Give examples of when you have communicated and linked with other professionals in your

specialist area to improve resources. Review the impact of doing this by analysing strengths,
limitations, effectiveness, and areas of improvement.

The use of resources within education and training can support practitioner in adequately
meeting the needs of their learners and enhancing their learning experiences (Wilson,
2014). It is a particularly important consideration within the subject specialism of sport
given that the majority of the sessions taught will require some form of basic practical
equipment, such as balls or marker cones (Light, 2012). It is important, however, when
considering the use of resources within practice that teachers are reflective in their use of
these so as to enable them to identify how these may potentially be improved and as part of
this it may be that they collaborate with other professionals in their own specialist area.
It is the case that resource development is frequently an agenda item at learning
programme meetings at my delivery site and these provide an opportunity to for
practitioners within at this particular site to discuss the current set of resources that are
used for delivering a particular learning programme, such as the presentations for the
sessions delivered as part of these or the worksheets that are provided to learners (Curzon
and Tummons, 2013). The strengths of this are that it provides me with an opportunity to
share my opinions on the current resources and discuss with my colleagues any suggestions
that I may have as to how we may improve the resources and to receive their feedback.
Similarly, as it is undertaken as part of a broader meeting, it enables action points to be
identified and subsequently these can be allocated to specific staff members meaning that
the actions (such as modifying a resources) are more likely to be completed and someone
can be held accountable for this within a specific timescale. However, this could equally be
considered as a limitation as this is just one item on a sizeable agenda and as such it may be
that the discussions are not as in-depth as they may be, were the meeting specifically for
the development of resources. Therefore, whilst this is an effective way of developing
resources within the delivery site as improvements are identified and put into action,
perhaps the effectiveness of this could be enhanced were there to be either follow-up
meetings, perhaps with a specific resource development working group, or a stand-alone
meeting devoted to the development of resources. Additionally, it is also the case that
learner feedback is not specifically taken into consideration at these meetings and this is
only inferred by the practitioners present at them and so to make improvements that are
more likely to be in line with learner requirements it would also be beneficial to make use of
learner feedback from evaluation forms during these meetings (Petty, 2009).
The development of resources is also a discussion point at organisation-wide
standardisation meetings whereby each individual delivery site sends representatives who
will subsequently return and share the information from these at a delivery site
standardisation meeting. The strengths of this are that it provides practitioners with an
opportunity to share ideas with others from alternative delivery sites who may have
different experiences and access to different resources. This can mean that practitioners can
identify new and innovative resources and develop their own resources accordingly
(Armour, 2011). Therefore, this may be more beneficial that learning programme meetings
as it provides a broader perspective on the resources. Moreover, another strength of this is
that practitioners are able to discuss resources directly with those in positions of authority
at the organisation such as Qualifications Managers. This means that they can share their
opinions with those who can affect resources that delivery staff are unable to, such as the
learner assessment documentation, which are standardised across the whole organisation.
This can subsequently mean that improvements are made to this and the assessment tasks
within the documentation in line with practitioners’ feedback. However, whilst there is this
opportunity, it could be argued that this is not entirely effectively given that the
communication process is relatively one-way. Whilst practitioners may share their ideas
with staff from the organisation, there is little feedback received on this and it is not made
apparent how this feedback has made an impact which may discourage practitioners from
sharing in future and as such may lead resources to not be developed as effectively. It would
be possible to improve this by the organisation providing feedback on the outcome of this
feedback so as to inform practitioners of the impact that their input is having and this could
be achieved via an email follow-up post-standardisation meeting.
It is also the case that I collaborate with other professionals for resource development
during inspections whereby inspectors assess the teaching provision within the organisation
(Gould and Roffey-Barensten, 2014). As part of this I am able to discuss with experienced
professionals about the resources that I am using and am often asked to justify my use of
them. This is a strength as it requires me to reflect and justify my use of the resource and
can make me analyse how effective it is in meeting the purpose I have for it. Moreover, this
also enables me as a practitioner to discuss with the inspector and be provided with
suggestions on how to improve my resources. This is effective as it provides a well-informed
opinion though it is somewhat limited as these discussions are largely informal and do
happen consistently during inspections with only certain inspectors engaging in these. It
would be possible to improve this by having inspectors engage in discussions actively
following observations of teaching so as to better support practitioners in their
development and as part of this enhance their use of resources.
The linking with colleagues to develop resources can also happen during delivery site
equipment audits whereby we are required to inform the Qualifications Coordinator at the
site of what equipment we have in our possession and can report and losses or damage that
have occurred over the course of the delivery of learning programmes. At these audits we
are also able to make suggestions as to new equipment that may be beneficial to be
provided and if deemed appropriate the Qualifications Coordinator will supply these as part
of the standard equipment provision. The benefit of this is that we are able to periodically
receive new sports equipment to the benefit of our learners and can request additional
items as we see fit However, this is somewhat limited in that this only happens on an annual
basis and is dependent on the approval of the Qualifications Coordinator. It would be
possible to improve this, however, by perhaps gaining broader opinions and it may be that if
a practitioner request an additional item to become part of the standard equipment
provision, that the Qualifications Coordinator seeks the opinion of all practitioners at the
delivery site and goes with the majority opinion on whether or not to make this purchase, in
line with the relevant budgets. This would make the process fairer and also enable other
practitioners to share their opinions on any potential additions to the equipment provision
available to them.
It is also possible to link with other practitioners via online forums and websites to share
and develop resources and one that I use heavily is the Times Education Supplement (TES)
website referred to as TES Connect. The strengths of this as a means of sharing and
developing resources is that it provides far-reaching access for practitioners to access
others’ resources and it also actively encourages practitioners to share with can promote
collaboration between professionals. The forum means that resources can be discussed by
practitioners and therefore there is a means of virtual collaboration, enabling practitioners
to connect with others they may not normally have the opportunity to engage with (Machin
et al., 2014). A limitation of this means of collaboration is that the categorisation of
resources is somewhat limited which can make it difficult to identify the correct section for
certain resources and this could be improved by ensuring that within subject sector
categorisations there are sub-categories for the relevant curriculum areas which may be Key
Stage 3 or 4, or Further Education (FE). Moreover, within the context of sport in particular it
would be beneficial to also include sport specific divisions. A further limitation to this means
of resource development is that often resources require adaptation from other
practitioners’ work which does mean that they can be time-consuming to amend though
they do often provide a useful basis for development, especially if practitioners are new to a
particular unit, for example (Light, 2012).
It is apparent that collaborative working can lead to the development and improvement of
resources for practitioners to utilise within their delivery and collaboration can lead
practitioners to identify new, different and innovative ways of utilising resources within
their delivery. It is important, therefore, that practitioners actively engage in collaborative
resource development and that they utilise this to its full potential (Machin et al., 2014).
References
Armour, K. (2011). Sport Pedagogy: Teaching and Coaching. Essex, UK: Pearson Education
Publishings.
Curzon, L. and Tummons, J. (2013). Teaching in Further Education: An Outline of Principles
and Practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishers.
Gould, J. and Roffey-Barensten, J. (2014). Achieving your Diploma in Education and Training.
London, UK: Sage Publications.
Light, R. (2012). Game Sense: Sport Teaching. London, UK: Routledge Publishing.
Machin, L., Hindmarch, D., Murray, S. and Richardson, T. (2014). A Complete Guide to the
Level 5 Diploma in Education and Training. Northwich, UK: Critical Publishing.
Petty, G. (2009). Teaching Today: A Practical Guide (4th Edn). Cheltenham, UK: Nelson
Thornes.
Wilson, L. (2014). Practical Teaching: A Guide to Teaching in the Education and Training
Sector. Andover, UK: Cengage Learning Publishing.