework for Mentoring in the NHS [ NHS]. Evaluation Report on Behalf of NHS. Sheffield Hallam
University.
Oxley, J., Fleming, B., Golding, L., et al. (2003). Mentoring for Doctors: Enhancing the Benefit
[ : ]. A Working Paper on behalf of the Doctors
Forum (http://www.academicmedicine.ac.uk/uploads/Mentor1.pdf).
Rodgers, J. (2004). Coaching Skills: A Handbook [ : ]. Open University
Press.

169

| | programme

- ( - )
. , , . ,
, , ,
, , , , .
, ,
. , ,
. , ,
.
(2006) , , ,
,
. , , , 170 ,
. , , ,
, ,
, .

| | programme

13. (http://tpack.org/)

()

.
,
, , . , ,
. 11 18 ,
. , , , .
, . ,
. , .

()

,
, ,
. , , ,
, . , ,
, , ,
| | programme

171

. ,
; ,
. , , . 14
, :

172

14.
,
, .

()

: , (Shulman, 1986). ,
, . ,

,
.
,
, , , , . , . , | | programme

,
.
, - , , , .

()

( -, , .). , , .

,
, ,
, . ,
, , .

()


(T) (). ,
, , - 173
.
, .
, , (),
. ()
,
. , , ,
, , , , .

, ()

, ().
(2006), , , ,
. , , ,
, . , ,
, ,
, .
| | programme

,

, , .


Beauchamp, G. (2006). New technologies and new teaching, a process of evaluation. In R. Webb
(Ed) Changing teaching and learning in the primary school [ ]. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Becta (2003). Primary School: ICT and Standards. An analysis of National data from Ofsted and
QCA [ : . Ofsted QCA].
Coventry: Becta.
Birnbaum, I. (1990). The assessment of ICT capability [ ]. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 6, 88-99.
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPCK in Practice: Using and elaborated model of
the TPCK framework to analye and depict teacher knowledge [ : ]. TechTrends, 53(5), 60-69.
Cox, M. J. (1997). The effects of information technology on students motivation [ ]. Coventry Council for Education
174
Technology.
Cox, M. J. & Webb, M. (Eds.). (2004). A review of the research literature relating to ICT and
attainment [ ]. Coventry, Becta/London:
DfES.
Kennewell, S. & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their
influence on learning [ ]. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3) 227-241.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S. & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive
technology to implement interactive teaching [ ]. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
24 (1) 61-73.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a
design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology [
: , ]. Computers &
Education, 49(3), 740-762.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge [ :
]. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching [, :
]. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) [
]. Accessed November 2011 http://www.tlrp.org/findings/Schools%20
Findings/Schools%20Findings.html

| | programme



, , ,
. ,

, ,
.
:
.
: , .
: .
: , ,
.
: .

175

15.
, , ,
. . , ,
, , .
,
,
: , ,
.
| | programme

, , , - . , , , , .
, , - .
: ,
, .
: , .
( ),
, ( ), . ,
, , . , , . , . , ,
.
176 , ,

.
. , , . ,
. , ,
, .
, ;
, ,
.
: , , .

,
. ,
, . ,
, , . | | programme

, , , -
. ,
, .
, , , - , ,
, . , ,
, , . ,
, ,
, ,
.
, ,
:
, ,
( ?
? ?);

( - , . .);
177
, (
? . .);
( -
, ).
.
. , : , , , . ,
, ,
, , , . , ,
, . .
:
, ,
, , . ,
. , ,
, . .
. , ,
| | programme

.

. , , , ,
. , , , ,
- . ,
; (
, ) . ,
.

178

| | programme

16: , ,

( ), , , .
,
, .

( ) .
:
.

.
(
).
.

.
.
,
.
.
, ,
:
| | programme

179

?
?
?
.
:
- ;
- , ;
- .

, . ,
,
, , , .
, Ation
research .

180

| | programme

,


,
. ,
,
.
:
;
.

:
-
;
- Action research, .
, :
- Action research
181
;
- ,
( ) ;
- , , .
,
:
- Action research ;
- .
, .
,
:
1. .
2. .
3. / .
. ,
, .
.
| | programme

, :
.
.

.
. , ,
.

, . , , ,
. ,
.
, . ,
182 ,
.
, :
1) Action research (4000 ), :
Action research, .
.
( ).
, .
( ; ; , ,
,
Action research).
, .
,
.
2) , :
.
( 1000 ), :
| | programme


;
;
,
;

.
(1000 ).
3) (2000 )
(), :
( ,
).
, .
.
.
:
183
.
, .
() .


,
,
, ,
.
.
:
, ;
Action research;

;

.

| | programme

:
Action research (10-12 ).
, ,
,
.
,
(20 ).
( 5 ). , , ,
, , , , , , .
,
, (20 ).

, :
,
, / .
, :
, 184 , ...
/ , / (
).
, :
() ... , () .... , () ... .
, , , , .

:
1. .
2. .
3. / .

, .
1.
, :
.
(, .) .
| | programme

2.
.
, :

, ,
, .
, , Lesson
Study .
/ .

.

.
, ,
, .

.
,
185
.
.

.
, , , .
3. .
.
, :
.

.
, .

.
Action research
.

| | programme



( )

(AA). ,
, , :
, (Mittler, 2008).
, , :
,

(Mittler, 2008, page 6).
,
, :

, , (2008), (. 6).
, , : (Jordan
and
Powell, 1995). , , 186
, , .
, , ., :
(Lewis et al, 2006).
, , , .
, .
, :
(1962), (1991), , .
, ( -
, , , ,
web-, , , ),
,
, :
( ). (2007)
. [ atwww.qca.org.uk].
. (1993) (2- .). .
. . (.) (1992) . : .
A. (2001) :
, . 28, (1), 24-29.
. (2003)
. , - , 26 2003 ., www.connects.org.uk/conferences
| | programme

( , (2007) -
. : .
. (1996) : , .
. (.) - . : .
.
,
, , : DfES,
2005; DfES, 2005; DfES, 2005.
: ; ; ( - ; -
); ; ; , , .
:
. . (1989) PMLD. ,
, 10 1989 .
. (1987) :
. PhD; .
,
187
, , , :
.. (2007) (ASD) , [ : www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp] ( 24 2008 .).
, . , ,
.
,
: . (1980) . . 12.9.80.
C. (2007) , . 2007 ., 18-20.
:
BBC2. (1995) . . 7.9.95. : BBC .
, , .
,
. ;
; , .

| | programme

, .
, ,
, , ,
.
( , )
, .
,
. , ,
:
1. ,
.

(. : http://www.bera. ac.uk/blog/category/publications/guidelines/ ).
2. () , - ,
,
.
3.
188
( , -, ,
).
4. -
() .
5. , .
6. ,
(, , ), .
7. , , .
8.
(, , ).
9.
.
,
. / , , , , , :
- , ,
?
- ,
, , ?
| | programme

-
.
,
.
. , ,
(
.).

- ( ), ,
, . :
( );
;
,
, ;
, -
;
189
-;
, (, ).
, ( , ), .
.
:
, , , , . .; web- ; ,
.
,
, , web-, ,
- , . .

| | programme

190



()

(. uthentikys - , , , ) - , .
( . synchronic learning) - -
,
/
.


. ,
, .
(. dialogic teaching) - ,
,
. ,
.
(. divergent thinking) - , .
- , .. ,
, , ,
, .
( . inclusive education) - , , ( - )
.

| | programme

Action research

(. . action research - ) , ,
,
, ,
.
(. lassroom environment) -
: , , ; - ;
- , .
( . collaborative teaching and learning) - ,

,

. , ,
, .

.
, .
(. onstructivus - , ) - , ,
,
, , , , .
(. cnvergere ) ,
.
, , .
.

| | programme

191

192

(. creative) - , ,
, ,
.
( . riteria assessment) , , ,
(, ,
, . .) ,
. .
(. ritical thinking) - ,
, ,
, , ,
,
.
- // , , // . .
(. oaching ) , , ,
, , ,
,
,

,
, ,
.

:
, .

| | programme

(. entoring) - ,
, , ,
, ,
.
:
,
.

( . etacognition)
. ,
. (J.
H. Flavell,1976), , ,

.
( .etacognitive strategies)
,
( , , ,

).

( . odeling) 1.
. 2.
,
,
, .

;
.

| | programme

193

194

(.gifted and talented children) - :


, ; ,
, ,
, ;
, ;
;

;
, .
- , .
, ,
.
( . reflexio ) - , ,
, .
, : 1. . 2.
. 3. .
, ,
.
(. reflective account) , ,
. , : - ?
?
?
(. reflection in action) - (, ),
.
( . reflective mediator) , .

| | programme

(- (. reflexive practitioner) - , )
,
.
( . eacher-led development work (TLDW) - ()
, , ,
, , , , , .
.
, ,

.

- , (., .) .
,
( . . .
. . ). , .
- (. social constructivist teaching and learning)

, : , , , .
() (. summative assessment; assessment of learning)
, ,
.
, , .
- ,

. , ,
, , ,
, , . , , ,
, . , . ,
.

| | programme

195

196

(. research lesson) - ,
: , , ,
, .
( . ssessment for learning) - , ,
, .
,
,
.
( . Black Box) - ,
,
, , , ,
, ..
(). (, ) : .

, .
(. ore values)
, . , ,
, . , ,
,
. , ,
.

| | programme

Lesson Study

,
. 70- 19- .
Lesson Study , , ,
, , .
Lesson Study ,
, Lesson Study,
, . Lesson Study

, , , ,
, , ,
,
, , .

197

| | programme


1. . , , . . . .
. , . . , . . . -: , 1996. 92
.
2. . . . .: 1997. 296 c.
3. . . . . . .: 1980.
4. . . . : . . .: ,
1991. 176 .
5. . . : . 2-
., .: , 2011. 432 .
6. . . .
.: , 1997. 286 .
7. . ., . . : , , ; .-. . .: , 2002.
8. . . . : 2003.
9. . . . . . .
. .: , 1998.
10. . . , , 14, . 1991. 4. . 519.
11. . . .
198
. 1996. - 4. C. 5-18.
12. . . ( ) .: -
; , 2005. 1136 .
13. . ., . . : .
1. . . . . . .: - , 2002. 239 .
14. . . : . ./. . . .: , 2010. 288 .
15. . . ; -
. . . ... .: , 2008.
16. . . : . . . . : . .: -, 2006.
17. . ., . . : . .
: - . . -., 2000. 572 .
18. . . . .: , 2005. 240 .
19. . . : . . . .
. .: , 2004. 288 .
20. . . . .: , 1996. 544 .
21. . ., . . : . : , 2009. 160 .
22. . . : ,
2005. ISBN: 9965-9800-04.
23. . . . : 1999.
24. . . : . ./.
.. 5- ., . : , 2008. 192 .
| | programme

25. . ., - . . : . :
-, 2003.
26. . ., - . ., . .
. 2-. : . , 2003.
27. . . : , ,
. ./. . . : , 1995. 176 .
28. . . : . [
: ] . , 2010 84 .
29. . . : - . .:
, 2002. 128 .
30. . . : . .: , 2005.
31. . . . . .: . , 2010. 113 .
32. . - :
: . . 13.00.02. , 2001.
33. . . .: , 2002.
34. . . .
.: , 1996. 416 .
35. . . . :
, : ISBN 978-5-9770-0284-4, 978-5-89395-892-8, 2008.
199
36. . . :
. .: , 1983. 96 .
37. . ., . ., . . . .: , 1990. 192 . (. ).
38. . . , :
. .: , 2006. 168 .
39. . . : : . .: -, 2008. 368 .
40. . . :
.. , 2011. 201 .
41. . . 1998.
42. . . . . : -
, 2008.
43. . - . : 2004.
44. .
. : 2005.
45. . . - . : ,
2005.
46. . . : , 1968.
47. . .
. : 2007.
48. . . : /. . . .: , 2010. 224 .
| | programme

49. . . . .: , 2009. 448 .


50. . ., . . // . 1.
2006. 121 .
51. . . DOC . .:
, 1998. 256 .
52. . . []. .:
, 2011.
53. . . . , 2000.
54. . // . 4. 2005.
55. . . /.
. , . . , . . ; . .:
, 2009. 318 .
56. . / . . , . , . . .: , 2000. 512 .: . ( ).
57. . . . . .: . . , 2000. ISBN 5-691-00577-4.
58. . . :
. .: , 2010. 120 .
59. . . []. -: , 1999.
60. . . , , [] /
. .: , 1991.
200
61. . . - []. .: ,
1966. . 254292.
62. . . : : . .: , 1996. http://www.u-mama.ru/files/books/odar_reb.zip
63. . . []. .: , 1979.

| | programme



, :
, 010000, . , . , 2, 3.
: 8 (7172) 79 96 11; 8 (7172) 79 96 15.
E-mail: info@cpm.kz

201

| | programme

In-service training

PROGRAMME

for the pedagogic staff


of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Second (intermediate) level


Third Edition

www.cpm.kz

Recommended for publishing by Methodological Council of


Center of Excellence
AEO Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools

Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools, 2012

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, without the written permission
of the copyright holder.

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................206
Why do teaching and learning approaches need to change? ...........................................206
Developing teachers to support desired outcomes .............................................................207
Theoretical premise of the ambridge approach to teaching ..........................................208
The aims of the programme .................................................................................................211
The tasks of the programme .................................................................................................212
The learning outcomes of the programme ..........................................................................212
LEADING AND MANAGING CHANGE IN SCHOOL AND CLASSROOMS
STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME ...........................................................................215
STUDY PLAN .......................................................................................................................219
THE PROGRAMME CONTENT .......................................................................................224
WAYS OF THINKING .........................................................................................................225
Learning to think critically ..................................................................................................225
Learning how to learn ..........................................................................................................227
Teaching talented and gifted children .................................................................................232
Responding to age related differences .................................................................................235
WAYS OF WORKING .........................................................................................................239
Working collaboratively and cooperatively in groups ......................................................239
Dialogic teaching ...................................................................................................................241
Assessment for and of learning ............................................................................................245
Management and leadership of learning ............................................................................250
Lesson study ..........................................................................................................................255
Action research .....................................................................................................................257
Coaching and mentoring ......................................................................................................259
TOOLS FOR WORKING ...................................................................................................263
Using ICT in teaching and learning ....................................................................................263
Taking account of what we teach and planning sequence of lessons ................................267
Why do teachers need to plan a sequence of lessons? ........................................................270
THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS .........................................................................................272
REVIEW OF THE APA (AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY ASSOCIATION)
REFERENCE STYLE .........................................................................................................277
ETHICAL GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................279
GLOSSARY ..........................................................................................................................281
RECOMMENDED LITERATURE ....................................................................................287
CONTACT INFORMATION ..............................................................................................291

INTRODUCTION
Why do teaching and learning approaches need to change?

In response to the rapid changes taking place (Figure 1), countries throughout the world are
reviewing their education systems. The key questions for policy makers, schools and teachers in a rapidly changing world are first, What should students learn in the 21st century?
and second, How will teachers prepare students for the 21st century? The level two training
programme will attempt to address the second question.

206

Figure 1: The world is changing very rapidly


The emerging consensus is that students need knowledge AND skills. The key difference
in approach lies in the emphasis on what students can do with knowledge, rather than what
units of knowledge they have. This difference best describes the essence of 21st century skills.
The 21st century skills framework with potentially the widest reach is that of the Definition and Selection of Competencies Project, created by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This framework describes a set of key competencies,
such as the ability to consider the wider context of decisions and actions that marry the need
for basic literacy with essential deep conceptual understanding. Teachers will need to have
the time and flexibility to develop knowledge, skills, and character, while also considering
the meta-layer that includes learning how to learn, and personalisation (Schleicher, 2012).
See Box One.
This framework helped to define OECDs long-term strategy for assessing competencies
of young people, including its development of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

| | programme

Box One: The OECDs comparative review of innovative learning environments


concludes:

They need a rich repertoire of teaching strategies, the ability to combine approaches,
and the knowledge of how and when to use certain methods and strategies.
The strategies used should include direct, whole-group teaching, guided discovery,
group work, and the facilitation of self-study and individual discovery. They should
also include personalized feedback.
Teachers need to have a deep understanding of how learning happens, in general,
and of individual students motivations, emotions and lives outside the classroom, in
particular.
Teachers need to be able to work in highly collaborative ways, working with other
teachers, professionals and para-professionals within the same organization, or with
individuals in other organizations, networks of professional communities and different partnership arrangements, which may include mentoring teachers.
Teachers need to acquire strong skills in technology and the use of technology as an
effective teaching tool, to both optimize the use of digital resources in their teaching
and use information-management systems to track student learning.
Teachers need to develop the capacity to help design, lead, manage and plan learning
environments in collaboration with others.
experience (p. 38).

The skills that students need in the 21st century are not new. For example, critical thinking
and problem solving have been components of human progress throughout history, from the
development of early tools, to agricultural advancements, to the invention of vaccines, to land
and sea exploration. Other skills such as the need for mastery of different kinds of knowledge,
ranging from facts to complex analysis are not new either. In The Republic, Plato wrote about
four distinct levels of intellect.
What is actually new is the extent to which changes in the world economy mean that collective and individual success depends on having such skills. The issue is, instead, that schools
must be more deliberate about teaching critical thinking, collaboration, and problem solving to
all students. For such changes to take place requires commitment from school principals and
administrators as well as more knowledgeable and effective teachers in classrooms.
The level two education programme for teachers of the comprehensive schools in the Reand expertise in relation to contemporary ideas about successful teaching and learning. The
second strand focuses on leading change by developing teachers understanding and practice of
coaching and mentoring in order that they can support the development of colleagues. These
two strands are interlinked throughout the programme so that ideas about new approaches to
teaching and learning are addressed alongside ideas about how to coach or mentor colleagues
in the application of these ideas.

Developing teachers to support desired outcomes

The desired outcomes for the Kazakhstan school curriculum are that pupils will be equipped
to be able to learn how to learn as part of the process of education so that they can become
addition the curriculum aspires to develop digitally competent citizens who are able to communicate effectively with different audiences.
| | programme

207

208

Whilst it will be vital that school principles and ministers provide adequate resources to
enable teachers to nurture and develop these qualities in pupils it is now widely recognised
across the world that it is what teachers and pupils do together in classrooms on a day to day
basis that will have the most profound effect on pupils learning and outcomes Barber and Moushad, 2007). The common denominator in school improvement and pupil success is the teacher
(Strong, Ward & Grant, 2011).
There is now a formidable body of evidence in the education literature which points to key
qualities, dispositions and modes of working which are demonstrated by the many thousands of
successful teachers working everyday in classrooms throughout the world.
Research has told us much about the qualities, dispositions and modes of working of successful teachers. We also know a great deal about the kind of professional development opportunities that enable teachers to develop these successful qualities dispositions and modes of
working. Research suggests that professional development requires teachers to see themselves
as part of learning communities (Bolam, McMahon, Stoll et al., 2005) within which practice is
developed through teacher-led, inquiry-based innovation (Frost and Durrant, 2003). Knowledge is created by teachers rather than merely received; teachers are driven by moral purpose;
they exercise leadership to influence their colleagues and their surroundings; and they maintain
a relentless focus on authentic learning (Frost, 2011). In order to influence colleagues, and support development of teaching and learning more widely, successful teachers take on coaching or
mentoring roles and support others in implementing ideas and inquiring into their own practice.
Level three of the training programme focused on developing the qualities, dispositions and
modes of working of successful teachers. Level two of the programme additionally focuses on
developing coaching and mentoring skills needed to support the development of others.
This Proagramme, supported by an extended blended learning training programme, will
draw on research into successful teaching and learning and also into mentoring and coaching
for teacher professional development. Furthermore the concepts and approaches presented here
are informed by many years of experience and expertise of working with novice and expert
serving teachers as well as with mentors and coaches. The introductory sections of this Programme focus on teaching and on coaching and mentoring.

Theoretical premise of the Cambridge approach to teaching

What seems to be common among the highest achieving school systems of the world is that
the teaching approaches used by the teachers are based on constructivist theories of learning
(Hattie, 2009).
Whilst we do not want to prescribe a particular approach it is fair to say that the Cambridge approach to teaching is largely based on a constructivist theory of learning. Such
theories are based on the premise that pupils develop meaning as their prior knowledge interacts with new or different knowledge they encounter in the classroom from such sources as
the teacher, textbooks, and peers. Most constructivists would agree that the transmission approaches to teaching do not promote either the interaction between prior knowledge and new
knowledge or the conversations that are necessary for internalizing knowledge and developing
deep understanding.
New knowledge acquired from traditional transmission style teaching may not be well
integrated with other knowledge held by the pupil and consequently only rote, shallow learning
takes place. This rote learned knowledge gained from traditional schooling can be brought forth
for examinations but it is not internalized by the learners, is of little use after examinations and
is ignored at other times. The goal of constructivist teaching is to develop deep understanding
of the subject on the part of the pupil so that they can use and apply knowledge beyond the
classroom.
| | programme

Constructivist views of teaching require a pupil-centred teacher who arranges the classroom around tasks that bring pupils into contact with knowledge, ideas, and skills. The tasks are
designed to permit the pupils to bring forth their knowledge of the phenomenon being studied,
to question certain assumptions they may hold, and to adjust their beliefs and develop new understandings. An important element of the teachers role is to realize that individual pupils may
approach a topic in quite unique ways, to learn how individual pupils understand the topic, and
to work with the pupils in adding to or reconstructing their understandings.
This view of constructivist teaching includes a way of thinking and a set of core beliefs on
the part of the teacher, and knowledge of a set of alternative actions that relate to these beliefs.

Teacher Beliefs
Psychologists refer to beliefs as the personal predispositions to act; sociologists might refer
to them as core values. Teacher beliefs are very powerful in forming attitudes which subsequently inform decision making and ultimately classroom actions (Figure 2). Therefore the
teaching repertoire of any individual teacher is an amalgam of beliefs, knowledge and assumptions. Together these elements make up the persons unique teaching schemata. Pajares (1992)
claims that teachers beliefs are more influential than their knowledge in determining teaching
behaviours: Beliefs about learning will affect everything they do in the classroom. Indeed
deep-rooted beliefs about how [subjects] are taught will pervade their classroom actions more
than a particular methodology or course book.

209

Figure 2: Teachers beliefs underpin attitudes, decision making and actions


However these deeply held commitments may also restrict a teachers receptiveness to new
ideas. We want to argue that if traditional transmission style teachers want to help pupils to
become critical reflective thinkers then teachers too will also need to become reflective critical
thinkers themselves and open their minds to new ideas.

Effective Teaching

Effectiveness is an elusive concept to define when we consider the complex task of teaching
and the multitude of contexts in which teachers work. Teacher quality too is a complex phenomenon, and there is little consensus on what it is or how to measure it. In fact, there is considerable debate as to whether we should judge teacher effectiveness based on teacher inputs (e.g.,
qualifications), the teaching process (e.g., instructional practices), the product of teaching (e.g.,
effects on pupil learning), or a composite of these elements.
Regardless of which approach is taken there are two viewpoints to consider. First the perspective of the learner as person and social entity, and secondly, learning as the outcome of the teacherlearner relationship. The vital insight is that when making a judgment of quality, the assessor is
always engaged in an interpretation and in selecting one set of factors or indices over another.
| | programme

In constructivist informed classrooms, pupils access and reflect on their background knowledge and beliefs, questioning them, adding new knowledge, and restructuring their understanding of the phenomena under study. This process enables pupils to continue to question their
assumptions and to seek to broaden and deepen their understanding of their experiential world.
Pupils themselves have a strong role to play in this form of teaching. They are actively engaged
in the construction of meaning, working with peers in the social construction of meaning. The
teacher provides some elements of the opportunity to learn, the materials, and so on, but the
pupils themselves must be willing and eager to pursue activities that lead to understanding.

Successful Teaching and being a Good Teacher

210

Our constructivist programme is very clear about the obligation for a good teacher to also
be sensitive to the learner. An essential element of good teaching is the teachers understanding and assessment of individual pupils construction of meaning. This approach requires pupil
agency as well. That is, the pupil also becomes responsible for his or her learning. This responsibility becomes accepted by the pupil, in part, because of the environment that the teacher
builds in the classroom. Thus, good teaching might be thought of as having what Schulman
termed three apprenticeships (Shulman, 2007). (Table 1)
Good teaching is not only enabled by the conditions for learning; it is also responsive to
them. The good teacher adjusts the elements of teaching on the basis of what is at hand in the
way of students, surroundings, and resources. Indeed how good and how successful it is, will
depend sometimes to a small and other times to a considerable extent on how well the teacher
adapts his or her instruction to the context at hand.
Good teaching, then, while constituted by elements that cohere in the person of the teacher,
is enabled by nurturing conditions and is also responsive to these same conditions. Good teaching may be thought of as symbiotic with types of learners, nature of the surround, and opportunities to teach and learn.
Shulman
Apprenticeship
Head

Teacher Attribute
Professional Understanding
This is based on strong theoretical foundations and requires
good knowledge about learning and learners. It will also require
knowledge of how to use research evidence to develop and
understand practice.

Hand

Practical Teaching Skills


This apprenticeship requires technical and practical skills and
ways of working. That is, knowing how to explain ideas through
a range of approaches, such as though demonstrating, correcting
and evaluating learning. So the teacher also knows how to
encourage, reward, set boundaries, plan lesson sequences and
evaluate these.
When these factors are in place then the teacher is more likely to
be able to establish and sustain positive classroom environments
where pupils want to learn and attain high and appropriate levels

Heart

Professional Integrity

| | programme

Teachers are aware of the ethical and moral dimensions of being


a teacher. That is they are honest, courageous, and tolerant, have
compassion and respect for learners and are fair. Teachers have
positive attitudes, well articulated values about teaching and
beliefs which are shared by others in the profession.
Table One: Shulmans apprenticeships

Making judgments about good and successful teaching


Making judgments about what is good teaching could be undertaken in two different ways.
The first is an appraisal independent of learning outcomes, wherein the activities of the teacher
are examined to determine how well they conform to standards of practice in terms of teacher
performance, that is, the nature and frequency of interaction with pupils. The assessment in this
case is sensitive to the learners being taught, but not dependent on learning taking place.
The second approach to the appraisal of teaching attends to teaching that is both good and
successful, and calls for a much broader effort than is the case for good teaching. In as much as
successful teaching is learning-dependent, it is necessary to know whether learning actually occurred, and to what level of competence or proficiency. It is also necessary to know something
about the state of the learners, the character of the social surround, and the availability and extent of opportunity. So in this case classroom contextual information is required too.

In summary the Cambridge programme will promote:

1. Teachers who are directive, influential, caring, and actively engaged in the passion of
teaching and learning.
2. Teachers who are aware of what each and every student is thinking and knowing, to
construct meaning and meaningful experiences in light of this knowledge, and have proficient
knowledge and understanding of their content to provide meaningful and appropriate feedback
such that each student moves progressively through the curriculum levels.
3. Teachers who know the learning intentions and success criteria of their lesson, know
how well they are attaining these criteria for all students, and know where to go next in light
of the gap between students current knowledge and understanding and the success criteria of;
Where to go next in light of the gaps between students current knowledge and understanding
and the success criteria of: Where are we going?, How are you going? And where to next?
4. Teachers who can move from the single idea to multiple ideas, and to relate and then
extend these ideas such that learners construct and reconstruct and ideas. It is not the knowledge or ideas, but the learners construction of this knowledge and these ideas that is critical.

The aims of the programme

Meeting education needs of the pedagogic staff in obtaining additional knowledge and
skills, supporting continuing professional development of Kazakhstani teachers in the constantly changing world.
Supporting innovative processes in education to make teaching methods more effective.
Prepare teachers who have high level of theoretical and practical professional competencies to couch and mentor their colleagues to improve their teaching practice.

| | programme

211

Tasks of the programme


1. To develop understanding of the programme concepts in relation to the seven modules
2. To successfully implement concepts of the programme in the context of the Kazakhstani
education system and demonstrate skills of:
reflective thinking in relation to the key ideas of the programme;
planning and doing Action research;
leading the learning of a team of teachers through couching and mentoring;
mentoring in the process of planning and conducting sequences of lessons which integrate all seven themes;
reflecting on their own teaching practice;
3. To prepare Kazakhstani teachers to organize in professional networks of school teachers.

The learning outcomes of the programme

212

The specific learning outcomes at the end of the course will be that teachers will
Have extensive knowledge about problems related to individual learner needs (for example, talented and gifted in accordance with age related difference) and know how to consult
other teachers about this problem.
make deliberative judgments about classroom practice based on extensive knowledge of
good practice so that they are able to help other less expert teachers to solve problems in their
classrooms;
And will be able to:
Lead the learning of others in the school
By initiating research informed professional conversations about teaching and learning
with groups of teachers
make judgments about the effectiveness of other teacher colleagues and use this as a
basis for improving teaching and learning within a school;
Through engaging in lesson study within a school;
Leading the learning of a team of teachers through coaching and mentoring;
set up a professional learning community of teachers within a school;
take a lead in planning collaboratively with colleagues in order to promote effective
school practice including making cross-curricular links;
help other teachers to the effectiveness of summative and formative assessment practice;
to provide learners, colleagues, parents with timely, accurate and constructive feedback
on learners attainment, progress and areas for development that promotes pupil progress.
conduct action research with the aim of improving teaching practice of all teachers
within the school.
Support the learning of colleagues in the school
support other teachers in using effective teaching, learning and behaviour management
strategies, including how to select and use approaches that personalize learning to provide opportunities for all learners to achieve their potential
take a lead in planning collaboratively with colleagues in order to promote effective
school practice including making cross-curricular links;
work with classroom practitioners andhelp other less expert teachers to respond to individual pupils learning needs;

| | programme

Sustain learning in the school


sustain professional conversations about teaching and learning with groups of teachers
and engage in lesson study within a school;
sustain a vibrant professional learning community of teachers within a school;
build and sustain positive professional working relationships with other teachers in school
ask difficult questions of themselves and colleagues to improve teaching.
research and evaluate innovative curricular practices and draw on research outcomes
and other sources of external evidence to inform their own practice and that of colleagues.

REferences
Barber, M., & Moushad, M. (2007). How the best schools systems came out on top. Avaialbale
at http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-best-performing-schools-come-out-ontop/ Accessed on 19th November 2011.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K.,
Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning Communities. The Department for Education and Skills.
Darling - Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. X, 1-15.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (2), 81-112.
Fenstermacher, G., & Richardson, V. (2005). Making Determinations of Quality in Teaching.
Teachers College Record, 107 (1), 186-213.
Frost, D. (2011). Supporting teacher leadership in 15 countries: the International Teacher
Leadership project. Phase 1, A report, Cambridge: LfL at the University of Cambridge
Faculty of Education.
Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Rationale, Strategy and Impact. School
Leadership & Management, 23 (2), 173-186.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. London: Routledge.
MacBeath, J. (2012). The future of the teaching profession. Education International Research
Institute and the Leadership for Learning Cambridge Network. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.
OECD Definition and Selection of Key Competencies. Paris, France: OECD, May 27, 2005.
Opfer, V. A., & Pedder, D. (2010). Benefits, status and effectiveness of Continuous Professional
Development for teachers in England. Curriculum Journal, 21 (4), 41-431.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307-332.
Schleicher, A. (Ed.). (2012). Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st
Century: Lessons from around the World. OECD Publishing.
Sinek, S. (2009, September). How great leaders inspire action. Speech at TEDx Portland. Available at www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Available at http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16901/
TPLandDBESentire.pdf
| | programme

213

Shulman, L. S. (2007). Good teaching. Box content in S. Loeb, C. Rouse & A. Shorri (Eds.),
Introducing the Issue in The Future of Children, 17 (1), 6-7.
Stronge, J., Ward, T., & Grant, L. (2011). What Makes Good Teachers Good? A cross-case
analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and pupil achievement. Journal of
Teacher Education, 62, 339. doi: 10.1177/0022487111404241

214

| | programme

LEADING AND MANAGING CHANGE IN SCHOOL AND


CLASSROOMS
Better Teaching

Greater emphasis on skills also has important implications for teacher education. It will not
be enough to just simply decide to teach these skills to all students. Although these approaches
are widely acclaimed they are not straightforward to make happen. This is because such methods pose classroom management problems for teachers and mean that teachers must be knowledgeable about a broad range of topics and are prepared to make in-the-moment decisions as
the lesson plan progresses.
To achieve this, the 21st century skills movement calls for greater collaboration among
teachers. When teachers are able to work together then they are able to share good ideas and
amplify the effects of all their teaching approaches. However to move beyond policy intentions
and administrators policies so that the ideas penetrate classrooms is a massive undertaking.
Most teachers dont need to be persuaded that critical thinking is a good idea, they already believe that. What teachers need is robust training and support , including better understanding of
how to plan specific lessons that deal with the high cognitive demands and potential classroom
management problems of using student-centred methods.

Extending teacher development


The Level Two programme will respond to the growing worldwide realisation that teachers
will be agents of innovation in schools, as the demand for skills changes. These changes will
have profound implications for the competencies which teachers themselves need to acquire so
that they will be able to effectively teach 21st century skills to their students. New approaches
to teaching will require new approaches to teacher learning too.
The traditional way of developing teachers practice has been for teachers to attend short
workshops which explain what teachers ought to do to change instructional approaches. This
approach is not effective and less likely to bring about sustained change in practice (Desimone,
et al, 2002; Opfer & Pedder, 2010). Recent thinking points to two approaches that are more
likely to transform and sustain changes to teachers practice.

Transforming practice and sustaining change


Transforming practice
First, (Sinek, 2009) suggests that leaders with promising ideas or approaches may fail to
change practice because they do not usually clarify why change is needed. The Level Two training programme will reverse the conventional order of starting with what and instead will start
with why. The programme will begin by identifying and justifying with teachers the changes
that ought to be made in recognition of the skills and knowledge young people will need to thrive
in the 21st century. The premise of the level two programme is that teachers must develop the
skills and knowledge that they and their colleagues need to help young people to thrive in the
global world of the 21st century. These changes must be seen to be relevant and achievable in
schools whilst at the same time preserving the unique cultural values of Kazakhstan are retained.
In education, leaders often start with what. They announce that they have found something
that will substantially change education. It might be formative assessment, small schools, or the
latest instructional technique for teaching mathematics, which are all worthwhile things to do.
As part of professional development, teachers are told to implement whatever it is, and, then
administrators will expect to see rapid changes take place in the classroom. Without a strong
commitment to why the innovation is necessary and without knowing why it works and with
whom, many initiatives have not taken hold in schools in the UK and USA.
| | programme

215

The Level Two programme will take a different approach and begin by considering why
we must change our teaching approaches first, then address how we will do this, and, finally,
what we need to do in classrooms. This approach has been advocated by large multinational
companies such as Apple (Sinek , 2009) as well as international leaders in education (DarlingHammond, 2006; Timperley, 2009, Schleicher, 2012, Macbeath, 2012).
Sustaining Changes to Practice
Second to changes to practice must be able to work and become embedded in real classrooms. In a recent UK wide study of the state of Continuing Professional Development, Opfer
& Pedder (2010) recorded six features which sustained teachers professional learning and was
shown to subsequently enhance students learning (Figure 3).

216
Figure 3: Factors which contributed to sustained teacher learning
The most effective training activities were directly relevant to a teachers own curriculum where
the teacher worked collaboratively with other colleagues to solve a particular classroom based problem. These activities were carried out in the teachers own classroom over a sustained period of time.

REferences
Darling - Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 57, No. X, 1-15.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal
study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (2), 81-112.
MacBeath, J. (2012). The future of the teaching profession. Education International Research
Institute and the Leadership for Learning Cambridge Network. Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.
Opfer, V. A., & Pedder, D. (2010). Benefits, status and effectiveness of Continuous Professional
Development for teachers in England. Curriculum Journal, 21 (4), 41-431.
| | programme

Schleicher, A. (Ed.) (2012). Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st
Century: Lessons from around the World. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264xxxxxx-en
Sinek, S. (2009, September). How great leaders inspire action. Speech at TEDx Portland. Available at www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Available at http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/16901/
TPLandDBESentire.pdf

217

| | programme

STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME

Reading and reflecting


Working together in
workshops
Writing about your
ideas

Professional
conversations
Join planning
Talking about ideas,
plans and experiences

Working in authentic
classrooms
Making judgements in
classrooms
Learning from
experiences and making
mistakes

Picture 4: Teacher learning

218

The programme will comprise of a set of written handbooks and a blended learning programme. the blended programme will consist of two face to face stages and as school based
stage.
Stage 1: The first face to face training will be about learning about the key ideas and
how to embed these into teaching practice.
Stage 2: The school based stage will consolidate and implement these ideas through
carrying out new methods in the practice. During this period teachers will conduct action
research, coaching sessions and mentor one of his/her colleagues within his/her school. The
changes made by the teachers in their schools will be evaluated by the teachers themselves
during the school based process. Furthermore during the school based stages teachers will be
supported through an online asynchronous forum.
Stage 3:The final face to face stage will focus on self and peer reflection, about the
changes made and will self and peer evaluate the evidence gathered to measure the effects of
the changes on childrens learning and the developing understanding of the teachers. Trainers
will also assist teachers in the preparation of their portfolio by providing formative feedback
for the final summative assessment in the final week of the second face to face stage.
Each training session will consist of a mixture of interactive lectures and workshops
supported by written materials based on researched informed practice. Trainers and teachers
handbooks set out the theoretical research underpinning the programme as well as pre course
and follow up readings. Each teacher will be issued with a printed hard copy of the teachers
handbook which will be supplemented by teacher handbook online support materials (the
intention will be that trainers will also add and share new materials on the online data base as
they carry out action research during the training process and for the teacher trainers to add
ideas from their own classrooms).

| | programme

STUDY PLAN
FACE TO FACE (4 weeks)
Week

Day

The theme of the


day

The theme of the session

Session 1: Working collaboratively and cooperatively. How to set up group work. Introduce
the Virtual Learning Environment portal.
Session 2 4: Why do we need to change
practice? Teacher and students views.
Session 1 - 2: How to observe classrooms?
What is the curSession 3 - 4: What else will teachers need to
rent practice?
know? Classroom culture and learning environment.
Session 1 and 2: Introduction to coaching
Coaching colSession 3 and 4: Coaching teachers to teach
leagues: Responding to age- pupils at different stages of cognitive development (age related differences)
related differences in teaching
and learning
Motivating learn- Session 1: Identifying barriers to learning
ers
Session 2 -3: Affective theories of learning.
Student motivation.
Session 4: Asking pupils views about learning: pupil consultation
Social Interaction Session 1 4: Social Interaction for learning,
increasing social interaction
Coaching teachers how to make their classrooms more interactive and inclusive
Session 1 4: Learning how to learn
Transforming
Practice. Power- Coaching teachers to help students learn how
ful Pedagogical: to learn
Tools Learning
how to learn
Session 1-4: What is dialogic teaching?
Transforming
Practice. Power- Introducing talk into lessons and coaching
teachers to use talk in lessons
ful Pedagogical
Tools:
Talk and dialogic teaching
Introduction:
Why we need to
change practice?

Number of
hours

219
8

| | programme

220

Transforming
Practice. Powerful Pedagogical
Tools: Critical
Thinking
Transforming
Practice. Powerful Pedagogical
Tools:
Assessment of
and for learning
Coaching colleagues: Teaching talented and
gifted children
Transforming
Practice. Powerful Pedagogical
Tools:
Using ICT in
teaching and
learning
Medium term
planning and
bringing all the
ideas together
Mentoring a colleague

Lesson Study

Mentoring a colleague: Reflections on Practice


Mentoring a colleague: Reflections on Practice
Embedding ideas
into classroom
practice

Evaluation

| | programme

Session 1-4: What is Critical Thinking


How to introduce critical thinking
Coaching teachers to plan critical thinking lesson for pupils.
Session: Coaching teachers to use talk to learn
Session 1-7: What are the purposes of assessment?
What is assessment for learning AfL?
How can AfL be introduced to classroom
planning?
How can we integrating AfL into lessons?
Coaching teachers to use AfL in lessons
Session 8: Coaching teachers to personalise
learning so that they stretch gifted and talented students

Session 1- 4: How to use ICT in teaching


Coaching teachers to use ICT in their classrooms.
8

Session 1 4 : Introducing medium term planning


Consolidating ideas and bringing the powerful
pedagogical tools together
Session 1-4: What is mentoring?
Study: Setting up and running a mentoring
system in school using school data and other
evidence.
Session 1 4: Using Lesson Study to collaboratively improve teaching and learning.
Session 1-4 : Professional conversations using
reflections video stimulated recall
Sessions 1 4: Professional conversations;
feedback and feed forward. -planning
Session 1 8: Planning an extended medium
term sequence
Helping a teacher to embed all the pedagogical tools to plan for learning and assessment.
Session 1 4: Self and peer evaluation lesson
planning sequences as a tool for teacher learning

8
8

8
8
8
8

Session 1 - 2: Planning the Action Research


project.
8
Session 3- 4: Planning the portfolio and preparing for school-based work
NB: 1 class hour 45 minutes
Month total: 160 class hours
SCHOOL-BASED PERIOD (5 weeks)
The school based practice will include:
1. Coaching colleagues about two of the seven powerful pedagogical tools
2. Mentoring one colleague by helping them to integrate all of the powerful pedagogical
tools into a sequence of at least four lessons
3. Planning and conducting small-scale Action Research within the framework of classroom
4. Planning and carrying out School-based tasks
5. Compiling the Portfolio
5

Preparing for
school based
phases

NB: In the process of fulfilling the tasks during the school based stage teachers need to be
supported by trainers through an online asynchronous forum and personal e-mails.
Month total: 120 online hours
(4 hours per 1 day*6 days a week)
FACE TO FACE (4 weeks)
NumTheme of the day
The theme of the session
ber of
hours
Introduction and Session 1: Introduction to the structure, congeneral
review tent and activities of the second Face to Face
school based ex- Session 2: General discussion and feedback in
8
relation to the school-based period.
perience
Session 3 4: Relationship between teacher
questioning and level of pupil thinking

1 class hour 45 minutes

Week

Day

Action Research

Action Research

Action Research

Action Research

Session 1 - 2: Rationale for action research


projects in relation to the seven topics
Session 3 - 4: How consulting with colleagues
influenced action research projects
Session 1 - 2: The nature of changes to practice
Session 3 - 4: Collection of data for the action
research projects.
Session 1 - 2: Action research findings and
analysis
Session 3 - 4: Action research. Implications
for practice
Session 1 - 4: Practice presentations in relation to action research and formative feedback

| | programme

221

222
2

Assessed Presen- Session 1 - 4: The findings of the action retations Action Re- search and how these will influence the teachers future practice (10-12 minutes Power
search
Point Presentations)
Coaching
Session 1 - 2: Collaborative criteria-based
marking and differentiated target setting
Session 3 - 4: Rationale for coaching session
one in relation to the seven topics
Coaching
Session 1 - 2: Evaluation of coaching session
one
Session 3 - 4: Supporting colleagues in setting
up collaborative group work
Session 1 - 4: Evaluating and evidencing
Coaching
teacher learning as a result of coaching session one
Session 1 - 2: Rationale for coaching session
Coaching
two in relation to the seven topics
Session 3 - 4: Evaluation of coaching session
two
Session 1 - 2: Evaluating and evidencing
Coaching
teacher learning as a result of coaching session two
Session 3 - 4: Reflective accounts of own
learning in relation to coaching practice
Coaching and
Session 1 - 2: Practice and review of presenMentoring
tations in relation to coaching
Session 3 - 4: Using video-stimulated recall
to analyse teaching in relation to the seven
topics
Assessed Presen- Session 1-4: Evaluations of the learning of
tations Coaching colleagues from one coaching session to include evidence of such learning (20 minutes
Power Point presentation)
Assessed Presen- Session 1-4: Evaluations of the learning of
tations Coaching colleagues from one coaching session to include evidence of such learning (20 minutes
Power Point presentation)
Session 1: Identifying mentees development
Mentoring
needs
Session 2: Giving feedback and target setting
Session 3 - 4: Interventions, observations and
feedback given to mentees

| | programme

Mentoring

Mentoring

Mentoring

Assessed Presentations Mentoring

Assessed Presentations Mentoring

NB: 1 class hour 45 minutes

Session 1 - 2: Supporting mentees in the use


of ICT for teaching and learning.
8
Session 3 - 4: Using mentee evaluations to
reflect on the success of mentoring activity
Session 1 - 2: What has been learned about
effective mentoring?
8
Session 3 - 4: Preparation of presentations
for assessment
Session 1 - 4: Practice and get feedback on
8
presentations in relation to mentoring
Session 1-4: Reflective accounts of the effectiveness of the process of mentoring of
8
one colleague, including evidence of mentee
learning (20 minutes Power point Presentation)
Session 1-4: Reflective accounts of the effectiveness of the process of mentoring of
8
one colleague, including evidence of mentee
learning (20 minutes Power point Presentation)
Month total:160 class hours
Total: 440 class hours

Recommended time-table for Face to face training


Sessions
I session
II session
III session
IVsession

Time
9.00 - 10.30
10.30 - 11.00 - Break
11.00 - 12.30
12.30 - 14.00 - Lunch time
14.00 - 15.30
15.30 - 15.45 - Break
15.45 - 17.15

| | programme

223

THE PROGRAMME CONTENT


The substantive content of the teachers programme is presented in terms of seven separate
topics and there is considerable overlap in the ideas and practices:
1) New approaches to teaching and learning
2) Learning to think critically
3) Assessment for and of learning
4) Using ICT in teaching
5) Teaching talented and gifted children
6) Responding to age-related differences in teaching and learning
7) Management and leadership of learning
Above mentioned seven core themes and the ideas underpinned by these themes are divided into three main sections and provided in the programme as following:

224

Critical thinking,
Learning how to learn,
Knowing how we learn:
gifted and talented learners;
age related differences

ways of
thinking

ways of
working
Collaborative and cooperative
learning
Dialogic teaching
Assessement of and for learning
Leading change in classrooms
Lesson study
Coaching and mentoring
ction research

ICT,
Peerand self assessment
Strategic, medium and
short term planning

Figure 5: Bringing about change in students learning

| | programme

tools for
working

WAYS OF THINKING
Learning to think critically
Critical thinking can occur whenever someone judges, decides, or solves a problem; in
general, whenever someone decides what to believe or what to do based on reason and reflection. Critical thinking has been described as thinking about thinking. Critical thinking is a
disciplined approach to conceptualising, evaluating, analysing and synthesising information
from observation, experience, reflection or reasoning. It can then become the basis for action.
Critical thinking is often associated with a willingness to imagine or remain open to considering
alternative perspectives, to integrate new or revised perspectives into our ways of thinking and
acting, and with a commitment to participatory democracy and to fostering criticality in others.
The list of core critical thinking skills includes observation, interpretation, analysis, inference,
evaluation, explanation, and meta-cognition.
There is a reasonable level of consensus among experts that an individual or group engaged
in strong critical thinking gives due consideration to:
evidence through observation;
context;
relevant criteria for making the judgment
applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment;
applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand.
At a basic level, the process of critical thinking can be seen as involving:
gathering relevant information;
evaluating and questioning evidence;
drawing warranted conclusions and generalisations;
revising assumptions and hypotheses on the basis of wider experience.
Blooms Taxonomy
A widely used hierarchical model of thinking skills to which critical thinking may be related is
Blooms taxonomy. This was developed by a committee of educators, chaired by Benjamin Bloom,
in 1956. The intention was to develop a classification of objectives for students learning across three
domains: cognitive, affective and psychomotor. A goal of Blooms Taxonomy was to motivate educators to focus on all three domains, creating a more holistic form of education. However, only the classification of objectives for student learning in the cognitive domain became widely known and used.

Figure 6: Blooms Taxonomy


Skills in the cognitive domain revolve around knowledge, comprehension, and critical
thinking of a particular topic. Traditional education tends to emphasize the skills in this domain,
| | programme

225

particularly the lower-order objectives. There are six levels in the taxonomy, moving through
the lowest order processes to the highest as shown in the diagram above.
What does this mean for teachers?
Critical thinking involves developing skills such as acquiring evidence through observation and listening, taking account of context, and applying relevant criteria for making judgements. Pupils must therefore be given opportunities to develop skills of observation, analysis,
inference and interpretation.
At the later stage of reviewing their work, through further discussion with teachers, reviewing and revising their provisional conclusions, children can be helped to become more conscious of their own learning processes, including, evaluation, explanation and meta-cognition.

References

226

Alexander , R. J. (2001). Culture and Pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching. Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). York:
Dialogos.
Glaser, E. M. (1941). An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. J. (2008). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: alternative pedagogies for a changing world. Available at http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/ch3_final_wolfealexander_argumentationalternativepedagogies_20081218.
pdf Accessed February 19, 2012.

| | programme

Learning how to learn


Contemporary understanding
Research shows that learning is not one single entity or skill, but is a family of learning practices that enhance the learners capacity to learn. This family of learning competences
which teachers must actively help individual learners to develop are to:
understand how to learn, to take account of preferred learning styles, and to understand
the need to, and how to manage personal learning throughout life;
learn, systematically, to think;
explore and reach an understanding of personal creative talents, and how to make best
use of them;
learn to enjoy and love learning for its own sake and as part of understanding oneself;
achieve high standards in using words, numbers and spatial understanding;
achieve high standards of competence in using digital technology.
The driving force behind learning how to learn is termed meta-cognition. In other words
there is learning, but there is also learning about learning. People think, but they can also think
about their thinking. So there is cognition and also cognition about cognition. By meta-cognition we mean the capacity to monitor, evaluate, control and change how an individual thinks
and learns. In less formal terms, the process of learning to learn means reflecting on personal
learning and intentionally applying the results of this reflection to further learning. The process
involves the teacher helping the learner to:
understand the demands that a learning task makes;
know about individual intellectual processes and how they work;
generate and consider strategies to cope with the task;
get better at choosing the strategies that are the most appropriate for the task.
To achieve these four points requires pupils to be able to learn how to learn. To make this
happen will require that teachers switch their emphasis away from just thinking about their own
teaching performance and concentrate on the pupils learning. So to achieve this, the teacher
must create learning environments where pupils are actively involved in the learning process
and not just passive recipients of information.
It is a reasonable premise that the methods adopted by teachers can make a significant
contribution to supporting the development of metacognitive or self-regulated learning, in their
pupils. In developing his socialcultural theory of learning Vygotsky describes the role of an
adult, or more able or significant other, in terms of supporting a level of learning which would
not be achieved by the child alone; the extent of this potential learning being termed the Zone
of Proximal Development (Vygotsky 1978) The supporting adult acts as a reflective agent
responding to the child and taking learning forward. As learning progresses the level and type
of support offered by the tutor is adjusted and modified in order to effectively encourage, guide
and promote conceptual development, a process aptly termed scaffolding by Jerome Bruner.
The metaphor of scaffolding may involve gradually increasing levels of support as the tutor attempts to nudge children nearer to completion of a task. However, a tutors response to learner
progress may also be seen as one of diminishing support. As learning develops, so less structure
and fewer prompts are provided as processes and concepts become internalised. The learning
becomes more independent, or self-regulated.
Three elements of self-regulated learning appear to be particularly important (Perry et
al, 2002):
self-direction in tasks;
pupils setting own targets and challenges;
self-selection of strategies for achieving targets and cahallenges.
| | programme

227

Taking pupils experiences into account


The idea that the learning process must make sense indicates an awareness that the culture and values of a childs first hand experiences will be highly influential in determining the
types of contexts which will be meaningful and hence successful in supporting learning. This
recognition is central to the idea of situated cognition (Lave 1988; Lave and Wenger, 1991)
which strongly suggests that particular situations structure and support specific types of reasoning and strategies. This is clearly illustrated by the work of Nunes et al (1993) who recorded
the difficulties experienced by Brazilian street children in coping with the formal procedures of
written mathematics in school, despite their great facility in carrying out mental calculations in
everyday situations trading in markets.
What does this mean for teachers?
The key message arising from the previous section was that information is transmitted, but
that knowledge and understanding are constructed by the learner and it is the role of the teacher
to help the learner to construct meaning.
The key factors which determine the classroom environment are acknowledging and recognising how children learn, knowing what to teach, knowing how to structure sequences of
lessons and how to assess if the learning has taken place (Figure 7).

228

Figure 7: Helping children to learn how to learn


The focus of the next sections will be on what happens inside the classroom, however it
should not be forgotten that classrooms are embedded in a larger community and that this connection should be made explicit in the design of learning experiences. The implications of this
are that good home and family support for learners and learning will maximise the capacity of
pupils to learn in school and beyond school.

| | programme

Taking account of how children learn


In classroom environments where teachers pay careful attention to the knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs that learners bring to the educational setting then lessons are more likely to be
successful. To find out what pupils already know teachers use diagnostic probes at the start of
teaching episodes so that learning is connected to what is already known and misconceptions are
identified, explored and corrected. The educational research in the previous section showed that
learners always know something about the issue at hand and what they know is always their starting point for making sense. If the teachers starting point is very different from the learner, then
learning is unlikely to take place. If the starting point is not appropriate then the best pupils will
struggle to remember what the teacher teaches and forget it quickly after any test or examination.
Subsequently in lessons pupils will be asked to assume an active role in all aspects of learning, including creating their own hypotheses, setting their own questions, coaching one another,
setting goals for themselves, monitoring progress, experimenting with ideas and taking risks
knowing that mistakes are an inherent part of learning (Figure 8).

229

Figure 8: Learning pyramid


The teacher ensures that the flow of work is sufficiently varied and challenging to maintain the
pupils engagement whilst also providing them with the necessary skills and understanding to be
able to do the set tasks. The teacher strives to create learning environments where pupils are what
Csikszentmihalyi (2008) describes as autotelic and Ryan & Deci (2009) describe as intrinsically motivated. That is, pupils who are internally driven, and as such may exhibit a sense of purpose and curiosity. This determination is an exclusive difference from being externally driven, where things such
as not wanting to get into trouble or just wanting to pass an examination are the motivating force.

| | programme

230

Figure 9: Flow
To this end teachers build goal-setting and target-achieving into the work and make pupils
feel good about having planned for, and achieved, something. Lessons are structured to develop
increased concentration so that pupils build up the ability to focus on details for greater periods
of time gradually over a series of lessons. Teachers involve pupils and enable them to play an
active role in what goes on in the classroom.
In summary: Long term understanding comes through learner-centred teaching or provision. In other words learner-centred classroom environments include teachers who are aware
that learners construct their own meanings, beginning with the beliefs, understandings, and
cultural practices they bring to the classroom. If teaching is conceived as constructing a bridge
between the subject matter and the pupil, learner centred teachers keep a constant eye on both
ends of the bridge. The teachers attempt to get a sense of what pupils know and can do as well as
their interests and passions, what each pupil knows, cares about, is able to do, and wants to do.

References
Bronson, M. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and Nurture. New York London: Guilford Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chaiklin, S. (1999). Developmental teaching in upper-secondary school. In M. Hedegaard & J.
Lompscher (Eds.), Learning Activity and Development. Oxford: Aarhus University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow. Harper Perennial.
Forrest-Pressley, D. L., MacKinnon, G. E., & Waller, T. G. (Eds). (1985). Metacognition, Cognition & Human Performance. New York: Academic Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York, Cambridge University Press.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept
of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe
Matlin, M. (1998). Cognition (4th edition). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.
| | programme

Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street Mathematics and School Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. J. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating Teacher-Student Interactions that Foster Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 37
(1), 515.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation,
learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook on motivation
at school (pp. 171196). New York: Routledge.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitebread, D. (2000). Organising activities to help children remember and understand. In D.
Whitebread (Ed.), The Psychology of Teaching and Learning in the Primary School. London: Routledge.

231

| | programme

Teaching talented and gifted children

Renzulli (1978) developed a definition of giftedness based on the interaction between


three basic clusters of human traits:
above average ability
a high level of task commitment
a high level of creativity.

232

Contemporary understanding
The gifted and talented are not a homogeneous group and every student possesses a
unique blend of traits. However, when we look at gifted and talented students as a group,
we can see clusters of common characteristics. Some students show evidence of these
characteristics across a number of areas, while in others such evidence may be confined
to a single endeavour. In the more highly gifted, these traits may be much more marked or
intense. With many gifted and talented students, the behaviours indicating their exceptional
ability may not be readily observable. Some students may not have been provided with experiences in the areas of their giftedness or may not have had opportunities to demonstrate
their ability. Others, for a variety of reasons, may be underachieving or deliberately hiding
their giftedness. Some gifted and talented students may have learning difficulties that mask
their real ability.
The gifted and talented represent a wide range of students with many different abilities.
Some students, for example, may have exceptional abilities in science or technology, some in
art or poetry, and others in social leadership. It is now accepted that the gifted and talented are
not simply those with high intelligence. The range of special abilities that relate to the concept
of giftedness and talent has become quite broad over the years and includes general intellectual
abilities, academic aptitude, creative abilities, leadership ability, physical abilities, and abilities
in the visual and performing arts. Pupils may be gifted in one area and have difficulties with
another, they may be very able at one stage of their development but not at a later stage. These
gifts or talents may be recognised by teachers, parents, other members of a group or the children
themselves. Children need opportunities to demonstrate their abilities, skills and potential and
in the early years this may be particularly difficult.
McAlpine and Reid (1996) provide a helpful list of characteristics of the gifted and talented. No one gifted student is likely to possess all the following characteristics. It would be
possible for a student to show clear evidence of all, or nearly all, the behaviours in one category
but few in another.
Throughout this text the terms gifted and talented have been joined together as gifted
and talented. However, some would argue that the two terms should be differentiated. Where
the terms are differentiated, giftedness is usually associated with high intelligence or aptitude,
whereas talent is usually related to a high level of performance in such areas as music, art, craft,
dance, or sport. Some have argued, however, for differentiating the two terms by claiming that
giftedness relates more to aptitude domains (intellectual, creative, socioaffective, perceptual /
motor) while talent is associated more with outstanding achievements in a variety of fields of
human endeavour (academic, technical, artistic, interpersonal, and athletic fields). Talent is
sometimes linked to excellence and outstanding performance and is reserved for a minority of
individuals from a larger pool of competent people.
In summary:
There has been a trend away from defining the gifted and talented in terms of a single
category (for example, high IQ) towards a multicategory approach, which acknowledges a diverse range of special abilities;
| | programme

Cultural values, which reflect a range of attitudes to abilities and qualities, form an important component of any concept of giftedness and talent;
Identification procedures and programme content should equally incorporate multicultural perspectives;
Social, emotional, and motivational factors are acknowledged as important aspects of
giftedness and talent;
Behavioural characteristics such as advanced reading and language skills, early abstract
thinking, and exceptional levels of knowledge, curiosity, and motivation are helpful in
identifying gifted and talented students;
It is important to recognise potential as well as demonstrated performance;
Educators should offer rich and challenging experiences to help realise potential.
What does this mean for teachers?
As children progress through school their academic achievement may be recorded formally
and there may be portfolios of work which display their talents. But, there may be unusually
mature patterns of thinking which have not been recognised, or intellectual gifts which need
time for sustained concentration beyond the limits of routine timetables. Some children have remarkable social skills and leadership qualities which are not used in more formal learning contexts. To remind teachers of the breadth of these gifts and talents, checklists have been drawn
up to include description of behavioural patterns such as shows strong feelings and opinions
or has an odd sense of humour.
How might teachers provide for these children?
The United States Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1993) put forward
five suggested action points for schools in relation to providing for gifted and talented pupils:
Seek variety in the range of abilities of talented students;
Enable equality of opportunity and access to provisions free from cultural and other biases;
Identify potential as well as demonstrated achievement;
Use a variety of assessment procedures for identifying students with exceptional talents:
Assess the motivation of learners so as to take account of the drive and passion which
plays a key role in accomplishments.
It is generally accepted that gifted and talented pupils need a different kind of activity, not
more of the same as their peers. It is suggested that these should be more stimulating or challenging.
How a teacher perceives the behaviour of a gifted student reflects how much he or she understands gifted students, and empathises with them. For example, some teachers celebrate the
gifted students tendency to generate unusual insights; others will find such behaviour disruptive. Some teachers may welcome a gifted students questioning of arbitrary decisions; others
will perceive it as disrespectful. Sometimes less acceptable behaviour may be an expression
of frustration. Very often, a student who achieves quick mastery of information, easily grasps
underlying principles, likes intellectual challenge, and jumps stages in learning becomes extremely bored and frustrated when required to work on the same programme and at the same
speed as the rest of the class. This student may become disruptive, act as a class clown, or
develop a total lack of interest in schoolwork. It is important that teachers recognize these
negative behaviours in relation to the gifts and talents of their pupils and that they attempt to
provide their pupils with the conditions that will alleviate them rather than seeing them simply
as problematic.

| | programme

233

References

234

Dauban, J., & Crossland, J. (2009). Working with Gifted and Talented Children at an Iron Age
Hill Fort in North Somerset. Primary History, 51. Spring, 2009. Historical Association,
UK.
Eyre, D., & Lowe, H. (2002). Curriculum Provision for the Gifted and Talented in the Secondary School. David Fulton.
Eyre, D., & McClure, L. (2001). Curriculum Provision for the Gifted and Talented in the Primary School. David Fulton.
Freeman, J. (1998). Educating the Very Able. London: The Stationery Offce.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York, NY: Basic Books.
McAlpine, D., & Reid, N. (1996). Teachers observation scale for identifying children with special abilities. Wellingtom: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). The social and emotional
development of gifted children: What do we know?. National Association of Gifted Children. Prufrock Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What Makes Giftedness? Re-examining a Definition. Phi Delta Kappan,
60,180181.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A Comprehensive
Plan for Educational Excellence. Mansfi eld Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Seal, C. (2006). How can we encourage pupil dialogue in collaborative group work? National
Teacher Research Panel Conference summary.
US Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National Excellence and Developing Talent.

| | programme

Responding to age related differences


Learning in relation to age-related differences
A Theory of Mind (TOM) is a specific cognitive ability to understand others as intentional agents, that is, to interpret their minds in terms of theoretical concepts of intentional
states such as beliefs and desires. By theory of mind we mean being able to infer the full range
of mental states (beliefs, desires, intentions, imagination, emotions, etc.) that cause action. In
brief, having a theory of mind is to be able to reflect on the contents of ones own and others
minds.
The False Belief Task
A focused perspective on TOM comes from developmental psychology. Children show a
precocious ability to understand intentions and other important aspects of the mind (as gaze direction, attention, pretense). Nevertheless, in the early 1980s, the psychologists H. Wimmer and
J. Perner showed that a fully-fledged TOM doesnt develop before the age of 3 to 4 years. They
set up a series of experimental tests in order to check whether children between 3 and 5 years of
age were able to attribute a false belief to someone else. In one of these experiments, children
watch a scene in which a character, Maxi, puts chocolate in a drawer and goes away. While he
is away, his mother takes a bit of chocolate for cooking and then puts it somewhere else and
goes out. Then Maxi comes back, and the experimenter asks: Where will Maxi look for the
chocolate?. The 1983 original results showed that children over 5 did not have problems in
attributing to Maxi a false belief, whereas younger children predicted indifferently that Maxi
could look for the chocolate where his mother has put it. The false belief task, as it is called,
defines a sharp watershed between a stage of childs development in which children have a sort
of transparent reading of mind and reality, and a stage in which they show a capacity of having an opaque reading of mind and reality, that is, they can easily distinguish between what
is the case and what people believe is the case.
Results on false belief task indicate an abrupt change during the third year of age. This
lead many psychologists and philosophers (eg, Leslie, 1987; Fodor, 1992) to describe the underlying cognitive structure responsible for TOM as an innate module, that is activated around
three years of age. It can be specifically impaired or function in the presence of other mental
impairments. This view fits with the evidence that comes from experimental studies of severe
psychiatric impairments as autism (Baron-Cohen, 1995; Frith et al., 1994). Autistic children
have a significant lower performance on false belief tasks compared to other cognitive tasks for
testing intelligence and language capacities.
Creativity in relation to age-related differences
Creativity has been considered in terms of process, product or person (Barron, 2002) and
has been defined as the interpersonal and intrapersonal process by means of which original,
high quality, and genuinely significant products are developed. In dealing with young children,
the focus should be on the process, i.e., developing and generating original ideas, which is
seen as the basis of creative potential. When trying to understand this process, it is helpful to
consider Guilfords (1956) differentiation between convergent and divergent thought. Problems
associated with convergent thought often have one correct solution. But problems associated
with divergent thought require the problem-solver to generate many solutions, a few of which
will be novel, of high quality, workable, and thereby creative.
For a proper understanding of childrens creativity, one must distinguish creativity from
intelligence and talent. The term gifted is often used to imply high intelligence. But Wallach
(1970) has argued that intelligence and creativity are independent of each other, and a highly
| | programme

235

creative child may or may not be highly intelligent. Most measures of childrens creativity have
focused on ideational fluency. Ideational fluency tasks require children to generate as many
responses as they can to a particular stimulus, similar to brainstorming. Ideational fluency is
generally considered to be a critical feature of the creative process. Childrens responses may be
either popular or original, with the latter considered evidence of creative potential. Thus when
we ask four-year-olds to tell us all the things they can think of that are red, we find that children not only list wagons, apples and cardinals, but also chicken pox and cold hands.

236

What does this mean for teachers?


Perhaps the strongest message for age-related differences in teaching and learning comes
from cognitive theories of learning. The Piagetian stage view of development and learning
has been challenged by many psychologists and educationalists, such as Margaret Donaldson,
since its proposal by Piaget in the 1950s and is no longer widely accepted. Recent neurological
research has been able to demonstrate that infants possess the same neurological structures as
adults (Goswami and Bryant, 2010). Goswami and Bryant suggest that differences between the
thinking of adults and children may be explained in relation to experience rather than in terms
of neurophysiological changes and the view that it is necessary to wait until pupils are ready
for learning has been largely discredited.
Contemporary thinking suggests that we should not restrict the learning experiences of
pupils because of supposed stages of development. Rather we should provide rich experiental
and social environments for pupils of all ages. Environments in which pupils frequently interact with teachers and other pupils will provide opportunities for the scaffolding of learning
across the individual ZPD of pupils. Cognitive theories of learning emphasise children as active
participants in the learning process, and in addition suggest that young children should initiate most of the activities required for learning and development. Schools that are influenced
by this theory emphasise the physical environment and the curriculum of the early childhood
classroom. Teachers and adults have direct conversations with children; and activities are made
meaningful through the incorporation of childrens experiences into the curriculum.
Vygotsky gave prominence to the importance of social interaction in the development of
cognitive abilities. More recently, Howe and Mercer (2010) have demonstrated that collaborative and cooperative activities enhance cognitive development and learning as well as the development of social skills. Piagets postulation, that cognitive change was more likely to take
place when children are faced with conflicting ideas and views of their peers than of adults,
offers some explanation for this. Mixed-age groups appear to provide pupils with rich opportunities to interact with more advanced and less advanced peers and this helps develop their
cognitive and social skills. Howe and Mercer suggest that it is the quality of communication
and social processes in a classroom that explains achievement. The teachers role as facilitator,
rather than as the sole source, of learning appears to support development of all pupils.
US research into teaching in mixed age classrooms offers teachers a way to think about
age-related teaching and learning. This research suggested that the key to successful teaching
in such classes is that teachers view their pupils as individuals. Rather than thinking about
teaching curriculum, they think about teaching children. Teachers consider each pupil as being
on a continuum of learning and attempt to support them in moving along this continuum rather
than focusing on what curriculum is appropriate for children of a particular age. Research into
mixed age teaching pointed to the success of a process approach in meeting the needs of pupils
of different ages. This involves teachers in providing open-ended activities, experiences or
projects in which all the children can participate on their own developmental levels. The role of
the teacher in successful mixed-age classes is that of facilitator of learning. Rather than acting
simply as the giver of knowledge, the teacher guides, nurtures and supports the learning pro | | programme

cess. In order to facilitate each pupils learning they must know their individual developmental
needs and interests. Assessment for learning is therefore an important part of successful mixedage teaching.
The implication for age-related teaching and learning of the research into attention is
the importance of making activities interesting, intriguing and relevant for young children.
Importantly, attracting young childrens attention will involve a strong element of recognition
together with the promise of new information related to what they already know. Research
into metacognition tells us that teachers interventions can help even young children to develop
some of the metacomponents that are the strategies of successful learning. One way of teaching for metacognition is to make explicit and infuse the language of thinking and learning into
the planning of teaching and into classroom discussion. The aim is to model the vocabulary we
want children to use in their own thinking and understanding of learning by using it ourselves
to describe our teaching, with such prompts as The thinking we are going to be using today is
..., This lesson is about ..., What thinking have we been doing ...? This will also involve the
direct explanation of terms being used, and also challenging children to define these terms in
their own words.
Research into creativity suggests that for young children the focus of creativity should remain on process: the generation of ideas. Adult acceptance of multiple ideas in a non-evaluative
atmosphere will help children generate more ideas or move to the next stage of self-evaluation.
As children develop the ability for self-evaluation, issues of quality and the generation of products become more important. The emphasis at this age should be on self-evaluation, for these
children are exploring their abilities to generate and evaluate hypotheses, and revise their ideas
based on that evaluation.

237

References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control
processes. In K.W.Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 2, pp.89-195). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology
of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 8, pp. 4789). New
York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Boston: MIT
Press/Bradford Books.
Barron, B. (2002). Creative work in relational context and its developmental significance. Human Development, 45, 367371.
Chen, Z., Sanchez, R., & Campbell, T. (1997). From beyond to within their grasp: Analogical
problem solving in 10- and 13-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 33, 790801.
Davidson, J. E., Deuser R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura, Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. Cambridge. Mass: MIT Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The
Nature of Intelligence (pp.231236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental. American Psychologist, 34, 906911.
Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., & Flavell, E. R. (1995). Young childrens knowledge about thinking.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 60 (1), Serial No. 243.
| | programme

238

Fodor, J. (1992). A theory of the childs theory of mind. Cognition, 44, 283296.
Frith, U., Happe, F., & Siddons, F. (1994). Autism and theory of mind in everyday life. Social
Development, 3, 108124.
Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: Introduction. American Psychologist, 52, 3234.
Goswami, U., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Melting chocolate and melting snowmen: Analogical
reasoning and causal relations. Cognition, 35, 6995.
Goswami, U., & Brown, A. L. (1990). Higher-order structure and relational reasoning: Contrasting analogical and thematic relations. Cognition, 36, 207226.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267293.
Hagen, J. W., & Hale, G. A. (1973). The development of attention in children. Paper presented
at the Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
October, 1972.
Howe, C., & Mercer, N. (2010). Research survey for The Cambridge Primary Review. In R.
Alexander (Ed.), Children, their World, their Education. London: Routledge.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Classics in the History of Psychology.
Kohlberg, L. (1963). Heinz Steals the Drug. Retrieved on 5/28/2009 from http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/classes/psy2664/Heinz.htm.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development. Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Leslie, A. M. (1987). Pretence and representation: the origins of theory of mind. Psychological Review, 94, 412426.
Piaget, J. (1977). The Role of Action in the Development of Thinking. In W. F. Overton & J. M.
Gallagher (Eds.), Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Childrens development of analogical reasoning: insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249271.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80s. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Sternberg, R. J. (1983). Criteria for intellectual skills training. Educational Researcher, 12,
612.
Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and Adult Learning. London: Routledge.
Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? American Psychologist, 40, 385
398.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichaels Manual of Child Psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young childrens understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 4168.

| | programme

WAYS OF WORKING
Working collaboratively and cooperatively in groups
What is Collaborative learning?
Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction whereas cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of an end product or goal.
Collaborative learning is a personal philosophy, not just a classroom technique. In all situations where people come together in groups, it suggests a way of dealing with people which
respects and highlights individual group members abilities and contributions. There is a sharing of authority and acceptance of responsibility among group members for the groups actions.
The underlying premise of collaborative learning is based upon consensus building through
cooperation by group members.
What is Cooperative learning?
Collaborative learning is an educational approach to teaching and learning that involves
groups of students working together to solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product.
Collaborative learning is based on the idea that learning is a naturally social act in which the
participants talk among themselves and it is through talk that learning occurs.
There are many approaches to collaborative learning but the main assumptions about a
cooperative learning process are that:
1. Learning is an active process whereby students assimilate the information and relate this
new knowledge to a framework of prior knowledge.
2. Learning requires a challenge that opens the door for the learner to actively engage his/her
peers, and to process and synthesize information rather than simply memorize and regurgitate it.
3. Learners benefit when exposed to diverse viewpoints from people with varied backgrounds.
4. Learning flourishes in a social environment where conversation between learners takes
place. During this intellectual gymnastics, the learner creates a framework and meaning to the
discourse.
5. In the collaborative learning environment, the learners are challenged both socially and
emotionally as they listen to different perspectives, and are required to articulate and defend
their ideas. In so doing, the learners begin to create their own unique conceptual frameworks
and not rely solely on an experts or a texts framework. Thus, in a collaborative learning setting, learners have the opportunity to converse with peers, present and defend ideas, exchange
diverse beliefs, question other conceptual frameworks, and be actively engaged (Smith and
MacGregor, 1992).
What does this mean for teachers?
Students learn best when they are actively involved in the process. Researchers report that,
regardless of the subject matter, students working in small groups tend to learn more of what
is taught and retain it longer than when the same content is presented in other instructional formats. Students who work in collaborative groups also appear more satisfied with their classes.
(Sources: Beckman, 1990; Chickering and Gamson, 1991; Collier, 1980; Goodsell, Maher, Tinto, and Associates, 1992; Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991; Slavin, 1980, 1983)

| | programme

239

References

240

Beckman, M. ( 1990). Collaborative Learning: Preparation for the Workplace and Democracy.
CollegeTeaching, 38(4),128-133.
Chickering, A. W, & Gamson, Z. F. (Eds.). (1991). Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice inUndergraduate Education.New Directions for Teaching and Learning,no.47.San
Francisco: JosseyBass.
Collier, K. G.(1980). Peer-Group Learning in Higher Education: The Development of Higherorder Skills.Studies in Higher Education, 5(1), 55-62.
Goodsell, A., Maher, M., Tinto, V., & Associates(1992).Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebookfor Higher Education.University Park: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching,
Learning, and Assessment, Pennsylvania State University.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Improving Student Learning in College Classrooms. Springfield, Ill:
Thomas.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative Learning:Increasing
College Faculty Instructional Productivity.ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No.4.
Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington
University.
Slavin, R. F.(1980).Cooperative Learning.Review of Educational Research,50 (2), 315-342.
Slavin, R. E.(1983).When Does Cooperative Learning Increase Student Achievement?PsychologicalBulletin,94 (3), 429-445.
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992).What Is Collaborative Learning?.National Centre on
Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at Pennsylvania State University.

| | programme

Dialogic teaching
Contemporary Understanding
There is now considerable evidence that suggests that getting student to talk together in
class has numerous benefits in:
allowing students to articulate their understanding of a topic;
helping them to understand that other people may have different ideas;
enabling students to reason through their ideas;
assisting the teacher in their understanding of where their students are in their learning.
A characteristic of much classroom talk is the extent of the teachers conversational control
over the topic, the relevance or correctness of what pupils say and when and how much pupils
may speak. Pupils in many classrooms have few conversational rights. One would not for
example expect a pupil to say to a teacher, Thats an interesting point. Research suggests
that the common pattern of classroom talk, where the teacher controls the discourse, asks
the important questions, repeats childrens answers and offers praise, does not seem likely to
advance childrens thinking or develop their talking skills.
Mercer (2005) also has shown that peer group interaction has an important part to play
in learning. When learners are working in pairs or groups they are involved in interactions
which are more symmetrical than those of teacher-pupil discourse and so have different
kinds of opportunities for developing reasoned arguments and describing observed events.
Language is our prime tool for making collective sense of experience. Indeed learning is
mediated through dialogue and the extent to which learners perceive cohesion and coherence
in their classroom work may be heavily dependent on how dialogue mediates that activity.
Talk with a teacher, and with other pupils, is perhaps the most important means for ensuring
that a learners engagement in a series of activities contributes to their developing understanding.
Alexander (2008) proposes that dialogic teaching harnesses the power of talk to stimulate and extend learners. Alexander suggests that through dialogue, teachers can elicit learners every day, common sense perspectives, engage with their developing ideas and help
them overcome misunderstandings. When learners are given opportunities to contribute to
classroom dialogue in extended and varied ways, they can explore the limits of their own
understanding. At the same time they practice new ways of using language as a tool for constructing knowledge.
Alexander (2004) argues that talk in learning is not a one-way linear communication but
a reciprocal process in which ideas are bounced back and forth and on that basis take childrens learning forward. In dialogue, participant children (and their teachers) are equal partners striving to reach an agreed outcome and trying out and developing what Mercer (2000)
has described as the joint construction of knowledge or becoming involved in a process of
interthinking. Interthinking can be achieved through dialogue with pupils, however pupils
can do it with each other in a process of joint enquiry.
Mercers research asserts that talk is a vital apart of students learning and that there are
three broad types of talk that people engage in:
Disputational talk
Cumulative talk
Exploratory talk

| | programme

241

Disputational talk, in which:


Cumulative talk, in which:
i) There is a lot of disagreement and everyone i) Everyone simply accepts and agrees with
makes their own decisions.
what other people say.
ii) There are few attempts to pool resources. ii) Talk is used to share knowledge, but the
iii) There are often a lot of interactions of the participants in the discussion are uncritical of
Yes it is! No it isnt! type.
the contributions of others.
iv) The atmosphere is competitive rather iii) Ideas are repeated and elaborated but are
than cooperative.
not necessarily carefully evaluated.
Exploratory talk, in which:
i) Everyone offers relevant information.
ii) Everyones ideas are treated as worthwhile, but they are critically evaluated.
iii) People ask each other questions.
iv) People ask for, and give, a reason for what is said so, reasoning is visible in the talk.
v) Members of the group try to reach agreement (though of course they may not its trying
to find agreement thats important).
Most discussions are usually a mixture of these types of talk. Mercer asserts that the most
productive discussions, in terms of building collective understanding and learning, tend to be
those where there are high levels of exploratory talk.

242

Exploratory Talk
Research has established the relationship between speaking and listening and childrens
learning. Barnes (1976) and Mercer (2000) argue that explatory talk is the kind of talk that
teachers should aim to develop. When children engage in exploratory talk, they are almost
certain to be working in a small group with their peers. They will be sharing a problem and constructing meaning together; exchanging ideas and opinions, considering and evaluating each
others ideas, building up shared knowledge and understanding. In other words, children are
thinking together. When children engage in exploratory talk we can hear them thinking aloud:
hypothesising and speculating. Children might use words and phrases such as perhaps, if,
might and probably; they give reasons to support their ideas, because and seek support
from the group by asking questions such as wouldnt it?.
What does this mean for teachers?
Learning will be enhanced in an environment where children are given opportunities for
exploratory talk. When children are working in this way their reasoning becomes apparent
through their talk and may be developed by their teacher or their peers. However, this kind of
talk does not come naturally to them; they need to be guided by their teachers to understand the
value of collaborative talk.
Questioning
A frequent pattern of questioning observed within classrooms has been found to take the
form of Initiation Response Follow-up (IRF). For example:
Initiation (teacher): How many bones are there in the human body?
Response (pupil): Two hundred and six.
Follow-up (teacher): Excellent.
This model typies many classrooms where it is the teacher who is the initiator and who
controls the talk (Mercer, 1995). Such classrooms do not offer opportunities for the type of
dialogic talk which promotes learning.
| | programme

Questioning is a critical skill in the sense that, done successfully, it becomes a powerful
tool for teaching by supporting, enhancing, and extending childrens learning. It is generally argued that there are essentially two types of questions that teachers can use to elicit
childrens understanding: lower-order and higher-order questions. Lower-order questions
are sometimes called closed or literal questions. They do not go beyone simple recall and
answers are either right or wrong Higher-order questions require children to apply, reorganise, extend, evaluate and analyse information in some way. Both types of question have
their place within an effective pedagogy; the type of question asked and the form in which it
is posed will vary in relation to its purpose. In addition, questions need to be formulated to
match childrens learning needs. It is possible to differentiate questions for different abilities
and different children.
Different questioning techniques can be used in order to support childrens learning more
thoroughly, such as prompting, probing and redirecting:
Prompting: prompting may be necessary to elicit an intial answer to support a child in correcting his or her response, for example simplyfying the framing of the question, taking them
back to known material, giving hints or clues, accepting what is right and prompting for a more
complete answer.
Probing: probing questions are designed to help children give fuller answers, to clarify
their thinking, to take their thinking further, or to direct problem-solving activities, for example,
Could you give us an example?
Redirecting: redirecting questions to other children, for example, Can anyone else help?
Considering the role of questioning as a dialogic approach to support learning suggests that,
through questioning a teacher can:
Encourage children to talk constructively and on task;
signal a genuine interest in the ideas and feelings of children;
develop curiosity and encourage research;
help children to externalise and verbalise knowledge;
help childrens creative thinking;
help children to think critically;
help children to learn from each other and to respect and evaluate each others contributions;
deepen and focus thinking and action through talk and reflection;
diagnose specific difficulties or misunderstanding that could inhibit learning.
Listening and Responding to Children
Just as important as the teachers questions is the questioning that arises from careful listening to childrens responses. In dialogic talk the questions asked by children are as important as
the questions asked by the teacher and the answers given. The teacher is not using questions
solely for the purpose of testing pupils knowledge, but also to enable them to reflect, develop
and extend their thinking. Wragg and Brown (2001) suggest several types of response that can
be made to pupils answers and comments. Teachers can:
ignore the response, moving on to another pupil, topic or question
acknowledge the response, building it into the subsequent discussion
repeat the response verbatim to reinforce the point or to bring it to the attention of those
that might not have heard it
repeat part of the response, to emphasise a particular element of it
paraphrase the response for clarity and emphasis, and so that it can be built into the
ongoing and subsequent discussion
praise the response (either directly or by implication in extending and building on it for
the subsequent part of the discussion)
| | programme

243

244

correct the response


prompt the pupils for further information or clarication
probe the pupils to develop relevant points
It is easy for a teacher to miss important clues to childrens understanding when they are
too concerned to lead children towards a predetermined answer. It is important to give children
time to respond and wherever possible build answers and further questions on their contributions. In addition to pausing after asking questions, research shows that benefits result when
teachers pause after the pupils response to a question and when teachers do not affirm answers
immediately. Hargreaves and Galton (2002) found that on average a classroom teacher waits
only two seconds before either repeating a question, rephrasing, it, directing it to another child,
or extending it themselves. Hargreaves and Galton argue that a teachers immediate and instinctive response should be to evaluate, repeat or restate an answer. Increasing wait time from
three to seven seconds results in an increase in the following:
1. The length of pupil responses
2. The number of unsolicited responses
3. The frequency of pupil questions
4. The number of responses from less capable children
5. Pupil-pupil interactions
6. The incidence of speculative responses
Allowing thinking time (particularly for complex responses) affords pupils the opportunity
to correct, clarify and crystallise their responses. Additionally, it is important to think about
pace in relation to purpose a series of closed questions may be appropriate, but at other times
we want pupils to give more thoughtful and considered responses.
To summarise: discovering what pupils know and their misconceptions requires good
communication skills, language skills, and empathy. Rather than a teachers questions eliciting
brief responses from pupils, we can see that dialogic talk is a type of interaction where both
teachers and pupils make substantial and significant contributions.

References
Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk. Cambridge: Dialogos UK.
Barnes, D. (1971). Language and Learning in the Classroom. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3
(1), 2738.
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Galton, M., & Hargreaves, L. (2002). Transfer from the Primary School: 20 Years On. London:
Routledge.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: talk amongst teachers and learners.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (2008). Exploring talk in school: inspired by the work of Douglas
Barnes. London: Sage
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of thinking. A sociocultural
approach. NY: Routledge.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Language, school and classrooms (2nd ed.). London: Methuen.
Wragg, E., & Brown, G. (2001).Questioning in the Primary School. Routledge Falmer.

| | programme

Assessment for and of learning


Assessment is a term that covers any activity in which evidence of learning is collected in
a planned and systematic way, and is used to make a judgement about learning. This topic differentiates between the two aspects of assessment, assessment of learning (summative assessment) and assessment for learning (formative assessment). Different forms of assessment are
described and evaluated in terms of their potential for enhancing learning. This topic therefore
focuses on assessment for learning as well as criterion-based assessment of learning.
This topic will support teachers in:
understanding different forms of assessment
identifying and justifying the precise purpose of different types of assessment
evaluating forms of formal and informal assessment practice
explaining how each may or may not enhance learning
Contemporary understanding
A distinction between formative and summative assessment has been familiar since the
1960s although the meaning of these two terms has not been well understood. Both forms of
assessment are necessary in any education system. Assessment of learning is necessary for
grading and reporting and assessment for learning is a necessary part of the teaching process
which promotes pupils learning. If the purpose of assessment is to summarise the learning that
has taken place in order to grade, certificate or record progress, then the assessment is summative in function, sometimes referred to as assessment of learning. When summative assessment is used for making decisions that affect the status or future of students, teacher or school
(that is, high stakes), the demand for reliability of measure often means the tests are used in
order closely to control the nature of the information and conditions in which it is collected. If
the purpose is to help in decisions about how to advance learning and the judgement is about
the next steps in learning and how to take them, then the assessment is formative in function,
sometimes referred to as Assessment for Learning (AfL).
The nature of assessment
It is no accident that the word assessment comes from a Latin word meaning to sit beside because a central feature of assessment is the close observation of what one person says
or does by another, or, in the case of self-assessment, reflection on ones own knowledge, understanding or behaviour. This is true of the whole spectrum of assessments, from formal tests
and examinations to informal assessments made by teachers in their classrooms many hundred
times each day. Although the form that assessments take may be very different some may be
pencil and paper tests whilst others may be based on questioning in normal classroom interactions all assessments have some common characteristics.
They all involve:
i) making observations;
ii) interpreting the evidence
iii) making judgements that can be used for decisions about actions.
Observation
In order to carry out assessment, it is necessary to find out what pupils know and can do or
the difficulties they are experiencing. Observation of regular classroom activity, such as listening to talk, watching pupils engaged in tasks, or reviewing the products of their class work and
homework, may provide the information needed, but on other occasions it may be necessary to
| | programme

245

elicit the information needed in a very deliberate and specific way. A task or test might serve
this purpose but a carefully chosen oral question can be just as effective. Pupils responses to
tasks or questions then need to be interpreted. In other words, the assessor needs to work out
what the evidence means.
Interpretation
Interpretations are made with reference to what is of interest such as specific skills, attitudes or different kinds of knowledge. These are often referred to as criteria and relate to
learning goals or objectives. Usually observations as part of assessment are made with these
criteria in mind, i.e. formulated beforehand, but sometimes teachers observe unplanned interactions or outcomes and apply criteria retrospectively. Interpretations can describe or attempt to
explain a behaviour, or they can infer from a behaviour, e.g. what a child says, that something
is going on inside a childs head e.g. thinking. For this reason interpretations are sometimes
called inferences.
Judgement
On the basis of these interpretations of evidence, judgements are made. These involve
evaluations. It is at this point that the assessment process looks rather different according to
the different purposes it is expected to serve and the uses to which the information will be put.

246

Assessment of learning
In contrast to assessment for learning, the main purpose of assessment of learning is to sumup what a pupil has learned at a given point. As such it is not designed to contribute directly to
future learning although high-stakes testing can have a powerful negative impact (Assessment
Reform Group, 2002b). In assessment of learning the judgement will explicitly compare a pupils performance with an agreed standard or with the standards achieved by a group of pupils
of, say, the same age. The judgement may then be in the form of has/has not met the standard
or, more usually, on a scale represented as scores or levels. These are symbolic shorthand for the
criteria and standards that underpin them. Representation in this concise, but sometimes cryptic, way is convenient when there is a need to report to other people such as parents, receiving
teachers at transition points, and managers interested in monitoring the system at school, local
and national level. Reporting, selection and monitoring are therefore prominent uses of this
kind of assessment information.
Assessment for learning
In AfL, observations, interpretations and criteria may be similar to those employed in assessment of learning, but the nature of judgements and decisions that flow from them will be
different. In essence, AfL focuses on what is revealed about where children are in their learning,
especially the nature of, and reasons for, the strengths and weaknesses they exhibit. AfL judgements are therefore concerned with what they might do to move forward.
The Assessment Reform Group (2002a) gave this definition of assessment for learning:
Assessment for Learning is the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by
learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to
go and how best to get there.
One significant element of this definition is the emphasis on learners use of evidence.
This draws attention to the fact that teachers are not the only assessors. Pupils can be involved
in peer- and self-assessment and, even when teachers are heavily involved, pupils need to be
| | programme

actively engaged. Only learners can do the learning so they need to act upon information and
feedback if their learning is to improve. This requires them to have understanding but also the
motivation and will to act. The implications for teaching and learning practices are profound
and far-reaching.
The formative use of summative data
Scores and levels, especially when aggregated across groups of pupils, are often referred to
as data although any information, systematically collected, can be referred to in this way. Aggregated summative data are useful for identifying patterns of performance and alerting teachers to groups that are performing above or below expectations. International studies such as the
OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) purport to collect data from
participating countries into how far students near the end of compulsory education have acquired
some of the knowledge and skills essential for full participation in society. However, it is important to find out more about how data are collected and test out any inferences being drawn.
Schools also collect data to try to discover the reasons for these patterns in order to
plan what to do. Similarly, at the level of the individual pupil, summative judgements
are helpful in indicating levels of achievement and, by implication, the next levels that
need to be aimed for if learners are to make progress. However, scores and levels need
to be studied more deeply to reveal the evidence and criteria they refer to if they are to
make any contribution to helping pupils to take these next steps. What is important is the
qualitative information about the underlying features of a performance that can be used
in feedback to pupils. For example, telling a child that he has achieved a particular grade
will not help him to know what to do to achieve a better, although exploring with him
the features of his work that led to this judgement, and explaining aspects of it that he
might improve, could help him to know what to do to make progress. In this context the
summative judgement (in number form) is stripped away and the teacher goes back to the
evidence (observation and interpretation) on which it was made. She then makes a formative judgement (in words) about what the evidence says about where the learner is, where
he needs to go, and how he might best get there.
By changing the nature of the judgement, assessments designed originally for summative
purposes may be converted into assessments for learning. However, not having been designed
to elicit evidence that will contribute directly to learning, they may be less suited to that purpose
than assessments designed with AfL in mind. External tests are even more problematic than
summative teacher assessments, because teachers rarely have access to enough of the evidence
on which scores and levels are based, although analyses of common errors can be useful.
What does this mean for teachers?
Every teacher must know how to assess, that is, know how to carry out testing in the classroom but it is also important that they understand why and for whom tests are undertaken. A
number of the main purposes of assessment are briefly outlined below.
1. The diagnosis of learning difficulties. Tests may be used for diagnosis of, for example, literacy or numeracy problems; this may be followed by specific remedial teaching and
re-testing.
2. Feedback on performance to students, teachers and parents. This may range from
informal impression assessments to formal written tests but the main purpose is to keep students and teachers informed about achievements and progress in, for example, knowledge,
understanding and skills.
3. Motivation. Frequent feedback on performance can be motivating. The prospect of
a test or examination usually concentrates the mind and acts as a spur for some pupils and
| | programme

247

teachers. This external stimulus can be a source of encouragement for learning but may, all
too easily, become an instrument of coercion, unless carefully controlled.
4. Prediction and selection. By assessing present attainments and skills, teachers attempt to predict students future behaviour and progress. The results from the public examinations system are often used for selection purposes, particularly for access to further and
higher education or employment. Within a school there is usually some form of assessment
before students are selected for allocation to sets or streams.
5. Monitoring and maintaining standards. Assessment may lead to award of qualifications and, from public examinations or higher education degrees; for example, there need
to be reasonable guarantees that qualified people have achieved acceptable standards. Analysis of the data gathered from international tests, such as PISA, is intended to allow monitoring of international standards but national and local tests are also used to monitor standards
at a more micro and macro level.
6. Controlling the content of the curriculum and teaching styles. For many teachers,
this is a somewhat undesirable side effect, rather than a main purpose of assessment. There
is no doubt, however, that the techniques and the frequency of assessment and examinations
do profoundly affect both the content of the curriculum and how it is taught.

248

The importance of Assessment for Learning


It would be quite reasonable for any teacher to ask, why something called Assessment for
Learning (AfL) has moved centre stage in the drive to improve teaching and learning. The past
experience of many teachers, pupils and their parents has been of assessment as something that
happens after teaching and learning. The idea that assessment can be an integral part of teaching
and learning requires a significant shift in our thinking but this is precisely what Assessment for
Learning implies.
Key principles underpinning assessment for learning are that
the first priority in its design and practice is to serve the purpose of promoting pupils
learning
an assessment activity can help learning by providing information to be used as feedback, by teachers, and by their pupils, in assessing themselves and each other.
The original research by Black and Wiliam used a technology metaphor and referred to
classrooms as black boxes so using assessment for learning has come to be known as working
inside the black box. The research of Black and Wiliam and the Assessment Reform Group in
the UK showed that improving learning through assessment depends on five, deceptively simple key factors to be incorporated into all teaching:
1. The provision of effective feedback to pupils.
2. The active involvement of pupils in their own learning that is being engaged in the process of self assessment.
3. Adjusting teaching to take account of the results of assessment.
4. A recognition of the profound influence assessment has on the motivation and self esteem of pupils, both of which are crucial influences on learning.
5. The need for pupils to be able to assess themselves and to work with their peers through
peer assessment so that they can understand how to improve.

| | programme

Working inside the black box


Effective
Questioning

Sharing
criteria with
learners

Peer and self


assessment

Providing
feedback

Figure 10: Building block to pupil self assessment

References
Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy. Wiley-Blackwell.
Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. University of
Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Assessment Reform Group. (2002b). Testing, Motivation and Learning. University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1989a). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5 (1), 5-75.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Kings College London, School of Education. Now available from NFER/Nelson.
James, M. (2002). Assessment for Learning: what is it and what does research say about it?
Learning how to learn project, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge.

| | programme

249

Management and leadership of learning

250

Contemporary understanding
Research at the National College for School Leadership in England (2004) has shown that
high performing and rapidly improving schools are characterised by learning-centred leaders.
Such leadership is focused on influencing what happens inside classrooms and improving the
quality of teaching and pupils learning. And such a strong focus on students learning is the
basis for these leaders being role models for teacher and staff colleagues. Elmore (2006) argues
that in school systems where accountability policies are strong, then leadership is the improvement of practice. Learning-centred leadership is just such a practice.
Learning-centred leadership relentlessly focuses on learning, most of all on student
learning processes and outcomes, but also staff learning and development, especially the
development of high quality teaching. They monitor what is going on inside classrooms
and across the whole school by using data, observing teaching and learning, identifying
strengths and the development needs of teachers and determine priorities for groups of
students and units of the school. Such leadership is shared at all levels because although
distributing leadership matters, what matters most is distributing and developing learningcentred leadership.
McBeath et als (2004) report presents distributed leadership as a developing process which
they describe under six headings:
Formal Distribution: This approach makes explicit expectations of staff in given roles
through designated role / job descriptions. This formal process of distribution has the advantage
of creating a high degree of security to all staff. Everyone knows where they stand. Such formal
distribution may be a necessary precondition for more radical developments.
Pragmatic Distribution: This approach is characterised by its ad hoc quality. It is often
a reaction to external events. It involves delegation of workload resulting from the increasing
pressure on schools to respond to externally imposed initiatives.
Strategic Distribution: The distinguishing feature of strategic distribution is its goal orientation. It is not about pragmatic problem solving but is focused on school improvement. It is
reflected, for example, in a carefully considered approach to staff appointments, which are seen
less in terms of individual skills, but more in terms of their contribution to the development of
leadership throughout the school.
Incremental Distribution: This has a pragmatic ad hoc quality but it is also strategic.
Its orientation is essentially on professional development. It devolves greater responsibility as
people demonstrate their capacity to lead. As people prove their ability to exercise leadership,
they are given more.
Opportunistic Distribution: In this category, leadership does not appear to be distributed
at all. It is dispersed. It is taken rather than given. It is assumed rather than conferred. It is opportunistic rather than planned. Capable teachers willingly extend their role, taking the initiative to lead, at times without the involvement of senior leadership.
Cultural Distribution: The emphasis here is on the what rather than the who. Leadership is expressed in activities rather than roles and through individual initiative. People exercise
initiative spontaneously and collaboratively with no necessary identification of leaders or followers. It is a reflection of the schools culture, ethos and traditions. This form of distributed
leadership is dependent on four types of reciprocal relationship:
Respect (listening to and valuing the views of others)
Personal regard (sustained personal relationships that support professional relationships)
Competence (the capacity to produce desired results in relationships with others)
Personal integrity (truthfulness and honesty in relationships)
| | programme

In this programme, it is the cultural distribution form of distributed leadership that is seen
as the most desirable. Teacher-led development work (TLDW) is a tried and tested example of
this form of leadership. Teacher-led development work is a particular way of fostering teacher
leadership and can be defined as teachers, with or without positions of responsibility:
taking the initiative to improve practice;
acting strategically with colleagues to embed change;
gathering and using evidence in collaborative processes;
contributing to the creation and dissemination of professional knowledge.
Development work is not to be confused with research. The TLDW programme is
based not on the concept of the teacher as researcher but that of the teacher as leader of
development work. We have to guard against being diverted from the goal of improving
teaching and learning in schools by what has been called academic imperialism (Elliot,
1991). Development work is not a matter of measuring the effects of practices or discovering why certain things happen. Rather it is about leading and managing a process in which
those involved teachers, students, parents, the school as a whole - learn to improve their
practice.
Collective action
At first glance it may seem paradoxical that teacher leadership is about amplifying the
teachers voice and extending the teachers capacity for leadership as individuals, but it is also
about collectivity. Teachers need to act collectively to provide the mutual support in their teacher leadership support groups and within their networks. Working together enables teachers not
only to transform practice in their schools, but also build a body of professional knowledge
that other teachers can trust. This body of knowledge is not research-based knowledge, rather
it is a live dialogic process based on accounts of innovation that inspire others and provide the
signposts for further action.
All of the above is based on the argument that it is through learning that human beings become more human, that teaching involves everything that helps human beings to
learn and that ultimately it is only teachers who can take the action necessary to improve
educational practice. Everybody else (policy makers, researchers, NGOs and international
bodies such as the World Bank and OCED) can only offer support and ideas. This is an optimistic view of course, but the cultivation of optimism is an essential dimension of teacher
leadership.
What does this mean for teachers?
A number of key implications for teachers arise from the leadership of learning and teaching:
The importance of clarifying your own understanding about learning and teaching
The need to create opportunities for discussion and agreement about learning and teaching with colleagues
The need to foster a strongly positive learning culture by creating the right conditions
for learning of both adults and pupils to take place
The need to see learning as wider than the improvement of standards
The need to ensure that learners are involved in the process
The need to ensure that the capacities of all of the teachers in a school are drawn upon,
for the benefit of all
The need to engage others; parents, the community and appropriate stakeholders

| | programme

251

252

Teacher-led development work


Teacher-led development work may involve all of the activities listed above. The Teacherled development process involves activities designed to draw others into collaboration, reflection and self-evaluation. Such activities are commonplace; for example: having discussions
with colleagues, reading a report downloaded from the web, gathering pupils views about their
experience, visiting other classrooms to observe or planning lessons with colleagues. In this
context, enquiry is a strategy for leading change and creating dialogue rather than an end in itself. These processes may be quite small in scale and scope, but they all contribute to improvement and to building a culture within which pedagogic discourse is seen as normal.
Teachers can be supported in leading development work through a step-by-step approach to
reflection, planning and consultation. The first step is to clarify values and concerns what is
important to the individual teacher, what their perceptions of the priorities are. The next step is
to consult colleagues about an agenda for change. It is only after this soul searching and negotiating has been done that the initiative has a chance of being sustained in a given school setting.
Once agreement is reached on the value of tackling this or that problem, the teacher can begin
to develop a viable action plan one which is practical and has been discussed with all those
who might be affected by it. If this process of negotiation and consultation has been effective,
the development work should flow, but it is vital that such development work is supported and
orchestrated by senior leadership within the school. We need their overview of the structure of
the school and its development priorities; their advice and guidance is invaluable.
This process is represented in outline as a list of steps below:
Values clarification.
Step 1
Identification of professional concerns.
Step 2
Negotiation and consultation to clarify agenda for development.
Step 3
Action planning.
Step 4
Negotiation and consultation to clarify action plan.
Step 5
Leadership of enquiry-based development work.
Step 6
Networking to contribute to professional knowledge.
Step 7
The leadership of development itself creates new knowledge within the school but sharing
accounts of development projects can contribute to knowledge building beyond the school.
Changing practice, building knowledge
The impact of teacher-led development work will be felt during the progress of the project
rather than after its completion. Good development work involves trying out new practices,
evaluation, reflection and review. All of these have a transformative effect. Outcomes are essentially practical; they are changes or improvements in practice; better ways of teaching and
better ways of learning. However, they may also constitute a valuable growth in professional
knowledge. This is both internal and external as reflected in the multi-level learning model
mentioned at the beginning of this paper. Most teachers find that developing their own practice
is a satisfying way to begin, but, if the project has been really successful, colleagues will have
been influenced and changes in practice will have become embedded within the school in a
sustainable way. In other words, the school will have learnt to do something differently. This
demands reaching out to colleagues and drawing them into collaboration.
The external dimension of knowledge building is not just about disseminating ideas about
teaching and learning, it is also about processing those ideas and developing them further. This
is where the network comes into its own. Through the networking activities we are able to
share ideas and subject them to challenge. We can also pick up new ideas and build on them.
This process of knowledge accumulation and critique is a live process that goes on all the time.
In HertsCam this is done through workshops at Network Events and through the publication of
| | programme

accounts in the Teacher Leadership journal and in the HertsCam Voice newsletter. Publications
such as these together with related web sites, enable teachers to extend the knowledge building
beyond the confines of their own schools and districts.
Other strategies for development of leadership for learning
Lieberman et al (2007) described four strategies that have been used successfully to develop and support teacher leadership and development. Any one or any combination of these
may be integrated into the TLDW approach.
Lesson Study
Lesson study is designed both to improve individual lessons or units and to develop the
pedagogical capacity of groups of teachers and as a result improve student achievement. Further details of lesson study can be found in the programme. A common form of a monthly lesson study has the following four stages:
Stage 1: formulate the goals of the lesson and prepare collaboratively as a group or
individually with support and consultation of peers or experienced teachers.
Stage 2: teacher(s) conducts the research lesson(s) and participants observe from within
the classroom.
Stage 3: teachers who have taught and observed the lesson(s) carefully discuss its
strengths and how it might be improved.
Stage 4: teachers then meet informally to continue discussions and consider
developments to improve the lesson.
Scholarship
Teachers rarely think of themselves as scholars, leaving that work to academics in their
ivory towers. When teachers keep private what they know, precious craft knowledge is lost. In
the United States, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT) has developed a programme known as the scholarship of teaching. Scholarship, it is argued, is made
up of three things: scholars make their work public; their work is critiqued; and it is built upon
and passed on to others. The idea in the scholarship of teaching is to invite teachers to study a
piece of their teaching and create some kind of a product that others might use. In this way it
would clearly be public; amenable to critique; and built upon and used by others.
The Teacher Research seminar
The school can also serve as the place for scholarship among teachers. A school-based research seminar is conducted with several purposes: to identify issues and problems to be tackled
by teachers and the school; to develop guidelines and strategies so that teachers can build a shared
knowledge-base within the school; and to develop the capacity of teachers and the school.
The Research Engaged school
Becoming a research-engaged school has the potential to contribute to a schools development by:
raising standards through improving the quality of teaching and support;
contributing to school self-evaluation;
moving learning forward by understanding and addressing pupils individual learning
needs;
consulting young people about their education and involving them in research;
contributing to school workforce reform by involving all staff, regardless of role and status;
developing the capacity to solve a schools own problems;
| | programme

253

Becoming a research-engaged school means making a commitment to using evidence and


research throughout the school. James (2005) points out that teacher learning is a necessary
condition for pupil learning. And argued that, the development of supportive professional cultures within which teachers can learn is vitally important.

References

254

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K.,
Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning Communities. The Department for Education and Skills.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Elmore, R. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement. Harvard University, paper prepared for the international conference on Perspectives on Leadership for systematic improvement, NCSL 2006.
Frost, D. (2011). Supporting teacher leadership in 15 countries: the International Teacher
Leadership project. Phase 1, A report, Cambridge: LfL at the University of Cambridge
Faculty of Education.
Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Rationale, Strategy and Impact. School
Leadership & Management, 23 (2), 173186.
Harris, A. (2009). Deep Leadership. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
McBer, H. (2004). The five pillars of Distributed Leadership in Schools. Nottingham: National
College for School Leadership.
Hoyle, E. (1974). Professionality, profesionalism and control in teaching. London Educational
Review, 3 (2), 4254.
James, M. (2005). Teacher Learning for pupil Learning. In Teaching Texts, Learning centred
leadership II (pp. 127-138). Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong claims
about successful school leadership. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Lieberman. A., Moore-Johnson, S., Fujita, H., & Starratt, R. (2007). Where Teachers can lead.
Developing teacher leadership, the ILERN Materials. Nottingham: National College for
School Leadership.
McBeath, J. (2004). Distributed Leadership in Action: A study of current practice in schools.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
MacBeath, J., Frost, D., Swaffeld, S., & Waterhouse, J. (2006). Leadership for Learning: Making the Connections. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
National College for School Leadership. (2004). Learning to Lead. NCSLs Stratgey for Leadership Learning. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
West-Burnham, J. (2009). Rethinking Educational Leadership. London: Continuum Books.

| | programme

Lesson study
Background
Lesson study is a form of classroom research which originated in the 1870s in Japan as a
means to improve and refine practice. Lesson Study has recently become popular beyond Japan
in 2007 when Makoto Yoshida bought the idea to the United States and the UK. Researchers
became interested in the apparently higher academic attainment of Japanese pupils, as demonstrated in international studies. Yoshida claims that this is due to the widespread use of lesson
study in Japanese schools. Lesson study is now being widely used as a means for developing
teachers pedagogical content knowledge and practice in several countries across East Asia. It
could be argued that reflective practice is a form of lesson study. However, for a professional
development activity to be called lesson study there are certain underpinning principles and
practical elements of the process that must be retained. Lesson Study is an essentially collaborative approach to teacher learning and the development of practice and like action research
involves a number of cycles. Central to Lesson Study is the research lesson or study lesson
in which the collaborating teachers study pupils learning in order to ascertain how they might
further develop a particular approach to enhance learning. Lesson Study involves both creativity and scientific rigour. The creativity comes from teachers working together to develop new
teaching approaches. Scientific rigour is involved in collecting the evidence of pupil learning
that will demonstrate whether or not the new approaches have been effective.
Lesson study is essentially a democratic way of improving practice. Groups normally consist of at least three teachers and benefit from including a range of experience and expertise. The
teachers are likely to come from one school but a group may involve teachers from a number of
schools working together to improve practice. Sometimes teachers with a particular expertise
in the approach or aspect of curriculum being tried may be included in the group for guidance.
However, all members of the group are fully and equally involved in the process. Although only
one teacher will teach the research lesson, the group take responsibility for it and it is accepted
that any evaluation of the teaching and of the lesson relates to the work of the whole group and
not to the individual teacher. A further democratic feature of lesson study is that the learning
gained from it is shared with the wider teaching community. In Japan, accounts of lesson studies
are routinely published and read by teachers to support their practice and in preparation for their
own research cycles. Lesson study groups also model teaching the new approach or aspect of
curriculum to colleagues and conduct discussions about their research. In Japan the foci of lesson
study has been extended to considering values, attributes and personal qualities of learners and
has been demonstrated to promote breadth, balance and coherence across a school.
The process
The Lesson Study cycle begins with the collaborative detailed planning of a research lesson. The lesson is then taught by one member of the group and observed by others. Evidence
of pupil learning is collected and analysed immediately after the lesson by group members. The
lesson is then collaboratively re-planned taking account of the evidence of learning collected in
order to amend the lesson to be more effective.
There are a number of steps in the lesson study process that have evolved over time:
The Lesson Study group agree a set of rules that ensure the contributions to the group
by all members are treated with equal respect;
The group agree a focus for their research which is usually framed as a question and
identifies what is to be taught and to whom, e.g. How can we teach X more effectively
to Y in order to improve their learning;
Group members research the literature for evidence of successful approaches in relation
to their focus and synthesise their findings to inform their planning;
| | programme

255

The group decide which class and which three case study pupils will be the focus of
the research lesson. These three pupils are chosen to be representative of groups within
the class who have high, medium and low characteristics in relation to their learning
involved in the lesson;
The group plans the research lesson with a particular focus on how it will be received
by the three case study pupils;
One teacher teachers the research lesson while others observe and take notes with particular attention to the learning of the three case study pupils;
Teachers interview a sample of pupils to get their views on what worked well and less
well in the lesson;
The group discusses the lesson as soon as possible after it has taken place. The discussion follows a set structure
observations of the learning of the case study pupils compared with the predictions
made in the planning and why these differences occurred
the learning of the class as a whole
the lesson and the teaching
what to do in the next research lesson in order to build on what has been learned;
The group plans the next research lesson;
Following a cycle of research lessons (usually three or more) the group agrees changes
to teaching approaches or curriculum design to be adopted and shared more widely.

256

| | programme

Action research
Action research as a form of practitioner enquiry
Practitioner educational research is a conceptual and linguistic overarching term used for
an array of research approaches (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) such as ethnographic and case
studies. In the wider literature there are various approaches to practitioner inquiry reported,
with different emphases and intentions as well as different historical and epistemological traditions however there are also common aspects. For example, all forms of practitioner inquiry
involve a practitioner, for example a teacher or medical practitioner, simultaneously taking on
the role of researcher. The important premise is that such practitioners, who work inside a particular practice context, have significant knowledge and perspectives about that situation.
Furthermore, practitioner inquiry also builds on the premise that the relationship between
knowledge and practice is complex and non-linear and that the knowledge needed to improve
practice is influenced by the contexts and relations of power that structure the daily work of the
specific practice.
This chapter will however focus on school based research contexts and on educational action research in particular. Here educational action research is defined as collaboration among
school-based practitioners and, university based colleagues. Others involved in education, such
as parents and other members of the wider school community may also be involved.
What is school based educational action research?
School based educational action research is the process whereby practitioners deliberate on and respond to school based problems. This form of research is not so much
in and about education as for education. Consequently it is the role of the teacher to
engage in the process of self-reflective enquiry so that they will understand and improve
their own practice. The efforts of the participants of educational action research are geared
towards changing the curriculum, challenging existing school practices and working for
social change by engaging in a continuous process of problem posing, data gathering,
analysis and action.
Teachers are often concerned with issues in their classrooms and actively try to address these.
When a teacher intervenes to make changes to their practice and at the same time systematically
collects evidence of the effects of these changes, then they are engaging in action research.
There are many interpretations of action research because the approach is used in a wide
range of education and other settings. However, in all cases there is a common intention, which
is to change practice in response to a problem identified by the practitioner researcher.
Another important feature of action-research inquiry is that it is always done by or with
insiders within an organization or community and not by an external team of researchers who
usually study teachers or students in action.
School-based action research is about investigating human actions and social situations
that are experienced by teachers. The impetus for the research might stem from a situation being considered as unacceptable in some respects, susceptible to change or requiring a practical
response. Accordingly, action research is concerned with the everyday practical problems experienced by teachers and as such is a flexible research approach, where methodology is defined
as an orientation towards research, rather than a particular set of research tools and strategies.
Action research can introduce teachers to the power of systematic reflection on practice.
The basic assumption is that all teachers have within them the power to meet all the challenges
of the teaching profession.
| | programme

257

The secret of success in the profession of teaching is to continually grow and learn.
Action research is a way for teachers to continue to grow and learn by making use of practical experiences. Action research literally starts where the teacher is and takes them as far as
they want to go.
In summary Action Research is:
the process of taking action to improve teaching and learning plus the systematic
study of the action and its consequences;
typically designed and conducted by practitioners who analyze data from their workplace to improve their own practice;
a type of applied research in which the researcher is actively involved in the cause for
which the research is conducted.
fits within the rich tradition of qualitative research that has emerged from the fields
of anthropology, sociology, and ethnography.

References

258

Altrichter, H., & Gstettner, P. (1992). Action Research: a closed chapter in the history of German social science? Educational Action Research, 1 (3), 329-360.
Altrichter, H., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers Investigate Their Work. London: Routledge.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: knowing through action research. London:
Falmer Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2009). Educational Action Research: A Critical Approach. In Noffke,
S. & Somekh, B. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Educational Action Research. London:
Sage.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the
Next Generation. New York: Teachers College Press.

| | programme

Coaching and mentoring


Introduction
No matter how well trained people are, few can sustain their best performance on their own
and this is why the level two programme will provide teachers with the skills to be able to work
with colleagues to introduce new approaches through coaching and mentoring. Through the
process of becoming a coach and mentor teachers will work together in a cooperative collegial
school environment to improve practice.
The terms mentoring and coaching are often used interchangeably to describe a similar
activity, which can lead to confusion. The main differences are:
Coaching is an active and creative process of interaction between colleagues. In this interaction the coach initiates conversations or activities which develop the professional knowledge or skills of their colleagues.
Coaches encourage collaborative thinking about existing practices involving sharing ideas. Dialogue between coaches and their colleagues is reflective and reciprocal.
Effective coaching will raise levels of competence in aspects of practice, lead to higher
levels of understanding and enable colleagues to make more informed decisions about their
practice.
Coaching process is interrelated with the process of mentoring: coaching focuses on revealing coachees abilities, while mentoring focuses on providing professional support.
Mentoring a long process of creating trustful relationship between a mentor (successful
teacher) and a mentee, to help the mentee to improve the effectiveness of their practice. In
the process of mentoring a mentor willingly shares his/her experience and knowledge and a
mentee develops his/her professional skills and seeks solution for problems in order to make
changes in his/her professional practice.
Mentoring process is interrelated with the process of coaching: mentoring focuses on the
professional support for a mentee, while coaching - on revealing abilities.
Contemporary understanding
The common thread uniting all types of school based coaching & mentoring is that these
services offer a vehicle for analysis, reflection and action that ultimately enable the teacher to
achieve success in their work.
Mentoring describes a relationship, not an activity where a mentor is an objective listener
as well as guide. Mentors bring a broad experience of work to the mentoring relationship and
perform a number of other tasks:
challenging the mentee (the person being mentored) to look at opportunities as well as
problems
sharing know-how at a strategic level
assisting the mentee in identifying realistic goals and planning how to achieve them.
Most models of mentoring and coaching share the same basic premise, namely that the
mentee is able to act effectively and imaginatively and that the key role of the mentor or coach
is to help the mentee use this untapped resourcefulness. Table 2 explains the differences between the terms coaching and mentoring.

| | programme

259

260

Mentoring
Coaching
ongoing relationship that can last for a relationship generally has a set duration
long time
generally more structured in nature and
can be more informal and meetings can
meetings are scheduled on a regular basis
take place as and when the mentee needs short-term (sometimes time-bounded) and
some advice, guidance or support
focused on specific development areas/ismore long term and takes a broader view
sues
of the person
the coach does not need to have direct exmentor is usually more experienced and
perience of their mentees formal occupaqualified that mentee it is often a senior
tional role, unless coaching is specific and
person in the organisation who can pass on
skills focused
knowledge, experience and open doors to the focus is generally on development/ isthe otherwise out of-reach opportunities
sues at work
the focus is on career and personal devel- the agenda is focused on achieving specifopment
ic, immediate goals
the agenda is set by the mentee, with the coaching revolves more around specific
mentor providing support and guidance
development areas/issues
mentoring revolves more around developing the mentee professionally
Table 2: The difference between coaching and mentoring

Establishing Mentoring Relationships


The core characteristics of mentoring are based on the establishment of a learning relationship between two people. Mentoring involves key skills such as active listening, the ability to
ask a range of challenging questions in order to develop practice. The mentor provides both
challenge and support for the mentee.
There are certain key human qualities involved such as trust, commitment, authenticity,
honesty, and integrity (Garrett-Harris & Garvey, 2005).
In summary mentoring is about establishing relationships which will help less expert teachers to be able to help themselves, to find their own solutions to indeterminate problems and is a
developmental rather than remedial principle (Oxley, 2003).
The Coaching process
Trainers will take on the role of coaches in helping expert teachers to become good mentors in school through thought-provoking and creative processes that will provide ideas and
approaches to increase professional potential. Trainers who act as coaches will help teachers to
improve their teaching performances.
The trainer will help the teacher to be able to guide and actively encourage colleagues in
their own school to help them develop relevant skills and attitudes for the future. The focus will
be on helping teachers to see beyond what is, to identify what can be, and then to work with
less expert colleagues to achieve that potential.

| | programme

Figure 11: Level Two Programme Mentoring


What does this mean for teachers who are coaches and mentors?
The level two programme will train trainers in how to help experienced teachers so teachers
will subsequently become effective coaches and mentors in their own schools. The level two teachers will set up learning communities and will start by deliberating about how they want to make
change and will work with colleagues in their own school to support them in trying out new ideas.
For coaching and mentoring to be effective, the process must incorporate three essential
components:
1. Context. Coaching practices must be in context with what can be used immediately.
2. Relevance. Information and guidance must be highly relevant to the teacher and the
actual lessons being taught.
3. Ongoing mentoring. Mentoring support must be provided on a day-to-day basis where
teachers can be supported to practice newly learned skills and ensure the highest potential for
success.
Coaching and mentoring in schools is based on seven core principles.
1. Coaching and mentoring are highly effective way of helping teachers to develop and grow.
2. Practice will only improve if the coaching and mentoring is done well.
3. Coaches and mentors ought to be coached to get better too.
4. Coaching coaches is therefore an important role for trainers.
5. Little steps and changes in practice can make huge differences in classrooms.
6. Some of the things suggested in the training may seem to be very small steps but when
all the small steps are put together they are very powerful agents of change.
7. There is no one single or right way to coach.
Developing a Different Mindset
An effective mentor helps the mentee to clarify what is the real issue for them and helps
them to decide on the best course of action that suits their personal approach, specific context
and preferred way of working.
The skilled helper model (Egan, 1998) has been in continuous development since 1975. In
essence it is a three-stage framework for helping. Stage I is about focusing on what the mentee is
doing at the start of the process and establishing what the mentee would like to do to change practice. Stage II is about arriving at a suitable solution and Stage III is about bringing about changes.
| | programme

261

262

Figure 12: Egans skilled helper model


Although the model is presented in a rational and linear way, it is intended to be used flexibly, according to the mentees particular needs. It is underpinned throughout with consciously
developed listening, responding and challenging skills.

References
Egan, G. (1998). The Skilled Helper. A Problem Management Approach to Helping (6th ed.).
Brooks Cole.
Garrett-Harris, R., & Garvey, R. (2005). Towards a Framework for Mentoring in the NHS.
Evaluation Report on Behalf of NHS. Sheffield Hallam University.
Oxley, J., Fleming, B., Golding, L., et al. (2003). Mentoring for Doctors: Enhancing the Benefit. A Working Paper on behalf of the Doctors Forum (http://www.academicmedicine.
ac.uk/uploads/Mentor1.pdf).
Rodgers, J. (2004). Coaching Skills: A Handbook. Open University Press.

| | programme

Tools for working


Using ict in teaching and learning
There have been rapid changes in how knowledge is used and accessed because of the
development of new technology. Consequently, how we learn, with whom, and by what means
we learn is changing. In the UK both new graduates entering the teaching profession as well as
their prospective school students are digital natives. That is, they are of the generation who interact regularly with digital technology. This generation has a good understanding of the value
and potential of such technology and seek out opportunities for using digital technology in all
aspects of their life. These new technologies provide powerful tools to help new teachers make
scientific concepts more accessible to learners. Consequently it is important that teachers think
carefully about why and how they might use digital technology in their teaching. This section
will provide background information about the premises on which teachers might include new
technology so that the use of digital technology might enhance both teaching and learning of
science.
Mishra and Koehler (2006) argued that if new technology is to be transformative in enhancing learning then the planning process must involve integration of knowledge of subject
specific knowledge together with an understanding of how students learn about the subject.
Furthermore Mishra and Koehler suggest that a teacher who is capable of negotiating the interrelationship between all three domains of knowledge represents a highly developed form of
expertise. Indeed they go further and argue that such teachers have more expertise that than the
practising scientist in the laboratory or a technology expert, such as a computer scientist or an
experienced teachers with limited knowledge of how to use new technology.

Figure 13: Domains of knowledge (http://tpack.org/)


| | programme

263

Content Knowledge (CK)


Content Knowledge is knowledge of the actual subject matter to be taught. For example
good chemistry teachers will have a good understanding of the up to date ideas and concepts
about chemistry. In the UK this is usually developed by studying for a degree and often post
graduate study in chemistry. The chemistry content of the science curriculum taught at secondary school for students aged between 11 and 18 is clearly set out and is specific to the age range
being taught. To be an effective chemistry teacher requires good knowledge of this subject
matter and understanding of the key concepts, theories and procedures used within chemistry.
Furthermore science teachers ought to also understand the nature of science and how scientists
undertake inquiry. However having a good content knowledge does not guarantee that a teacher
will be effective and be able to ensure that students learn. So an effective science teacher must
also develop pedagogical knowledge.

264

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)


Pedagogical Knowledge is deep knowledge about the processes, practices and methods
of teaching and learning and how it encompasses the overall educational purposes, values and
aims of education. This generic form of knowledge is held by all teachers and includes issues
related to student learning, classroom management, lesson plan development and implementation, and student evaluation. PK also includes knowledge about techniques or methods to be
used in the classroom; the nature of the target audience; and strategies for evaluating student
understanding. A good teacher has deep pedagogical knowledge and understands how students
construct knowledge and acquire skills; develop habits of mind and positive dispositions towards learning. As such, pedagogical knowledge requires an understanding of cognitive, social
and developmental theories of learning and how they apply to students in their classroom.
Figure 14 summarise the nine key principles of effective teaching and learning drawing on
pedagogical knowledge.

Figure 14: Ten key principles of teaching and learning

| | programme

However to teach science well also requires a specialised approach to how young learners
make meaning for abstract scientific ideas. This is pedagogical content knowledge.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
PCK is an amalgam of content and pedagogy enabling transformation of content into pedagogically powerful forms (Shulman,1986). In a science education context it is about blending
a good understanding of both the science concepts being taught with the ability to help learners
understand these ideas. Consequently a good science teacher is able to deconstruct the abstract
ideas and processes of science and is able to re-present these to the specific group of learners
being taught so that learning takes place.
PCK includes the most useful forms of representation of scientific ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations. In essence PCK is the
way of representing and formulating science so that it is comprehensible to learners. Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific
topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and
backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons
Technological Knowledge (TK)
Technology knowledge is about being familiar with teaching aids such as video as well
as how to access web based materials and use other digital media. This knowledge is about
having a good awareness of what technological devices are available as well as having the
skill required to operate particular technologies. In the case of digital technologies this would
include knowledge of operating systems, and computer hardware, as well as the ability to use
standard set of software tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, browsers and email. TK
also includes knowledge of how to install and remove peripheral devices, install and remove
software programs, create and archive documents.
Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)
Technological content knowledge is knowledge about the manner in which Technology
Knowledge (TK) and content knowledge (CK) are reciprocally related to each other. Although
technology constrains the kinds of representations possible, newer technologies often afford
newer and more varied representations and greater flexibility in navigating across these representations. Teachers need to know not just the subject matter they teach, but also the manner
in which the subject matter can be changed by the application of technology.
For example, in science education there are many web based simulations available. Simulation is frequently used for scientific modelling of natural systems or human systems in order
to gain insight into their functioning. Simulation can be used to show the eventual real effects
of alternative conditions and courses of action. Simulation is also used when the real system
cannot be engaged, because it may not be accessible, or it may be dangerous or unacceptable
to engage, or it is being designed but not yet built, or it may simply not exist.
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Finally, at the intersection of all three knowledge domains is Technological Pedagogical
and Content Knowledge (TPACK). This approach was first discussed by discussed by Mishra
and Koehler in 2006. They argued that if new technology is to be transformative in enhancing
learning then the planning process must involve integration of knowledge of subject specific
knowledge together with an understanding of how students learn about the subject. Further | | programme

265

more Mishra and Koehler suggest that a teacher who is capable of negotiating the inter-relationship between all three domains of knowledge represents a highly developed form of expertise.
Indeed they go further and argue that such teachers have more expertise that than the practising
scientist in the laboratory or a technology expert, such as a computer scientist or an experienced
teachers with limited knowledge of how to use new technology.
In summary integrating technology effectively alongside appropriate pedagogy around
specific subject matter requires a developing sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between all three domains of learning which represents a highly developed skilled understanding of how students learn and how best to teach them.

References

266

Beauchamp, G. (2006). New technologies and new teaching, a process of evaluation. In R.


Webb (Ed.), Changing teaching and learning in the primary school. Buckingham: Open
University Press
Becta. (2003). Primary School: ICT and Standards. An analysis of National data from Ofsted
and QCA. Coventry: Becta
Birnbaum, I. (1990). The assessment of ICT capability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
6, 88-99
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPCK in Practice: Using and elaborated model
of the TPCK framework to analye and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53 (5), 60-69.
Cox, M. J. (1997). The effects of information technology on students motivation. Coventry
Council for Education Technology.
Cox, M. J., & Webb, M. (Eds.). (2004). A review of the research literature relating to ICT and
attainment. Coventry, Becta/London: DfES.
Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3), 227-241.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive
technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24
(1), 61-73
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge
in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49 (3), 740-762.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14. Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) Accessed
November 2011 http://www.tlrp.org/findings/Schools%20Findings/Schools%20Findings.
html

| | programme

Taking account of what we teach and planning sequence of lessons

In classroom where teachers provide for learners understanding rather than mere performance then understanding is more likely to take place. Tactical learning to measure attainment
through training to pass tests is only the tip of the iceberg in learning how to learn
Point One: What we learn is controlled by what we already know and understand.
Point Two: If learning is to be meaningful it ought to link on to existing knowledge and
skills enriching and extending both.
Point Three: We ought to include problem solving in its fullest sense to exercise and
strengthen linkages.
Point Four: Set aside time for pupils to create, defend, try out, and hypothesize.
Point Five: Allow pupils the opportunity to occasionally teach each other.

267

Figure 15: High Stake Testing


Teachers who know their subject are able to break the subject down to help the learner construct their own meaning. They understand the logic of the subject and how to introduce ideas at
the pace appropriate to the individual learners. In this way pupils will then learn how to use and
apply their skills and also understand the structure of subjects as well as the content. They will
learn how a subject works and what are the big ideas. This involves approaches to teaching that
help pupils learn the landscape of the disciplines in the curriculum. This is analogous to learning
to live in an environment: you learn your way around, you learn what resources are available and
you learn how to use those resources in conducting your activities productively and enjoyably.
Teachers in such knowledge-centred classrooms encourage deep learning as opposed to
shallow learning. An observer in such classrooms sees pupils contributing thought-provoking
comments, posing probing questions and proposing solutions to problems while analysing the
ideas of others as well as their own. Pupils are encouraged and supported to take risks in their
learning and to see being stuck as a learning opportunity.
Point Six: The amount of material to be processed in unit time is limited.
Point Seven: As teachers we should help pupils consolidate their learning by asking them
to reflect and think about what is going on in their own heads.

| | programme

When teachers use assessment for learning as well as summative assessment then assessment becomes a powerful tool to aid learning. Assessment for learning is the process whereby
pupils monitor their progress over time and with their teachers identify the next steps needed to
improve. Techniques such as open questioning, sharing learning objectives and focused marking have a powerful effect on pupils ability to take an active role in their learning. Where this
is done effectively there is always sufficient time left for reflection by pupils. Whether individually or in pairs, pupils are given the opportunity to review what they have learnt and how they
have learnt it. They evaluate themselves and one another in a way that contributes to understanding. Pupils know their levels of achievement and make progress towards their next goal.
Pupils do not learn in isolation. There is a deliberately created learning community in which
both teachers and pupils think of themselves as learners. Pupils are encouraged to help and support
one another and to collaborate in a spirit of intellectual camaraderie. They work in groups with attention paid to listening skills, body language, techniques of respectful disagreement techniques.
The ethos is characterised by mutual respect and the development of the self-management needed
for resilience in learning, and it culminates in the creation of independent, reflective learners for life.
Point Eight: Humans need feedback and reassurance for comfortable learning, so assessment ought to be humane.

268

Meta-cogniton and learning how to learn


By using assessment for learning methods teachers will help learners to monitor and evaluate their subsequent learning behaviour through feedback on the extent to which the chosen
strategies have led to success with the task. When learners acquire such knowledge and capabilities, and these become habitual, they learn well. If teachers can arrange life in classrooms so
that pupils not only learn the content of the curriculum that forms the focus of the lesson but can
also enhance these learning skills in their pupils, they will be creating more effective learners.
Meta-cogniton supported through assessment for learning strategies is supported by scientific
evidence and meta-cognition, is at the heart of many of the developments taking place both in
schools and colleges and in academic research. It is meta-cognition which is crucial to explaining the success claimed for these schemes and developments, whether in terms of test scores or
of gains in the skill of learning to learn.
Much of what teachers do in helping pupils to learn how to learn consists of strengthening
their meta-cognitive capacity, namely the capacity to monitor, evaluate, control and change
how they think and learn. This is a critical feature of individual personalised learning. In part
this is because meta-cognition is rich in what are held to be the components of personalised
learning, such as assessment for learning. But even more importantly, meta-cognitive skills turn
learners into autonomous intelligent novices who can learn new topics, subjects or domains
faster than learners who lack such capacities, and they can do so without demanding more
individual attention from the teacher. Meta-cognitive capacities, in other words, give learners
greater independence in their learning. As a result, for instance, they:
become aware of the difference between memorising and understanding material, and
realise that these require different mental strategies (can I remember this? is this something I need to remember? have I really grasped what this is about?)
recognise which parts of the material are difficult and demand more attention (this bit
is easy, but I need to spend more time on that part)
question or test themselves that they are understanding the material (how am I doing?
does it make sense to me?)
learn when it is appropriate to seek help from the teacher (Im stuck and the several
strategies Ive tried arent working, so I need help).
| | programme

This last is of particular importance. Typically in classrooms, several pupils want the teachers help at any one time and a queue forms for her attention. Some of these demands are
very trivial and display excessive dependence: learners without metacognitive skills seek help
at their first experience of difficulty or puzzlement. Those with meta-cognitive skills become
co-constructors with their teachers of the process of teaching-and-learning, and progressively
transfer the role and function of the teacher to themselves. If learners can learn to turn to the
teacher for help only when they really do need it, the teacher has much more time to personalise
the learning in productive ways.
Ensuring greater independence in learning is critical to personalisation. Some forms of
learners experience are largely managed if not dominated by a teacher. The teacher chooses the
learning objectives and how they might be realised through a specific task; directs the way in
which the learner engages with that task; manages the timing and duration of the work; determines the mode of the outcome of the learning; and provides the evaluation of the learning and
any feedback to the learner. In these settings, which are typical of classrooms, the learner might
be said to be substantially dependent on the teacher. In contrast to such learner dependent settings there are many circumstances in which the learner chooses the purpose of the experience,
selects the content, determines the modes and timing of engagement, and designs the outcomes.
The learner here might be said to be largely independent of some other persons management of
the learning. The two forms of engagement, dependent and independent, have their merits; each
is appropriate at certain times and in certain circumstances. But as learners mature their need
for independence increases if they are to be successful learners in further and higher education
and in the workplace.
The requirements of lifelong learning and of a participant democracy in a rapidly changing
world privilege the capacity for independent learning. So the most effective learners will be
those who, as they pass from stage to stage, have acquired some generic capacities to reduce the
time they spend in dependence. Independent learners have at their disposal a body of attitudes,
values, skills and knowledge that they can deploy as appropriate to manage their own learning,
wherever they happen to be. As learners mature their need for independence increases, at every
level or stage of education, a learner begins from a position of dependence and (in the best of
circumstances) moves, with the teachers encouragement and assistance, to greater autonomy
and independence. It seems reasonable to argue that meta-cognitive capacities of self-regulation should improve with experience and maturity.

| | programme

269

Why do teachers need to plan a sequence of lessons?

Figure 16: The relationship between long term, medium term and short term planning

270

The relationship between long term, medium term and short term planning
Planning the whole curriculum is usually carried out by policy makers and school administrators over a long term. Medium term planning is how a team of teachers translates this
curriculum into a coherent series of lessons in which all the seven themes are integrated into
classroom teaching. Individual teachers use the medium term sequence to plan detailed lessons
for each teaching episode for each specific classroom.
The purpose of a medium term planning or planning sequence of lessons is to:
organise a coherent unit of work;
integrate the seven themes to classroom teaching ;
set out the learning objectives for each lesson;
set out how the outcomes will be measured;
indicate the learning and teaching activities that are planned in order to achieve those
outcomes;
ensure progression from the beginning of the unit to the end;
plan more strategically to challenge All learners.
What are learning objectives and learning outcomes?
A learning objective is what the teacher intends for the pupils to learn:
What do you want pupils to know?
What key ideas does the teacher want the pupils to understand?
What issues does the teacher want pupils to explore and reflect upon?
Learning outcomes will inform a teacher if they have succeeded in meeting the learning objectives set for the pupils in the lesson.
Learning outcomes:
must be student focused;
contain an active verb, most often describing a skill;
are written in terms of student attainment.

| | programme

A key idea informing the level two programme is that teachers not only need to know why
they teach children in a particular way but also how they will actually integrate new ideas into
their practice. So to this end, level two teachers will work with colleagues to help them to integrate the seven pedagogical themes into their practice whilst also reflecting and researching on
the changes they are making. The sequence of lessons provides the structure through which the
themes can be integrated in a coherent way and the action research process provides empirical
evidence about the change process and outcomes of the changes.

271

| | programme

THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

272

This programme is designed to train teachers to become reflective practitioners themselves and also having the ability to support colleagues in developing their practice. The
level two programme will therefore consist of two interrelated strands:
developing personal understanding and practice in relation to 7 themes;
coaching and mentoring colleagues.
During the first Face to Face (F2F) period of the training, teachers will be introduced
to the coaching and mentoring of colleagues in the context of new approaches to teaching
and learning. They will be introduced to Action Research as a rigorous means of reflecting on the implementation of new approaches into practice.
During school-based period of the programme, teachers will carry out the Action Research project in their own classrooms which they planned during the first F2F. They will
conduct two coaching sessions with a small group of colleagues. The focus of the coaching will be negotiated with colleagues and based on their needs but must relate to ideas
from one or more of the seven topics. Teachers will also work closely with one colleague,
mentoring them to improve practice with a focus on ideas addressed during the small
group coaching.
During the final face to face phase of the programme, teachers will reflect on, discuss
and record what they have learned through carrying out the Action Research project in
their own classrooms. Teachers will also reflect on, discuss and record their coaching and
mentoring experiences during the school-based phase of the programme. In the final F2F
phase, teachers will complete a portfolio of evidence relating to the two strands of the
level two programme. The assessment of this portfolio will be an important element in
assessing whether teachers have satisfied the three key criteria for successful completion
of the programme. These criteria state that teachers should demonstrate that they:
1. have gained knowledge and understanding of the key ideas presented in the two
strands of the programme;
2. are applying these ideas within their own practice;
3. are reflecting on the implementation of new practices and considering implications for further development.
Evidence for successful achievement of the level two standards will primarily be
found in portfolios. Teachers will also be expected to demonstrate they have satisfied the
three key criteria in presentations made during F2F2 phase of the programme. These
presentations will be based on work produced for their portfolios.
Summative assessment of teachers will therefore be in three/two parts:
assessment of portfolios;
assessment of presentations relating to entries from the teachers portfolio.
The two components of this assessment process aim to provide for a balanced approach to assessment in line with the programme aims. Assessment of the portfolios and
portfolio presentations focus on the teachers ability to implement ideas of the programme
into their teaching whereas the examination focuses on theoretical understanding of ideas.
The assessment of portfolios and portfolio presentations is given a greater weighting since
it is changing practice that is the central aim of the programme.

| | programme

Assessment of Portfolios

Portfolio content

The minimum requirement for the portfolios is set out below. However, teachers are expected
to include additional records in their portfolio which support the assessed entries or which document
their wider learning and professional development. These additional records may also support formative discussions with peers and trainers. During the second F2F phase of the programme teachers will
select and develop some of their portfolio entries for assessment and presentation purposes. Trainers
will give formative advice and support to the teachers in their training groups on both the content and
structure of portfolios in order to support the development of entries for summative assessment.
Portfolio content to be assessed
1) Action research project reports (4000 words) to include:
Rationale for research focus (related to the 7 topics of the programme)
Account of changes to practice What was the intervention
Data collection What methods were used to collect data? Why chose these methods?
Key findings What did the data show?
Analysis of the data Assess the effects of the intervention to determine if improvement has occurred. If there is improvement, do the data clearly provide the supporting
evidence? If no, what changes can be made to the actions to elicit better results in further cycle of your action research
Limitations What difficulties were encountered during the project?
Implications How will the findings of this project influence your future practice?
2) Reflective accounts of two coaching sessions to include:
Two coaching session plans
Two reflective accounts of coaching sessions (each 1000 words)to include:
Rationale for focusing on particular ideas from the programme in this context
(needs identification)
Description the coaching sessions
Evaluation of what went well and what did not go so well in the coaching sessions
Evaluations of the teachers learning in relation to the ideas addressed during the
coaching sessions
Reflective account of the coachs learning in relation to their coaching practice (1000 words)
3) Analytical account of the process of mentoring one colleague (mentee) (2000 words)
to include:
Identification of needs: What were the colleagues developmental needs in relation to
ideas from the programme (this might relate to the same ideas as those addressed in the
group coaching sessions)
What were the interventions, observations, feedback given
Evaluation of the success of the mentoring
Learning about effective mentoring gained from working with their colleague.
Necessary Appendices to be included in the portfolio for the analytical account of the
process of mentoring:
Observations of mentees teaching with a focus on identified developmental needs
Records of written feedback given to the colleague including targets for development
Colleagues (mentees) reflective accounts of learning in relation to the focus of mentoring
| | programme

273

Assessment of Presentations
Content of presentations

The presentations will help establish authenticity of the teachers portfolio and demonstrate
their presentation skills. Presentations will focus on the implementation of ideas into classroom
practice. The focus of this assessment therefore will be on:
how the teacher has implemented changes to their practice which reflect ideas from the
seven topics of the programme;
how the teacher has evaluated the effectiveness of the changes through their action
research project;
how the teacher has supported colleagues in developing understanding of ideas from
the programme through coaching;
how the teacher has supported one colleague in implementing these ideas in their practice through mentoring

274

Portfolio entries to be assessed through the presentations:


Portfolio entries to be assessed through the presentations:
The findings of the action research and how these will influence the teachers future
practice (10-12 minutes)
This presentation should not attempt to explain the process of the project but only what the
teacher found out and how they intend to make use of these findings in future planning and teaching.
An evaluation of the learning of colleagues from one coaching session to include evidence of such learning (20 minutes)
In this presentation the teacher will need to briefly describe the coaching session (maximum 5 minutes). They should spend most of the time explaining what they think their colleagues learned and presenting evidence to support their assertions. This evidence may include,
for example, photographs of group posters made during the session, colleagues evaluations of
the session, colleagues lesson plans written after the session demonstrating the implementation
of ideas addressed, etc.
Reflective account of the effectiveness of their mentoring of one colleague to include
evidence of mentee learning (20 minutes).
This should include what the teacher felt went well and not so well in the mentoring process
and why, e.g.
I think that my focused observations and feedback discussions were really useful in helping my mentee develop her questioning.
There should be brief explanations of what the teacher did, e.g.
In a lesson focusing on how my colleague used questioning to develop critical thinking I
After the lesson we met and discussed her use of different types of questions and I showed
her my observation checklist (show the checklist).
Most of the presentation should focus on what learning was achieved through the mentoring activities, e.g.
My mentee said In the next lesson I observed she . This demonstrated that she has
learned
The teacher should use photographs, video clips and artefacts such as lesson plans, childrens work or teacher evaluations to support your contentions about what mentees learned.

| | programme

Criteria for assessment of portfolios and presentations


Portfolios and portfolio presentations will be assessed against the three key criteria:
1) Teachers have gained knowledge and understanding of the key ideas presented in the
programme.
2) Teachers are applying these ideas within their own practice.
3) Teachers are reflecting on the implementation of new practices and considering implications for further development.
When assessing the portfolios trainers and independent trainers will be looking for evidence that
teachers have achieved these criteria as detailed in the Standards for level two teachers set out below:
1. Professional knowledge and understanding
Teachers have gained knowledge and understanding of the key ideas presented in the
programme.
Level two teachers:
have extensive knowledge of issues related to individual learner needs (talented and
gifted in accordance with age related difference, etc.) and know how to consult with other
teachers about these issues.
2. Professional Skills
Teachers are applying these ideas within their own practice.
Level two teachers:
support other teachers in using effective teaching, learning and behaviour management
strategies, including how to select and use approaches that personalize learning to provide opportunities for all learners to achieve their potential;
initiate and sustain professional conversations about teaching and learning with groups
of teachers and engage in lesson study within a school;
lead the learning of a team of teachers through coaching and mentoring;
create and sustain professional learning community of teachers within a school;
make judgments about the effectiveness of other teacher colleagues and use this as a
basis for improving teaching and learning within a school;
Take a lead in planning collaboratively with colleagues in order to promote effective
school practice including making cross-curricular links;
Work as mentors with less expert teachers to plan sequences of lessons within the
school;
Make deliberative judgments about classroom practice and help other less expert teachers to solve problems in their classrooms;
Can work with classroom practitioners and help other less expert teachers to respond to
individual pupils learning needs;
Help other teachers in the effective practice of of summative and formative assessment;
Have an excellent ability to provide learners, colleagues, parents with timely, accurate
and constructive feedback on learners attainment, progress and areas for development
that promotes pupil progress.
3. Professional Values and Commitment
Teachers are reflecting on the implementation of new practices and considering implications for further development.
Level two teachers:
build and sustain positive professional working relationships with other teachers in
school;
| | programme

275

lead and support other teachers professional development in school;


have the disposition to ask difficult questions of themselves and colleagues to improve
teaching;
research and evaluate innovative curricular practices and draw on research outcomes
and other sources of external evidence to inform their own practice and that of colleagues;
conduct action research with the aim of improving teaching practice of all teachers
within the school.

276

| | programme

REVIEW OF THE APA (American Psychology Association)


REFERENCE STYLE
Referencing guidelines

Referencing should be done in APA style. When referring to the published work of others,
for instance as a source for an idea, you should give the authors surname and the publication
date in brackets in the text even if you do not quote directly from that authors work, for example:
There is evidence that quality of life for people with disabilities still lags behind that of the
rest of the population (Mittler, 2008).
If you wish to quote a specific passage, you also need to give the page number, for example:
Despite vast improvements in services, the quality of life of disabled adults and their families remains far below that of the rest of the population.
(Mittler, 2008, page 6)
If the authors name forms part of your own sentence, the date should be enclosed in brackets, for example:
Issues relating to quality of life for people with disabilities persist even after what Mittler
(2008) has called vast improvements in services (page 6).
If there are two authors, give both names, for example: (Jordan and Powell, 1995). If there
are more than two authors, give all the names the first time you refer to their work. Subsequently, you need only give the first authors name followed by et al, e.g. (Lewis et al, 2006).
It is preferable to refer to original sources but this may not always be possible, especially for
older or more obscure sources. You may sometimes need to refer to the work of someone who
has been mentioned by another author. Use cited in under these circumstances, for example:
Tizard (1962) cited in Tilstone (1991) argues that
Give the reference to the later work (Tilstone, 1991 in this case) in your references section.
All the sources you have referred to (including allusions and quotations) in your text should
be listed at the end of your assignment under the heading References. These sources, including books, individual chapters within edited collections, journal articles, web-based documents,
test materials, manuals, guidance booklets and circulars, should be listed in alphabetical order
of authors surnames, for example:
Bell, J. (1993) Doing Your Research Project (second edition). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cooper, P. (1996) Pupils as partners: pupils contribution to the governance of schools, in
K. Jones and T. Charlton (eds) Overcoming Learning and Behaviour Difficulties - partnership
with pupils. London: Routledge.
Dee, L. (2003) Supporting self-esteem and emotional well-being among young people
with learning disabilities. Paper presented to the Count Us In online conference, 26 June 2003,
www.connects.org.uk/ conferences.
DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (2007) Extended Schools - building on experience. London: DCSF.
Dyson, A. (2001) Special needs in the twenty-first century: where weve been and where
were going, British Journal of Special Education. 28, (1), 24 - 29.
QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) (2007) New Secondary Curriculum. [online at www. qca.org.uk].
Vulliamy, G. and Webb, R. (eds) (1992) Teacher Research and Special Educational Needs.
London: David Fulton.
| | programme

277

278

If you refer to two works by the same author, give them in chronological order. If you refer
to more than one work by the same author in the same year, give a letter code with the date
in the order in which you refer to these works in your text, for example: DfES, 2005a; DfES,
2005b; DfES, 2005c.
Note that full references give: authors surnames and initials; a date; titles (in inverted
commas for chapter and article titles; in italics or underlined for book and journal titles); the
name(s) of editors, if appropriate; a publishing location and publishers name for books; and the
volume number, issue number, and page numbers for journal articles.
You can create references to lectures and to unpublished studies:
Goldbart, J. and Rigby, J. (1989) Establishing relationships with people with PMLD. Paper presented to University of Manchester Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Regional Study Day, 10 April 1989.
Ware, J. (1987) Providing education for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties: a survey of resources and an analysis of staff-pupil interactions in special care units.
Unpublished PhD Thesis; University of London Institute of Education.
If you wish to refer to less formal material gathered from the Internet give: authors surname and initials; a date; a title; the location of the document; and the date you accessed it, for
example:
Lowenstein, L. F. (2007) Incidence and early signs of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD)
and problems of definition, [online at: www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp] (accessed on 24 May 2008).
It is probably advisable to include a copy of materials like these as an appendix to your
study. Remember that the Internet does not necessarily store material in the same way as a library.
You may also wish to refer to less academic journals, magazines and newspapers, which
may not use the conventions of volumes and numbers:
Eggleston, J. (1980) The drawback of projects. The Times Educational Supplement.
12.9.80
Frankl, C. (2007) Taking risks, Special. March 2007, pages 18 - 20.
Or to television or radio programmes:
BBC2 (1995) A nice, safe place. Old School Ties - 7.9.95. London: BBC TV
Under all these circumstances, gather as much material as you can about your sources in
order to create a reference.
You should be aware of the differing standards and approaches applying to publication in
various forms. Established educational journals will have each article vetted by academic referees; journalists in the media may pursue particular agendas and work under specific editorial
regimes; anyone can launch a page on the web.

| | programme

ETHICAL GUIDELINES
This programme will involve you in practical enquiry in your own school or some other
professional context. Such enquiry may involve seeking the views of students, colleagues or
parents or accounts of their experience through techniques such as surveys or interviews. Enquiry may involve observation, video recording or photography in classrooms or other parts of
a school. When we gather data in these ways, we may run the risk of infringing peoples right to
privacy or of harming their reputations or standing in some way. Such risks may even include
putting people in danger, particularly where children are concerned.
For these reasons we need to think through the issues and make sound choices regarding
protocols and procedures. Below is a checklist of 10 actions to take.
1. Consult and comply with any policy that pertains in the particular context in which your
enquiry is to be conducted.
2. Consult the ethics animation on the VLE on carrying out research and consider their
relevance to your enquiry http://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/category/publications/guidelines/
3. Find out if there is a school policy on the interviewing, recording, filming and photographing of students. What does this say about permission and how data can be stored?
4. Seek in advance permission of pupils/students parents or carers for their children to be
involved in any enquiry or developmental process or experiment. Ensure that letters to parents
explain fully the purpose and nature of the activity and the letters are actually received. Ask for
a signed return slip to indicate consent.
5. Set out your intentions in a written plan and consult your colleagues, in particular the
Headteacher, about its viability.
6. Whatever the data gathering approach, ensure that you have explained fully the purpose
of the activity and how the outcomes will be used. Double check that all participants give their
informed consent.
7. In any interview or discussion situation, establish clear protocols about how the privacy
and reputation of any third party (pupils, students, colleagues) may be protected.
8. Consider the appropriateness of anonymity. Anonymity may be the default position but
in some cases schools and teachers may prefer to be named and recognised for their work.
9. Consider how respondents (pupils, students, colleagues, senior management) may be
provided with feedback on you enquiry.
10. Consider whether or not your enquiry is being conducted in a way that is in the best
interests of the pupils/students.
Beyond these procedural considerations, you may wish to consider the ethics of your enquiry in broader sense. You may well persuade your colleagues and / or pupils to co-operate
with you so that you are able to conduct an enquiry and satisfy the requirements of the programme, but will involvement in your project also be benefcial to those you wish to involve
and to the school? For example, will the school be provided with useful evidence to support
decision making or will the pupils benefit by being able to express their opinions.

Accounting for your ethical stance


Acting ethically is one thing but being seen to be ethical is another. In any assignment related to the programme you need to be explicit about the way in which you have considered the
ethical dimension and have taken action to ensure that the process has been carried out in an
ethical way. You need to state that you have complied with any relevant policies and you need to
clarify the protocols you have adhered to. You must also include in any written submission, not
only an explanation of what you did, but also examples of any tools you have used, for example:
a letter to parents asking for permission for their children to take part in your project.
| | programme

279

Plagiarism

280

Plagiarism is defined as submitting as ones own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that
which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement.
It is both poor scholarship and a breach of academic integrity.
Examples of plagiarism include copying (using another persons language and/or ideas as
if they are a candidates own), by:
quoting verbatim another persons work without due acknowledgement of the source;
paraphrasing another persons work by changing some of the words, or the order of the
words, without due acknowledgement of the source;
using ideas taken from someone else without reference to the originator;
cutting and pasting from the Internet to make a pastiche of online sources;
submitting someone elses work as part of a candidates own without identifying
clearly who did the work. For example, buying or commissioning work via professional
agencies such as essay banks or paper mills, or not attributing research contributed
by others to a joint project.
Plagiarism might also arise from colluding with another person, including another candidate, other than as permitted for joint project work (i.e. where collaboration is concealed or has
been forbidden). A candidate should include a general acknowledgement where he or she has
received substantial help, for example with the language and style of a piece of written work.
Plagiarism can occur in respect to all types of sources and media:
text, illustrations, musical quotations, mathematical derivations, computer code, etc;
material downloaded from websites or drawn from manuscripts or other media;
published and unpublished material, including lecture handouts and other students
work.
It is therefore imperative that you properly cite all references, papers, texts and journals,
including web-based materials, which you have used in your research, together with any acknowledgement of assistance which has been given either verbally or in writing while you carried out your assignment. Avoid lengthy direct quotes from the work of others.

| | programme

GLOSSARY
Social learner

Action research

Authentic classroom
Asynchronous learning

Classroom environment

Coaching

- a learner involved in a type of education, in which a subject


is learnt by observing or communicating with others. Experts
from Bersin & Associates indicate seven components of social
education technology: conversation, connection, collaboration, content, consumption, control and contribution.
- a research method that provides a number of consistent,
planned activities, aimed at improving the practice of teaching and learning, together with systematic monitoring of the
results obtained in the course of its implementation.
- a classroom operating in real conditions.
a teaching and learning method using information and communication technologies and resources, where the contact between the teacher and students is carried out with a delay in
time. Asynchronous learning emphasizes the importance of
peer-to peer interactions and is based on constructivist learning theory according to which students are provided with opportunities for developing individual learning paths to meet
their educational needs. In addition, asynchronous training
provides students the freedom to choose the subjects of the
educational programme, as well as the sequence of their study.
a prevailing atmosphere in the classroom based on a number
of factors: affective, social, cognitive. The basic factors are
the interpersonal relations and involvement of students in the
educational process.
teach, prepare, train a confidential, creative, active and
formative process of collegial cooperation, when based on cooperative reflection of existing teaching practices, exchange of
ideas, coachs stimulation for reflective dialogue, the learner
improves professional knowledge, existing skills and experience. It is aimed to advance competence in particular aspects
of practice, moving to another qualitative, more extended level
of understanding and decision making. The process of coaching is interrelated to the process of mentoring: coaching concentrates on the learners discovery of capability in a thematic
context, while mentoring focuses on professional support.

| | programme

281

282

Collaborative teaching and - a framework of learning based on close cooperation between


learning
students and between those who are taught and those who
teach. It is characterized by acknowledgement of each students
abilities and his personal contribution to the learning process.
Participants gain knowledge through active cooperative research, discussion, analysis or the synthesis of information.
In the context of collaborative teaching and learning, authority
and responsibility are distributed between group members for
more effective work. The main prerequisite for collaborative
teaching and learning lies in the consensus achieved through
the group members cooperation.
Constrictivist theory of ed- (Latin Constructivus) related to construction, building) a theucation
ory that student thinking develops in terms of interactions of
existing knowledge with new knowledge, or with knowledge,
gained during classes from different sources, such as a teacher,
peers and various educational resources.
Convergent thinking
(Latin cnvergere fit together) a type of thinking, based on
the exact reproduction of preliminarily learned algorithms of
problem solving. It is used with the concept reproductive,
as it assumes traditional approach to the problem, resulting in
analogical ideas. This type of thinking is opposed to the divergent thinking.
Creativity
1. Ability of an individual to take and develop innovative ideas
characterized by a willingness to deviate from traditional or
accepted patterns of thinking, and included in the frame of
giftedness as an independent aspect. 2. The ability to problem
solve in static systems where there is no change.
Creative process
-creative processes have been described as having four key
characteristics. Firstly, they involve thinking or behaving imaginatively. Secondly, this imaginative activity is purposeful:
that is, it is directed to achieve an objective. Thirdly, these processes must generate something original. Finally, the outcome
must be of value in relation to the objective.
riteria assessment
the process based on a comparison of academic achievement
of students with clearly predetermined and collaboratively developed criteria known to all stakeholders (students, school
administrators, parents, legal representatives, etc.) which are
consistent with the aims and content of education. There are
two types of criteria assessment - formative and summative.
Critical thinking
- a type of thinking, that supposes analytical approach for
thinking, assessment and synthesis of information, collected
during observation, experience, reflection or reasoning, which
further can be used as basis for actions.
Critical analysis
a process of determining efficiency / value / validity of any
action, process or product and establishing its underlying reasons.

| | programme

Deliberative judgments

- related to the right to state own judgment about a case, but


not making a decision (Dictionary edited by S.I. Ozhegova and
N.Y. Shvedova). In this context careful, considered judgments.
Divergent thinking
a form of creative thinking used to find a variety of possible
solutions for the same problem
Formative assessment (as- a current assessment of teaching that provides teachers, stusessment for learning)
dents and other members of the educational process with information necessary for the improvement of learning. Formative
assessment is carried out in the course of daily work in the
classroom, indicates the current student performance, provides
feedback between student and teacher and allows timely improvement in the learning process.
Giftedness
Structured components of dynamic hierarchy of abilities. Giftedness is a qualitatively unique combination of personal abilities. Giftedness, as well as ability is not in-born and it can be
developed (B.M. Teplov). General giftedness is a development
of wide and universal psychological components (memory, intelligence). Social giftedness is related to a specific area. Such
division is conditional; in reality they cannot be separated.
Abilities and giftedness of people do not differ quantitatively,
but qualitatively. Qualitative difference of giftedness can not
only be that one person is gifted in one area, the other in another. However it may as well differ in terms of the level of
being gifted. Research on qualitative difference in abilities is
an important task for psychologists.
Inclusive learning
- education based on the principle of making education available for everybody, adaptation of teaching for students with
various (including special) needs.
Inquiry-based learning
-learning which begins with a problem or a question. Learners
are supported in finding their own routes through the problem
by being given a foundation of skills and knowledge and by
being given scaffolds where necessary.
Lesson Study
- collaborative teaching approach aimed at developing the
knowledge about teachers practice. The approach was established in Japan in the 1970s. Lesson Study involves a group
of teachers in joint planning, teaching, observation, analysis of
teaching and learning, and stating and recording their findings.
During the lesson study cycle teachers modify or improve pedagogical approaches that afterwards are shared with colleagues
through open Lesson Study, presentations and publications.
Apart from in Japan, Lesson Study is currently used successfully in Singapore, Hong Kong, China, the USA, the UK,
Sweden and Canada in order to improve teaching methods,
increase students knowledge on key subjects in primary and
secondary schools, as well as to develop conceptual pedagogical approaches.

| | programme

283

Mentoring

Metacognition

Metacognitive strategies

284
Modeling

Dialogic teaching

Reflective account

a long-term process of creating confidence, personally concerned relationship between a mentor and a mentee, which
is aimed at the latters development of knowledge, thinking,
efficiency of the practical activity with the purpose to his professional development as a comprehensive individuality of the
teacher. During mentoring the mentor voluntarily shares his
experience and knowledge, and the mentee develops his professional skills and finds solutions to the problems, aiming at
achievement of significant changes in his career. The mentoring is closely related to coaching: mentoring emphasizes the
process of providing professional support for the mentee while
coaching concentrates on development of capabilities.
is defined as thinking about thinking and is a specific form of
thinking about ones own mental abilities. For instance, metacognition implies students understanding of strategies for
learning or problem solving. First, John Flavell used the concept of metacognition in psychology (J.H. Flavell, 1976). He
believed that the major function of metacognition is reflective
control of cognitive activity, resulting in a students ability to
regulate their own cognitive activity, based on their knowledge
of these characteristics.
management methods, aimed at students independent control of the learning process (for instance, a skill to individually
plan the learning process, set objectives, monitor and assess
personal learning progress).
1. Investigation of cognition objects using their conditional
models. 2. Designing and studying models of real objects, processes or events with the aim of explaining these events, as
well as to predict the outcomes, of interest to researchers. 3.
Modeling is used to express the relationship between human
knowledge of the object and the object itself; it is one of the
visual aids in teaching.
- a verbal-communicative method consisting of conducting
a theme focused dialogue accompanied by the participants
voicing their ideas. It helps to promote the dynamics of learning. In dialogue the students as well as their teachers) are equal
partners working hard to get consistent results, experiencing
and developing what Mercer (2000) described as a joint acquisition of knowledge or involvement in the process of
exchange of ideas.
a document, in which examples of a teachers practical activities are traced; they are confirmed with relevant knowledge
of theoretical material and supported by deep analysis of the
results of practical activities. A reflective account proposes answers for the following questions, related to the practice: Why
did something happen or not? How could minuses be turned
into pluses? How can I improve my practice in the future?

| | programme

Reflection

(Latin reflexio focus backwards) drawing a persons attention


to himself, in particular to personal activities and outcomes
with the aim to reconsider. In philosophy reflection is usually
defined as: 1. Intellect and thinking ability referred to oneself.
2. Knowledge analysis aimed at new knowledge acquisition. 3.
Self-observation of mind and soul state. In pedagogy reflection
is seen as a stage of learning activity, where gained knowledge is subjected to critical analysis, is associated to available
knowledge and then is constructed into understanding.
Reflection in action
a process of intensive thinking during an action (teaching,
learning), assessment and critical analysis of actions for planning and further steps completion.
Reflective mediator
a person who promotes the realization of their own learning
reflection.
Reflexive practitioner
a teacher who thoroughly and continuously considers methods and paths of development, modification and improvement
of his teaching and learning practices.
Research lesson
a special approach to the improvement of teaching in stages:
problem, discussion of conditions and methods of solving it,
planning and carrying out an experiment, analysis and generalization of the results, conclusions and information exchange.
Summative assessment (as- assessment, aimed at summarising learning outcomes for
sessment of learning)
classification, certification and registration of the results. Summative assessment is carried out at the end and it is realized on
the basis of consistent criteria for evaluation.
Socratic dialogue
(Greek the art of midwifery) - a method of recognizing persons implicit knowledge by elaborately formulated
questions. In pedagogy Socratic dialogue is defined as a form
of learning, the central part of which is elaborative questions
and discussion. Socrates as a teacher asked his students question after question, in order to break down his students understanding of facts, and then to help them reformulate the truth
through argumentation and explanation of their own attitudes.
The core of Socratic dialogue is to convince a talker that despite his confidencehe does not know a lot. Life without examination is not worth living. I cannot teach anyone/everyone
about anything/everything, I can only make them think is a
key phrase to understand Socratic dialogue.
Talent
- high level of development, first of all, of special abilities;
combination of such abilities which give opportunity to get
the product of the work, which is novel and important. Usually
talented people want to do a specific activity and passionate
about it. The presence of a talent is identified by the results of
peoples work, which are novel, original.

| | programme

285

Teacher-Led Development
Work (TLDW)

The Black Box

an approach for improvement of teaching and learning in


schools. According to this approach, teachers, both individually and collaboratively, determine questions and problems
for investigations with the aim to improve their practices, as
well as practice of the school, where they work. TLDW is not
equivalent to action research. The TLDW program is not based
on positioning a teacher as a researcher, but on positioning a
teacher as a leader in teaching and learning practices improvement
a metaphor borrowed from the field of science and technology
where the black box is a device, system or object which can
be seen only in terms of the characteristics of processes of input, output and transmission, with no idea of its internal structure, i.e. its application is opaque. Any object (phenomenon)
can be called a black box: a transistor or the human mind.
In pedagogy the work within the black box metaphor is
used in the context of a classroom and requires an environment
limited by a structure of an educational organization.

Core values

286

central internal principles and standards, which are immutable. Core values are stable, and if they change, this happens
very slowly, over a long period of time. Core values are the
basis of ideas about life, ideas of a person about himself and
those around him, about human potential and the potential of
others. Values, and those things that humanity believes in, nurture attitudes towards everything and determines the behavior
of a person.
Zone of Proximal develop- a concept introduced by L.S. Vygotsky characterizing the pement
riod of students learning between the formed skills and abilities and forming skills and abilities in the range of tasks that
the student is currently unable to perform independently and
requires scaffolding. This role can be played both by a teacher,
and by more successful classmates.

| | programme

RECOMMENDED LITERATURE
, . (1996). , , [Think, try, develop] (. .
, . . , . . . ./.
). -: .
, . . (1997).
[Educational function of assessment in teaching students] (p. 296). .
, . . (1980). . . [Teaching and learning. Assessment. Grade]. .
, . . (1991). . : . [A successful
situation. How to create it: Book for teacher]. .: .
, . . (2011). :
[Modern educational technologies: training manual] (2- .). .: .
, . . (1997).
[The basic modern concepts of creativity and giftedness]. .: .
, . ., . . (2002). : , , ;
.-. [Critical Thinking: The Method, Theory, Practice; teaching manual].
.: .
, . . (2003). [New pedagogical technology] .
, . . (1998). . .
. . [The practice of developmental education according to the system of D. B.
Elkonin V. V. Davydov]. .: .
, . . (1991). [The problem of cultural development of a child]. , 14 (
4), 5-19.
, . . (1996).
[The problem of learning and cognitive development at school age].
, 4, 5-18.
, . . (2005). ( ) [The
Psychology of Human Development lectures on psychology]. .: - ; .
, . ., , . . (2002). :
[Teacher and student: the possibility of dialogue and understanding] ( 2). .:
- .
, . . (2010). : . [Innovative educational technologies: training manual]. .: .
, . . (2008). [Evaluation
of pupils educational outcomes]. - . .: .
, . . (2006). : . .
. . : [Methods of teaching
techniques: Freedom of choice. Open-mindedness. Activity. Feedback. Ideality]. .: -.
, . ., , . . (2000). :
. [Principles of pedagogical personality: training manual]. : -
, . -.
, . . (2005). [Pragmatist theory of
mind]. .: .
| | programme

287

288

, . . (2004). : .
. . . [Problems of developmental education: training manual for
students]. .: .
, . . (1996). [The theory of developmental education]. .: .
, . ., . . (2009). :
[A gifted child is a gift or punishment]. -: .
, . . (2005). [Identification of gifted and talented children ]. : . ISBN: 9965-9800-04
, . . (1999). [Module-based approach to teaching]. .
, . . (2008). : .
[Information Technology in Education: training manual] (5-.). .: .
, . ., -, . . (2003). :
[Critical Thinking: technology of development]. : -.
, . ., -, . ., , . . (2003).
[Teaching children to think critically] (2- .). :
. .
, . . (1995). :
, , . [Innovations in international pedagogy: learning from research, games and discussions. Analysis of foreign experience]. : .
, . . (2010). :
[Criterial assessment in schools: a manual] (p. 84). :
.
, . . (2002). : -
[Evaluative activity of a teacher: teaching manual]. .:
.
, . . (2005). :
[A child and an adult in the learning dialogue: Book for teacher]. .: .
. . [New pedagogical technologies]. . . . , 2010. 113 .
, . (2001). -
: [Scientifically methodological basis
of the updated training: the Kazakh language in foreign language classrooms] (.,
, ).
, . (2002). [Giftedness requires courage]. .: .
, . . (1996). [Psychology
of gifted children and adolescents]. .:
, . . (2008). [Giftedness in relation to age related difference and individual differences]. :
, : ISBN 978-5-9770-0284-4, 978-5-89395892-8
, . . (1983). :
[The formation of learning motivation at school age: manual for teacher]. .: .
| | programme

, . ., , . ., , . . (1990).
[The formation of learning motivation]. .: .
, . . (2006). , :
[Problem solving lesson, or how to discover the knowledge together
with students: manual for teacher]. .: .
, . . (2008). :
: [What is giftedness: identification and development of gifted children: the classical texts]. .: -.
, . (2011). [Teaching and learning as a mean of research and research as a mean of teaching and learning] (201
). : .. .
, . (1998). [Method of critical
thinking].
, . . (2008). [Management of communication]. . : - .
, . (2005). -
[Ways of preparing teachers for professional innovative work]. .
, . (2005).
[Didaktik opportunities of actively teaching pupils to creativity]. .
, . . (2005). - [Innovativecreative technologies]. : .
, . (1968). [Principles of problem solving learning]. .: .
, . . (2007).
[Scientific and methodological fundamentals of the complex-level
analysis]. .
, . . (2010).
: [Usage of informational and communication
technologies in education: training manual]. .: .
, . . (2009).
[Management of teachers professional development in modern schools].
.: .
, . ., , . . (2006). [New teaching is a way of achievement]. , 1, 121.
, . . (1998). DOC.
[Modern educational technologies DOC training manual]. .:
.
, . . (2011). -
[Individually oriented development of gifted children]. .: .
, . . (2000). [Teaching by developing
techntechnologies]. .
, . (2005). [Developing creativity
skills]. , 4.
, . . (2009).
[New informational and communication technologies in education].
. .: .
| | programme

289

, . (2000). [Psychology of critical thinking] ( . . , . , . ). .: .


, . . (2000).
[The development of students giftedness. The method of efficient
learning]. . .: . . , ISBN 5-691-00577-4
, . . (2010). :
[An introduction to school life: A Programme for adaptation of children to
school life]. .: .
, . . (1999). [Assessment without marks]. .
: .
, . . (1991). , , [The ability, giftedness,
talent]. . .: .
, . . (1966). - [Development of
personality of the preschool child]. : .
, . . (1996). : :
[Gifted child: illusion and reality. Book for teacher and parents]. .:
. http://www.u-mama.ru/files/books/odar_reb.zip
, . . (1979). [Developmental education]. .:
.

290

| | programme

CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions, please free to contact us.
Address: Turkestan, 2 (block 3), Astana, Kazakhstan, 010000.
Phone numbers: +7 (7172) 79 96 11, +7 (7172) 79 96 14.
E-mail: info@cpm.kz

291

| | programme