duties that often find them working up to 70 hours a week during the school term (Galton and MacBeath 2008). One result of ‘devolved management’ to schools has been for headteachers to spend less and less time on curriculum matters (including the monitoring of teaching) and increasingly delegate such tasks to curriculum leaders. In this way distributed leadership has been transformed into delegated leadership. According to MacBeath (2008) today’s school leaders are often “more concerned with accounting than learning, with control than with teaching , with compliance than with risk-taking and with public relations than with the quality of student experience,” and Y. C. Cheng writing in the same volume, with his experience of Hong Kong schools, echoes some of these sentiments (Cheng 2008).
14.5 The shift to scale will not succeed in developing effective SCT unless ways can be found to encourage Principals to take a more active part in curriculum development. It is one of the messages of this present study where in the analysis of the most and least successful project schools active leadership was one of the identified factors. MacBeath (2008) describes this process as Leadership for Learning and cites (McLaughlin & Talbert 2001) in arguing that it requires a kind of collegiality which challenges rather than reinforces existing practice and which is based on the idea of learning as a cultural and social as well as a cognitive activity. In this sense learning is viewed as a collaborative, communicative and cooperative experience and, as such, it involves everyone; senior managers, teachers, support staff, pupils and parents.
Only the school Principal is in a position to develop and encourage this learning culture throughout the school.
14.6 A second approach to introducing some understanding of the principles governing the development of expertise in SCT is to develop the kinds of professional development which embody the idea of communities of practice (Louis and Marks (1998); Watkins (2005); Stoll and Louis (2007). In the SCT study the learning circles have been an outstanding success and have done more than anything to wean teachers away from the idea that there is a repertoire of pedagogic skills that are unique to SCT. Thus a sensible future approach would be to adopt a mixture of professional development seminars, mainly for Principals and curriculum leaders and to continue to support the development of an increasing number of learning circles.
14.7 Some discussions of the above suggestions have already taken place with the school support team and others associated with the SCT study. Doubts were expressed as to whether the school support team had the time or the necessary theoretical background to support a large number of learning circles. An alternative therefore would be to base this activity within various University Education Departments. If this were to happen it would be important to ensure that staff who acted as mentors to the learning circles had gained familiarity with the guiding principles of the SCT study and were happy to endorse these even where different circles undertook different starting points by exploring issues of diversity rather than cooperative learning.
14.8 Indeed, the results of the past four years suggest, with hindsight, that there may have been some advantage in the learning circles if less emphasis had been placed initially on cooperative group work, even though this was the
stated priority of the participating teachers. This not only created the impression among the teachers outside the learning circles that this was what required to be done in small classes but it has also proved more difficult to adapt the principles and practices of cooperative learning into the context of the Hong Kong classroom, particularly in English where teachers often lacked sufficient confidence to depart from the textbook format. What evidence emerges from the analysis of teacher types suggest that a transition from whole class instruction to whole class ‘dialogic’ discourse, using a greater variety of questions, may be a better starting point. When this is coupled with the greater use of pair and individual enquiry, where there are more sustained interactions between teachers and pupils, mainly in the form of listening to the pupils’ explanations, there seems the likelihood of making more progress.
Although little emerged from the attempt to link the teacher types with pupil progress it was these two teaching approaches (individual and pair sustained enquirers and whole class questioners) which appeared to improve pupils’
attitudes and motivation. Coupled with this finding was the result that pupils’
dispositions to learning regularly featured as a predictor of end of year attainment in the various regression analyses.
14.9 On the matter of pupil diversity, which teachers saw as a difficult problem, Principals should do their best to ensure that certain measures, which research has shown help teachers to cope with a wide range of ability, are in place.
Among these are flexible forms of classroom organisation that allow teachers to change the structure and function of groups so that at times they can concentrate on slower learners while other pupils work independently. The use of peer tutoring is another worthwhile strategy. Pupils who find learning difficult also need to have work situated in contexts that are, as far as possible, meaningful in terms of their everyday lives. This implies less use of textbooks.
14.10 In their responses to the questionnaire teachers expressed considerable satisfaction with the technical support they received. However, there are some ways that the technical support could be enhanced. Visualisers proved particular useful in the plenary sessions after group work because they allowed pupils to present their results while facing the class. In other classes pupils were forced to hold up pieces of paper (or attach them to the black board with bluetak) which meant that when reading their results pupils had their backs to their classmates. Since pupils were often reluctant to speak out so that classmates could hear them this practice added to the communication difficulties. A more radical suggestion would be to bring back computers into the classroom rather than situate them in a dedicated laboratory. The internet has become a vital resource and the availability of wireless connections and cheaper laptops makes this a feasible option. As argued in para 13.11 teachers’
time is a key resource and marking pupils’ work and various other assessment tasks alone account for the difference in hours worked by primary teachers in England and those in Hong Kong. The sixth principle incorporating the ideas of ‘Assessment for Learning’ is designed to place less emphasis on assessment through homework using worksheets or questions from the textbook. At interviews, however, teachers often justified existing practice by saying that parent pressure made it difficult to reduce the amount of homework. It is clear that many parents have not understood the implications of the ‘Learning to
Learn’ reforms and judge the teachers effectiveness on the speed at which homework is set and marked. More is said in a later paragraph on freeing up teachers’ time but it seems clear that more needs to be done for parents to be re-educated as to the implications of SCT for the way that pupils learn.
14.11 Cordingley and Bell (2007:11) were previously quoted in summarising several systematic reviews on going from the pilot stage to full-scale implementation of an initiative. In the context of the above paragraphs it is worth repeating their main conclusion in which they identify a number of key factors which are an essential pre-requisite of successful pedagogic change. Added to their list are some comments (in italics) which relate specifically to the SCT study in Hong Kong.
Monitoring and evaluation systems that are inbuilt from the start and which focus on key elements, in this case the desired changes in classroom processes rather than concentrating solely outcomes. A simplified form of our observation system (attached at Appendix II) could be used for this purpose as well as Brophy’s 10 key features of teaching for understanding at Appendix III and schools’ collection of video extracts which illustrate the use of the six principles could also be used as starting point for discussion in the within- or between-school learning circles.
Active participation by the leadership. Not only should leaders set the goals and distribute resources, but they should involve themselves in both the monitoring and the discussions of how best to modify the innovation to suit the particular circumstances of the school. In this way leaders are better able to understand the difficulties experienced by teachers during the process of innovation and provide suitable advice and support.
Professional development seminars should concentrate on Principals and curriculum leaders in developing the notion of leadership for learning, introducing the six key principles supporting SCT and providing the learning theory which underpins these principles. The study has demonstrated that communities of practice discussed earlier (para 6.10) are a vital ingredient in bringing about pedagogic change. The learning circles exemplify all that is best in this approach but for them to be successful teachers need to be provided with adequate time for sharing and reflection with colleagues and to feel that their Principal is exercising leadership in learning as well as being the organiser and provider of necessary resources. That is why active participation by Principals in such communities is important.
Networking and collaboration between schools in a spirit of co-construction where all participants identify and build on what they know and can do already as against a ‘best leading the rest’ approach. Each local group of schools should be encouraged to set up learning circles both within school and between schools so that one feeds off the other.
These Circles should concentrate first on improving the quality of whole class discussion and the use of pair work rather than concentrating on more difficult to implement pedagogies such as collaborative group work.
A core team able to supply specialist support as required and to offer coaching where it is deemed necessary. Specialist coaching, should always aim to make secure the knowledge, beliefs and moral purposes that underpins the reform and to develop understanding of key principles (Joyce and Showers 2003), otherwise what is mastered will not be sustained. Members of the core team should be a mix of people with curriculum knowledge but also there should be some with an understanding of the psychological principles of learning and their consequences for teaching. In this way subject didactics, the use of certain teaching procedures such as, for example, brainstorming in science or mind mapping in mathematics, can be related to the principles set out at Appendix III. The core team could be supplemented by colleagues from University Departments of Education. Those chosen should understand the rationale behind the guiding principles of the SCT study and be willing to accept these as a working framework.
Dissemination of practices, materials and other resources. Learning circles within and between schools, being an effective means for professional exchange, should be encouraged to share materials and experiences.
14.12 A further recommendation concerns the use of the teachers’ time. The teacher questionnaire results show that workloads have slightly increased. This is one reason why learning circles have not had a greater impact because once back in their school teachers find it difficult to engage with colleagues about their reflections. Another reason is that teachers teach too many year groups and so have too few opportunities to improve on an idea by being able to teach the same lesson to a parallel class in the immediate future. It is this restriction that lies behind the request by many teachers in the SCT study to specialise by concentrating their teaching on fewer year groups. As far as possible, teachers should specialise in teaching lower or upper primary pupils with opportunities to teach more than one class in any age group.
14.13 Teachers also felt that 35 minute periods were too short to include worthwhile discussions as well as instruction. While many schools have some double periods in which teachers can do group work etc. others have introduced 45 minute periods with more possibilities for pupil participation. School Principals should review the school timetable to enable teachers to plan and implement lessons which allow greater amounts of pupil activity and communication.
14.14 Finally there is the question of Initial Teacher Education. While it is well recognised that novice teachers often become immersed in the particular school culture in which they do their practicum and adopt the practice of the school mentor, there is still a need to prepare them for teaching small classes in primary schools since these will soon be the norm. In some ways these novices with the support of their University tutors can act as agents of change.
University Departments of Education therefore need to consider ways in which the findings from this study could be used to reinforce existing and future programmes on matters such as teaching for understanding, catering for diversity and helping pupils to develop as independent thinkers.
14.15 This final report must conclude with some words of thanks. First to the members of the Education Bureau (the senior and junior officers, members of the school support team) who have helped and encouraged me throughout this study. Second, members of the steering committee for cogent advice and, finally, and most of all, to the Principals and teachers in the participating Hong Kong schools who have shown such interest in the study and have been so welcoming on my visits to their schools and classrooms. I have learnt much from the experience of seeing lessons in Chinese and in mathematics as well as in English. I have greatly admired the dedication of these practitioners to the wellbeing of their pupils. As teachers, we all get our inspiration and willingness to ‘go the extra mile’ from those ‘magic moments’ when a pupil’s eyes light up at the point where ignorance is supplanted by genuine understanding. Sadly in recent years, particularly in the West, these magic moments have become fewer because of the emphasis placed on a narrow curriculum and on a notion of accountability which relies on frequent assessments and regular target setting. It is my hope that, over time, the implementation of SCT in Hong Kong primary schools will eventually encourage a more active, creative approach to learning and this will result in many more magic moments.
References
Alexander, R (2008a) Towards Dialogic Teaching: rethinking classroom talk (4th Edition) Thirsk, North Yorkshire: Dialogos UK Ltd.
Alexander, R. (2008b) Essays in Pedagogy, London: Routledge.
Bennett, N. (1996) Class size in primary schools: perceptions of head teachers, chairs of governors, teachers and parents, British Educational Research Journal, 22 (1) 33-55
Biggs, J. (1994) What are Effective schools? Lessons from East to West, Australian Educational Researcher, 21: 19-40.
Biggs, J. and Collis, K. (1982) Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO (Structure of Observed Learning Outcome) San Diego California: Academic Press Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and Classroom Learning, Assessment in Education, 5 (1): 7-75.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D. (2003) Assessment for Learning: Putting it into practice, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P. and Brown, P. (2005) Teachers’ and pupils’ behaviour in large and small classes: A systematic observation study of pupils aged 10 and 11, Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (3): 454-467.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Goldstein, H. and Martin, C. (2003) Are class size differences related to educational progress and classroom processes? Findings from the Institute of Education class size study of children aged 5-7 years, British Educational Research Journal, 29 (5): 709-730.
Blatchford, P. (2003) The Class Size Debate: Is small better? Maidenhead, UK:
Open University Press.
Blatchford, P., Goldstein, H., Martin, C. and Browne, W. (2002) A study of class size effects in English school reception year classes, British Educational Research Journal, 28 (2): 169-185
Bourke, S. (1986) How smaller is better: Some relationships between class size, teaching practices and student achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 23 (4): 558-571.
Bray, M. (2000) Double-Shift Schooling: Design and Operation for Cost-Effectiveness, Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning/UNESCO.
Brophy, J. (2004) Motivating Students to Learn, 2nd Edition, Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum
Buckingham, J. (2003) Class size and teacher quality, Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2: 71-86.
Cheng, Y.C. (2008) New Learning and School Leadership: Paradigm Shift Towards the Third Wave, in J. MacBeath and Y.C. Cheng [Eds] Leadership for Learning:
International Perspectives, London: Sense Publishers
Coburn, C. (2003) ‘Rethinking Scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change, Educational Researcher, 32 (6): 3-12.
Cordingley, P. and Bell, M. (2007) Transferring Learning and Taking Innovation to Scale, An Innovation Unit Think Piece (www.innovation-unit.co.uk)
Cuban, L. & Tyack, D. (1995) Tinkering towards Utopia: A century of public school reform, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Earlbaum,
Desforges, C. (2003) ‘On learning and teaching’ in Learning Texts, Nottingham:
National College for School Leadership (NCSL) at [www.ncsl.org.uk.]
Edwards, D. and Mercer, N. (1987) Common Knowledge and the development of understanding in the classroom, London: Routledge.
Evertson, C and Folger, J. (1989) Small class-large class; What do teachers do differently? Presentation at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Finn, J., Gerber, S. and Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2005) Small classes in the early grades, academic achievement and graduating from High School, Educational Psychology, 94 : 214-233.
Finn, J. and Achilles, C. (1999) Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (2): 97-109.
Finn, J., Pannozzo, G. and Achilles, C. (2003) ‘The Why’s of Class Size: Student behaviour in small classes, Review of Educational Research, 73 (3): 321-68.
Fuller, B. (1987) What school factors raise achievement in the third world? Review of Educational Research, 57 (3): 255-292.
Gage, N. (1978) The Scientific Basis for the Art of Teaching, New York: Teachers College Press.
Galton, M. (2007) Learning and Teaching in the Primary Classroom, London: Sage Publications.
Galton, M. and MacBeath, J. (2008) Teachers under Pressure? London: Sage Publications
Galton, M, Gray, J & Rudduck, J (2003) Transfer and Transitions in the Middle Years of Schooling (7-14) Continuities and Discontinuities in Learning, Research Report RR443, Nottingham: DfEE Publications
Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C. and Wall, D. (1999) Inside the Primary Classroom: 20 years On, London: Routledge.
Galton, M., Simon, B. and Croll, P. (1980) Inside the Primary Classroom. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul
Good, T. and Brophy, J (2002) Looking in Classroom, 9th Edition, Boston: Allyn &
Bacon
Hanushek, E. (1999) Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (2): 143-163.
Hargreaves, L., Galton, M. and Pell, A. (1998) The effects of changes in class size on teacher-pupil interactions, International Journal of Educational Research, 29 (5):
779-795.
Harnischfeger, A and Wiley, D (1978) ‘Conceptual Issues in models of School learning,’ Curriculum Studies, 10 (3): 215-31.
Hattie, J. (2005) The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes, International Journal of Educational Research, 43 (6) 387-425.
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H (2007) The Power of Feedback, Revue of Educational Research, 77 (1):81-112.
Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (2003) Student Achievement through Staff Development, 3rd Edition, London: Longman.
Kutnick, P., Sebba, J., Blatchford, P., Galton, M. and Thorp, J. with MacIntyre, H.
and Berdondini, L. (2005) The Effects of Pupil Grouping: Literature Review, Research Report 688, Nottingham: DfES Publications.
Louis, K. and Marks, H. (1998) Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructured schools, American Journal of Education,106 (40): 532-75.
MacBeath, J. (2008) Leadership for Learning: exploring Similarity and Living with Difference, in J. MacBeath and Y.C. Cheng [Eds] Leadership for Learning:
International Perspectives, London: Sense Publishers
McClelland, D. (1963) On the Psychodynamics of Creative Physical Scientists in Gruber, M. et al., (eds) Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking, New York:
Atherton.
McLaughlin, M. and Talbert, J. (2001) Professional Communities and the work of high school teaching, Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press.
Molnar, A. , Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A. and Ehrle, K. (1999) Evaluating the SAGE programme: A pilot programme in targeted pupil-teacher reductions in Wisconsin, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (2): 143-163.
Nye, B., Hedges, L. and Konstantopoulos, S (1999) The long term effect of small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (2): 127-142.
Robinson, V. (2007) School Leadership and Student outcomes: Identifying what works and why, Australian Council for Educational Leaders (ACEL) Monograph No.
41, PO Box 4268, Winmalee, NSW, Australia.
Shapson, S., Wright, E., Easom, G and Fitzgerald, J. (1980) An experimental study of the effects of class size, American Educational Research Journal, 17 (2):141-152.
Stoll, L. and Louis, K. [Eds] (2007) Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Difficulties, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. and Fung, I (2007) Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration, Wellington, NZ:
Ministry of Education.
Tomlinson, T. (1990) Class size and public policy: The plot thickens, Contemporary Education, 62 (1): 17-23.
Watkins, C. (2005) Classrooms as Learning Communities: What’s in it for schools?
London: Routledge.
Yair, G. (2000) ‘Educational Battlefields in America: The tug of war over students’
engagement with instruction’, Sociology of Education, 73 (2): 247-269.
Appendix I
Administration Plan for Tests/Student Questionnaires
2004/05 school year
P1 (Pre-P1 test in mid Oct 04 P1-end test/Q in June 05)
P2
(P1-end test in early Dec 04 P2-end test in June 05)
P3
(P2-end test in early Dec 04 P3-end test in June 05)
2005/06 school year
P1
(Pre-P1 test/Q in mid Sept 05 P1-end test/Q in June 06)
P2 (P2-end test/Q in June 06)
P3 (P3-end test/Q in June 06)
2006/07 school year
P1
(Pre-P1 test/Q in mid Sept 06 P1-end test/Q in June 07)
P2 (P2-end test/Q in June 07)
P3 (P3-end test/Q in June 07)
P4 (P4-end test/Q in June 07)
2007/08 school year
P2 (P2-end test/Q in June 08)
P3 (P3-end test/Q in June 08)
P4 (P4-end test/Q in June 08)
Note:
Solid-line boxes represent the experimental groups in small class.
Double-solid-line boxes represent the experimental groups to continue their study in regular class at P3/P4.
Dotted-line boxes represent the control groups, i.e. the cohorts of pupils not in small class.
2006/07 school year
#P1
(Pre-P1 test/Q in mid Sept 06 P1-end test/Q in June 07)
#P2
(P1-end test/Q in mid Sept 06 P2-end test/Q in June 07)
#P3
(P2-end test/Q in mid Sept 06 P3-end test/Q in June 07)
2007/08 school year
#P2 (P2-end test/Q in June 08)
#P3 (P3-end test/Q in June 08)
#P4 (P4-end test/Q in June 08) 37 Experimental Schools
15 Reference Schools
# 15 reference schools will be included to provide an external reference for comparing the growth of students' academic performance in P1 to P4 in schools of regular class size.
Appendix II TEACHER OBSERVATION RECORD
School : ……….…….… Yr: ……… Class:……….…. Date: ……….…
Name of Tchr: ……… Tchr: m1/f2 Curric area: Eng1 Math2 Chin3 Class Size: ………
Pupils grouped by: achvmt: mixed1 same2 / friendship3 / gender4 Other Adults: Team tchr1 Net tchr2 Tchg Asst3 Other4 ………...……
Conversation categories (I/a column) I/a L/w Au Time
QUESTIONS (pupil answers by) 0.30
1 recalls facts 1.00
2 offers idea/solution (closed: one correct answer) 1.30
3 offers idea/solution (open: several possible answers) 2.00
4 refers to task supervision (how task is progressing etc) 2.30
5 refers to routine matter (clearing up, behaviour etc) 3.00
STATEMENTS 3.30
6 of fact (including demonstration, blackboard) 4.00
7 of ideas 4.30
8 of task directions (tells pupil/s what to do) 5.00
9 of correcting feedback (corrects work) Turn Overleaf for Pp Observation
10 of informing feedback (discusses work, pupils' ideas) 0.30
11 of behavioural feedback (comments on pupils' behaviour) 1.00
12 of routine directions (tidying up, collect homework etc) 1.30
2.00
Listening and watching categories (L/w column) 2.30
1 listening to pupil report or explain 3.00
2 listening to pupil read from book/text etc 3.30
3 silently watching pupil/s working 4.00
4.30
Teacher’s audience (Au column) 5.00
1 individual boy pupil Turn Overleaf for Pp Observation
2 individual girl pupil 0.30
3 boy for group 1.00
4 girl for group 1.30
5 boy for class 2.00
6 girl for class 2.30
7 pair 3.00
8 whole group 3.30
9 whole class 4.00
10 sustained into next time unit 4.30
5.00
Remarks:
PUPIL OBSERVATION RECORD
PLEASE TURN OVERLEAF FOR TEACHER OBSERVATION
(1) Target’s Name: ……… Target’s Class No.: ……… STRN: ……… Gender: M/F Ability: H/L
TARGET PUPIL ACTIVITY TARGET-ADULT ACTIVITY TARGET-PEER ACTIVITY
1 Tgt’s beh
2 Tgt’s loc
3 Tchr’s activity
4 Seating
5 Mode of Working
6 Tgt’s role
7 Adult
8 Content
9 Setting
10 Tgt’s role
11 Mode
12 Task
13
Gender Time
1 0.30
2 1.00
3 1.30
4 2.00
(2) Target’s Name: ……… Target’s Class No.: ……… STRN: ……… Gender: M/F Ability: H/L
TARGET PUPIL ACTIVITY TARGET-ADULT ACTIVITY TARGET-PEER ACTIVITY
1 Tgt’s beh
2 Tgt’s loc
3 Tchr’s activity
4 Seating
5 Mode of Working
6 Tgt’s role
7 Adult
8 Content
9 Setting
10 Tgt’s role
11 Mode
12 Task
13
Gender Time
1 0.30
2 1.00
3 1.30
4 2.00
PLEASE TURN OVERLEAF FOR TEACHER OBSERVATION
(3) Target’s Name: ……… Target’s Class No.: ……… STRN: ……… Gender: M/F Ability: H/L
TARGET PUPIL ACTIVITY TARGET-ADULT ACTIVITY TARGET-PEER ACTIVITY
1 Tgt’s beh
2 Tgt’s loc
3 Tchr’s activity
4 Seating
5 Mode of Working
6 Tgt’s role
7 Adult
8 Content
9 Setting
10 Tgt’s role
11 Mode
12 Task
13
Gender Time
1 0.30
2 1.00
3 1.30
4 2.00
(4) Target’s Name: ……… Target’s Class No.: ……… STRN: ……… Gender: M/F Ability: H/L
TARGET PUPIL ACTIVITY TARGET-ADULT ACTIVITY TARGET-PEER ACTIVITY
1 Tgt’s beh
2 Tgt’s loc
3 Tchr’s activity
4 Seating
5 Mode of Working
6 Tgt’s role
7 Adult
8 Content
9 Setting
10 Tgt’s role
11 Mode
12 Task
13
Gender Time
1 0.30
2 1.00
3 1.30
4 2.00
PLEASE TURN OVERLEAF FOR TEACHER OBSERVATION
TARGET PUPIL ACTIVITY
1. TARGET’S BEHAVIOUR 2. TARGET’S LOCATION 3. TEACHER’S ACTIVITY 4. SEATING 5. MODE OF WORKING 1 ON TASK
2 ROUTINE 3 DISTRACTED 4 PARTIAL 5 OTHER
1 IN 2 OUT 3 MOBILE
1 T PRESENT 2 T ELSE 3 T MONITOR 4 T HOUSESKEEPING
1 ALONE 2 PAIR 3 GROUP 4 FLOOR/FRONT 5 CHANGE/MOVE
1 INDIVIDUAL 2 PAIR 3 GROUP 4 CLASS
TARGET-ADULT ACTIVITY
6. TARGET’S ROLE 7. ADULT INVOLVED 8. CONTENT 9. SETTING 1 INITIATE
2 STAR 3 PART
1 TEACHER 2 CLASS ASSIST 3 NET
4 OTHER
1 TASK WORK 2 ROUTINE 3 FBACK EFF 4 FBACK + /-
1 TGT IND ATTENTION 2 IND for GROUP 3 IND for CLASS 4 GROUP 5 CLASS TARGET-PEER ACTIVITY
10. TARGET’S ROLE 11. MODE OF CONTACT 12. TASK 13. GENDER 1 BEGINS
2 RESPONDS 3 TRIES 4 IGNORES 5 SUSTAINS
1 VERBAL 2 OTHER
1 SAME 2 DIFFERENT
1 SS 2 OS 3 SEVERAL