An Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta

Department of Education and Science

 

Subject Inspection of English

REPORT

 

Archbishop McHale College

Dublin Road Tuam

County Galway

Roll number: 71390Q

 

Date of inspection: 4 December 2008

 

 

 

 

Subject inspection report

Subject provision and whole school support

Planning and preparation

Teaching and learning

Assessment

Summary of main findings and recommendations

 

 

 

 

Report on the Quality of Learning and Teaching in english

 

 

 

Subject inspection report

 

This report has been written following a subject inspection in Archbishop McHale College, Tuam, Co. Galway. It presents the findings of an evaluation of the quality of teaching and learning in English and makes recommendations for the further development of the teaching of this subject in the school. The evaluation was conducted over two days during which the inspector visited classrooms and observed teaching and learning. The inspector interacted with students and teachers, examined students’ work, and had discussions with the teachers. The inspector reviewed school planning documentation and teachers’ written preparation. Following the evaluation visit, the inspector provided oral feedback on the outcomes of the evaluation to the principal and subject teachers. The board of management was given an opportunity to comment in writing on the findings and recommendations of the report; a response was not received from the board.

 

 

Subject provision and whole school support

 

Timetable provision for senior cycle English is optimal. Six classes per week are allocated to class groups pursuing the established Leaving Certificate (LC) programme and five classes per week are allocated to class groups pursuing the Leaving Certificate Applied (LCA) programme. With regard to junior cycle provision for English, the Junior Certificate School Programme (JCSP) class in each year group is allocated four mainstream English classes and four additional English classes per week (when they are withdrawn from Science). However, the other class group in first, second and third year is only allocated four periods of English per week. Ideally, that class group should have daily contact with the subject. It is recommended that, at a minimum, five classes of English be allocated to the non JCSP class group in third year, to aid examination preparation. Also, it is advised that the distribution of class periods for English continue to be monitored. Instances where students only have contact with the subject three days a week should be eliminated where possible. Also, rather than scheduling two classes for the subject at different times of the same school day, the creation of consecutive double classes of English is encouraged where possible, to facilitate skills development and in-class writing trials.

 

Three teachers are currently involved in the delivery of English in the school. The majority of English class groups are taught by an English specialist, three class groups are taught by a learning-support specialist, and one other class group is taught by an English specialist who is serving as school specialist for another subject from 2008/09 onward. Given that the teacher carrying the bulk of the English load is due to retire in the near future, it is recommended that school management ensure that the hiring of an English specialist is factored into strategic planning for the school.

 

Resources are provided to teachers in response to individual requests. Both classrooms visited were equipped with metal filing cabinets, open shelving, and a white/blackboard. The school’s book rental scheme is a further support to the teaching and learning of English. However, the TV/DVD combination player in the base room for English was not adequate for teaching film as an examined element of the LC English programme. The screen of the unit was too small for class viewing, the DVD player did not allow the teacher to select film chapters for easy access to particular key moments, and blinds needed to be fitted to the windows in the room to facilitate optimal viewing. As resources allow, this issue should be addressed by management. Thanks to DEIS funding, four computers and a printer had been installed in the learning support/resource room before the evaluation. An interactive whiteboard was also due to be installed in that room shortly after the evaluation. It is recommended that the English department prepare lists of websites to support the teaching of particular topics/texts. Handouts featuring those lists can then be included in the subject department plan and distributed to all members. If a booking system can be agreed to facilitate all teachers of English in using the interactive whiteboard for particular lessons, then the resource will be of maximum benefit to all students of English.

 

The initiatives being used by the school to promote personal reading will expand considerably from 2008/09 onward. A visually and print-rich environment has been developed on the corridors of the main school building. A small reading library is located in the base room for English. Thanks to funding that became available in conjunction with the introduction of JCSP in September 2008, some high-interest low-reading-age readers have been acquired. Initiatives such as “Who wants to be a word millionaire” and “DEAR” (Drop Everything and Read) were planned by individual teachers of English. A reading challenge was also being organised by the local public library and the English department was planning to involve students in it. Moreover, a paired reading programme was ongoing. To further motivate students’ personal reading, it is recommended that the English department explicitly interweave the promotion of personal reading into its collective schemes of work. (For example, it would be very good practice if ongoing links were established with the local public librarian and if a class visit to first years by the librarian, followed by students’ visiting the local library for a specific research task, could be factored into the scheme for first-year English). Also, it is advised that resources such as Readalong packs and abridged and graphic versions of texts be acquired as part of the English department’s stock of teaching aids. The JCSP “Stars Read” campaign should also be investigated by the school, where role models to whom students look up are solicited to read to students as part of a reading promotion drive. (LCA students could be invited to help organise such a campaign to fulfil one of their required tasks). Circular M16/99 “Guidelines for reading at Second Level Schools,” relevant JCSP in-service courses and materials, the School Library Association of Ireland and the UK School Library Association are useful reference sources that could inform the development of departmental and whole-school practice in this area. (See http://www.libraryassociation.ie and http://www.sla.org.uk/advice-and-support.php).

 

After assessment by the special educational needs support team, incoming first-year students are either placed into a JCSP or a mainstream English class group. However, the placement of all students with significant literacy or special educational needs in one JCSP class was particularly problematic in one group observed. This was due to the grouping of students who were pre-literate with those with special educational needs who were literate. It is recommended that the special educational needs support team, in conjunction with school management, review the   Inclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs: Post-Primary Guidelines (To see   how the needs of such diverse learners can be better catered for, refer to http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/des_insp_inclusion_students_sp_ed_needs_pp_

guidelines_foreword.htm). Team teaching and withdrawal are two other ways in which support can be provided to such students. First and second-year English classes are concurrently timetabled, meaning that students should be able to move between levels as appropriate, and such movement occasionally occurs. The English department is encouraged to make productive use of this concurrent timetabling facility, perhaps by organising joint guest visits, trips to the public library, or to Cinemobile screenings, where possible.

 

Through the JCSP, some co-curricular and extracurricular activities will support the teaching and learning of English from 2008/09 onward. It is encouraged that as part of the school’s annual celebration to mark students’ achievements, an English component such as the display of Make-a-Book projects or prizes for the best piece of report/creative writing in a year group could be incorporated into the event., The process of JCSP cross-curricular statement planning offers scope for the implementation of more cross-curricular projects to support students’ learning of English. Finally, given that a number of students in the school have little access to live performances of plays or to author readings in their home lives, it is strongly encouraged that the English department seek to expose students to such performances, thus helping them better understand and respond to texts on their courses.

 

English teachers are encouraged and facilitated to attend continuing professional development (CPD) activities. Sources of professional development that have been accessed by individual members of the department include whole-staff inputs on inclusion, JCSP and LCA in-service courses, and the graduate diploma in learning support. With regard to the professional development of the department into the future, it is recommended that members share teaching methods they have used in JCSP and LCA programmes and that the department deepen its expertise in relation to assessment for learning, differentiation approaches and resources, and the use of information and communications technology (ICT) in the teaching and learning of English. Finally, to help familiarise the department with the key learning outcomes their incoming first years should have worked through by the end of sixth class, it is suggested that the department invite a local primary teacher to provide it with an input on the main curricular strands and strategies at the heart of the fifth and sixth class English programme.

 

Planning and preparation

 

Whole school planning is active in Archbishop McHale College. A number of policies have been drafted as a result of this process including a homework policy and a draft learning support/special educational needs policy. Informal meetings of teachers of English working with the same year group are sometimes organised. Also, time for subject department planning has been allocated by school management within staff meeting and planning days. At the time of the evaluation, the senior English teacher was operating as the subject department co-ordinator,  the practices of the department had been documented under the headings of the relevant School Development Planning Initiative (SDPI) subject-planning template, and subject department meetings were formally documented. It is strongly recommended that at the beginning of each subject department meeting, time should specifically be allocated for a “show and tell” input. Individual members of the department would be asked to present an effective resource or strategy they use in their practice and/or to share insights they gained from a professional development course, from practices they observed in the English departments of other schools, and/or from further study. Lastly, it is advised that the tasks associated with subject planning be formally shared across the department and rotated from year to year (such as co-ordinating the planning, keeping minutes of meetings, and developing ICT resources for the department). 

 

Individual plans provided by teachers of English during the evaluation were of varying depth and quality. Where differentiated planning had been engaged in to meet the needs of particular students in a class group, this was good practice and is commended. However the department has not yet reviewed its individual plans of work to produce agreed departmental schemes of work for all programmes, including JCSP and LCA. Hence, to help develop the English department’s planning even further, three recommendations are offered. First, it is recommended that the department identify what it considers to be appropriate student learning outcomes for each year group. (See the JCSP statement materials and the draft rebalanced JC English syllabus for exemplars of such learning outcomes). For example, a progression should be clearly apparent from first year onward in plans for the development of students’ writing skills (pre-writing, drafting, proofing, editing, and modelling strategies; spelling, punctuation, and paragraphing competencies; and the planned expansion of students’ vocabularies), reading skills (word and text-attack techniques, library layout and usage, and dictionary and thesaurus usage), and oral communication skills. Secondly, using tools like a SCOT (Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities, Threats) window, the department should engage in formal action planning and seek to achieve one or two measurable targets every year. Thirdly, it is encouraged that the concept of planning thematic units of work be re-visited by the department, particularly in relation to junior cycle English. Of course, for students to have the full benefit of this work, coherence between teachers’ individual plans and the collective department plan will be essential. Ultimately, what is envisaged is a planning process guided by the advice outlined in chapter three of Looking at English and customised to the needs of the students of Archbishop McHale College.

 

Teaching and learning

 

In all lessons observed, there was evidence of planning and continuity with prior learning and teachers acted as oral language role models for students. All students were introduced to the theme of lessons from the outset. In some lessons, the planned learning outcomes were explicitly shared with students at the beginning. It is advised that this strategy be adopted by the entire department to help students take responsibility for what they should understand and should be able to do by the end of lessons. Most lessons were well-structured. The main area for development in this regard was the need to narrow the number of learning outcomes to be achieved in a particular lesson. JCSP promotional posters were posted in both classrooms evaluated. It is encouraged that the entire department continue to develop a motivational visual and print-rich environment for students of English by displaying learning aids customised to the texts/skills being taught (such as timelines, spider diagrams of character traits, maps of key locations, family trees illustrating relationships between characters) and syllabus-related samples of students’ work.

 

Varied resources were used in the English classes observed including a film clip, a character review writing frame, JCSP spelling books, notes on film reviews downloaded from the internet, ICT for student drafting work, support notes, and textbooks. (For those handouts to support learners most effectively, teachers are advised to ensure that they are clearly laid-out, allow space for student annotation, use bold text and/or bullet points to highlight key points, and use graded language and detail for candidates preparing for different examination levels). White/blackboards were used to record student feedback, to model the organisation of key points in preparation for substantial writing tasks, and sometimes to highlight keywords to be learned in a lesson. Other structured uses of the board that the department is advised to consider include dedicated columns for learning targets, keywords/ vocabulary, and homework tasks. It is advised that an inventory of the resources that have been gathered or prepared by the teachers of English should be compiled and added to the subject department plan to inform all colleagues of the resources available within the department. Also, it is strongly recommended that more audio recordings (of plays, poems, and of recorded news broadcasts for language development work), more graphic organisers (such as tables, grids, writing frames, and storyboards), more writing samples that are contemporary and/or connected to students’ interests and experiences, and more uses of ICT (particularly through the interactive whiteboard) be incorporated into the teaching of English.

 

Teachers generally used questioning to good effect to stimulate and interact with students and to structure the learning activity. Where very good practice was seen, teachers asked a blend of questions open for whole-class answering and of questions targeted at particular students. Where weaknesses were noted, the majority of questions posed sought lower-order responses (the recall/recognition of information) and few higher-order questions were posed (seeking students’ personal responses supported by textual evidence). To motivate students across the range of ability, it is advised that students be occasionally encouraged to consult in pairs when developing answers to higher-order questions.

 

In all classes evaluated, some active learning strategies were in use and this is highly commended. Among the methods observed were question and answer, student reading, directed viewing of a film sequence, pair work, activating students’ relevant prior knowledge and experiences before introducing new material, visualisation, creative intervention (asking students to compose a letter from the perspective of a particular character in a studied text), and encouraging students to offer personal responses to texts. The teachers of English now need to formally share these methodologies to ensure that all students get the benefit of them.

 

One recommendation for pedagogical development is offered: further development of the department’s capacity to incrementally develop students’ language and literacy skills from first to sixth year in a consistent, incremental manner. Some examples of good practice already taking place in individual classrooms in this regard include teaching students explicit strategies for learning spellings such as Look-Say-Cover-Write-Check, some uses of writing frames to help students organise their ideas for substantial writing tasks, and the identification of keywords in lessons and their subsequent reinforcement through spelling tests. It is suggested that a “skills day” could be incorporated on a weekly basis into teachers’ programmes of work for English that would develop students’ sub skills of English, deepen their understanding of the writing process, and give them substantial in-class writing opportunities. Further strategies the entire department is advised to implement include teaching relevant vocabulary banks in preparation for personal writing tasks; the development of students’ oral skills through presentations; teaching students the department’s agreed routines for the presentation and editing of work and for the storage of notes from first year onward; directing students to identify parts of speech, punctuation patterns, literary techniques and so on in the texts they are studying (in addition to using parsing and textbook exercises to develop their command of these conventions); and Make a Book projects. Among the professional development resources the department may wish to browse in this regard are those described on the websites http://www.jcspliteracy.ie/school_wide.htm and http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/.

 

Good interpersonal relations between teachers and students were evident in all classrooms evaluated and discipline was maintained in all classes. A reward system to promote positive behaviour for a particular student group was operating in one classroom evaluated and this is commended. Teachers affirmed students’ responses and integrated them into lessons. Oral questioning by teachers and by the inspector demonstrated that students were engaged in their learning and that they generally understood the concepts being taught in the lessons observed.  An examination of students’ copies revealed that some varied writing tasks had been assigned to students, including grammatical exercises, functional writing tasks (reports, reviews, letters), and comprehension questions. Instances were noted where students needed to be taught how to organise their notes and written work to support revision for examinations. Where strengths were noted, individual teachers had assigned some personal writing tasks or some creative interventions (such as police reports, diary entries, letters, and reviews based on a studied text). Also, the practice of assigning tasks differentiated to the needs of particular learners noted in one class is commended.

Assessment

 

A number of the classes observed began with a review of homework or of work done in a previous class, thus maximising the chances that students would retain their new learning. Where good practice was observed, homework assignments were written on the whiteboard and sufficient time was allocated for students to note down their assignments. It is also important that students be given specific instructions on how homework is to be presented and on the criteria that work should meet (for example, page length, number of points and quotations required).

 

From a review of student copies, it was evident that homework was being set and monitored to some extent in all classes. In some cases, students’ work was acknowledged by a tick and short comment. In other cases, the teacher’s written comment offered a concrete suggestion for the improvement of the piece of writing. However, more attention needs to be paid to the correction of student work from now on. Instances were noted where teacher feedback was not detailed enough and could mislead a student into believing that his/her writing skills were sufficiently developed. The department is urged to discuss this issue and to arrive at a consensus on it, so that teachers’ responses to students’ writing are consistent from first to sixth year. While the department has already had an input from the SDPI on Assessment for Learning (AfL), it needs to further investigate this area to arrive at a common policy on the correction of mechanical errors and on the provision of formative feedback on substantial pieces of writing.  In this regard, the department may find the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA)’s AfL web pages and the JCSP publication Between the Lines useful.

 

Three other aspects of student assessment need to be developed by the department. First, it is encouraged that teachers assign class time early in the first term of every year for students to produce a substantial personal writing sample. Analysing and recording the recurring errors in each student’s work will give the teacher a good benchmark for skill development programme planning. Secondly, it is suggested that the department agree a common position on awarding some marks toward end-of-term results for tasks linked to the agreed learning outcomes for different year groups. (Tasks could include spelling and vocabulary tests, a cumulative average for composition work, folder maintenance, quotation tests, oral presentations, and project work). Thirdly, it is recommended that the practice of deepening LC students’ understanding of the State Examinations Commission criteria for assessment be adopted as a consistent departmental one. Teachers’ use of the PCLM (Purpose, Coherence, Language use, Mechanics) criteria to comment on and/or mark substantial assignments will give senior cycle students more specific insights into strengths and areas for development in their writing. To support this work, teachers can make students aware of the grid explaining the criteria and of the “Assessment Advice for Students” document issued at the time of the syllabus launch. Finally, a simplified version of the criteria could also be introduced into teacher marking of substantial pieces of junior cycle writing.

 

Some teachers use State Examination Commission chief examiners’ reports and marking schemes to inform their work. This is commended. Students’ results in certificate examinations are compared with national norms by the principal. These analyses are then provided to all subject departments and feature in a report annually submitted to the CEO of the VEC on school life, activities, and achievements. It is recommended that, in addition to the grade-spread analysis carried out by the principal, that the English subject department itself produce an annual comparison of students’ certificate examination results in English with national norms for the uptake of levels, as an aid to collective self-evaluation and planning.

 

Students are assessed using class tests and formal Christmas, Easter, and end-of-year examinations. As per good practice, candidates for certificate examinations who have been authorised to use a reader are provided with the opportunity to sit their mock examinations using that reasonable accommodation.  Students’ learner diaries enable parents to communicate with teachers and vice versa. Information regarding student progress is also communicated to parents through phone calls, individual meetings, and annual parent-teacher meetings.

 

Summary of main findings and recommendations

The following are the main strengths identified in the evaluation:

 

 

 

As a means of building on these strengths and to address areas for development, the following key recommendations are made:

 

Post-evaluation meetings were held with the teachers of English and with the principal at the conclusion of the evaluation when the draft findings and recommendations of the evaluation were presented and discussed.

 

 

 

  

Published April 2009