Music-ITE

Information about the students’ perceptions of the new QTS Standards was obtained using a questionnaire, which was divided into three sections. One set of questions asked students to rate each Standard on a five-point scale according to the level of challenge it presented. Another question offered students an opportunity to record their overall reflections on the Standards and their progress towards meeting them. Another asked students to nominate Standards in each of the following categories: those they thought were most important; those they thought were least important; those they found easiest to achieve; those they found hardest to achieve; those they found hardest to provide evidence for; and those they had already met.

Students completed the questionnaire three times during the year: once shortly after enrolment (S1); once at the midway point (S2); and once more as they concluded their studies at the end of the academic year (S3). This provided the opportunity to see how their perceptions of the Standards changed throughout the course of their studies.

The first battery of questions asked students to rate the level of challenge each Standard presented; the average level at each survey point is plotted in Figure 1 (see separate file). This demonstrates that, of the 40 standards (and subdivisions), 35 reduced in average challenge at both S2 and S3. 15 standards showed even reductions in average challenge at both S2 and S3, 5 with comparatively large reductions on both occasions. 10 standards showed a large reduction, then a small one; 8 showed a small reduction, then a large one. Five standards were perceived as becoming more challenging at some point in the year. Q19, Q20 and Q24 were regarded as harder at S2 than at S1, but became easier again at S3. Q5 and Q21b were easier at S2 but harder at S3, Q5 ending the year harder than it was perceived to be at the beginning.

Figure 1 (click to enlarge)

Having discovered a general trend for the average perceived difficulty of the standards to fall at each survey point, we wanted to know whether it held good for all students. Their individual ratings for each standard were therefore compared across the three surveys, and the results, aggregated across the standards, are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 (click to enlarge)

This shows that there were significant numbers of students for whom the standards did not become easier. Thus, the reduction in average difficulty between S1 and S2 reflects the experience of only 31% of the students; the reduction between S2 and S3, that of 30% of the cohort. Whereas 35 of the 40 standards reduced in average difficulty at both S2 and S3, this two-fold reduction was experienced by only 9% of students, 29% registering no reduction in difficulty during the course or an increase in difficulty at some stage.

We collected qualitative data, asking the students, “What is your overall response to the standards, against which you will be judged?” There were 133 responses (49 in S1, and 42 in each of S2 and S3). Generally, there was a consensus that the standards were useful, providing a detailed and comprehensive guide to what is expected of a teacher. Respondents saw them as a valuable resource, helpful for providing a vocabulary for assessing their skills, and for breaking the skills down into manageable components. Some standards were found to be daunting and challenging, particularly those relating to the ability to maintain classroom discipline. For some respondents, the difficulty lies not in achieving the standards but in ‘recognising when you achieve them’. For example, personality traits of openmindedness, adaptability, self-organisation, communication skills and a positive attitude were seen as central to teaching and held by the respondents as a matter of course, an obviousness expressed as, ‘you do them anyway’.

Some issues which were raised in the first set of responses, (for example, the relevance of the skills tests, (Q16), vagueness of the wording of the standards) were repeated in the second set of responses. So too was the notion of overlap; One student wrote, ‘Because of the degree of overlap, it is difficult to consider standards separately, e.g. the knowing (Q6) from the doing (Q32)’; and another wrote, ‘…teamwork Q32, Q4 and Q6 could be subsumed into one standard’. This intensified towards the end of the course, with a third of the responses referring to the repetition, overlap and vagueness, describing them as ‘wishy washy’, ‘pretty much the same just worded differently’, and ‘making us jump through hoops’.

As they progressed through their school practice, the respondents were confronted with context specific practices which were not readily recognisable in the standards, as noted by the following comment: ‘it would be good if the standards were more subject specific – as experience greatly differs between subjects’.

The students who participated in this study were generally supportive of the standards as a framework for guiding them in acquiring the knowledge, skills and attributes necessary for being a teacher. There was little direct criticism or questioning of the content of the standards, and most of the negative comments were directed at the degree of overlap and lack of clarity.

An interesting spotlight on the use of the standards to control the development of the teaching profession is provided by Q13 (‘Know how to use statistical information to evaluate teaching, to monitor progress and raise attainment’). This standard reflects an agenda to encourage an increasing use of statistical data by teachers, an agenda rooted in the methodology of Ofsted’s inspections and the practice of tracking pupils’ progress that this has engendered. Students found this standard consistently difficult and most had only attained it by the time of the third survey. Moreover, it emerged as the second least important standard in each survey. It is perhaps alien to the way in which the students were thinking about their teaching. There must be a suspicion that the consistency of the students’ attitudes reflects something of the environments in which they are working and studying, in which the use of data might not be fully embedded in classroom practice. If the standards are an effective method for changing teacher behaviour, one would expect students’ attitudes to this Standard to change during the course.

Perhaps the ultimate anomaly in the standards as a model for learning to become a teacher is Q16 (the skills tests). Students consistently identified this as the least important standard, reflecting the fact that it is not a standard of practical teaching in the same way as the others. Although its presence in the framework might add legitimacy to the skills tests, integrating them into the assessment process rather than presenting them as an additional requirement, it might be considered to detract from the integrity of the standards framework as a model for practical teaching; it has little to do with practical teaching, it cannot be developed through reflection, mentoring, or practical experience of teaching, and it encourages a ‘tick-box’ mentality because, once attained, further development can stop.

When we examined each Standard in turn, we found a complex picture. Some standards reflect a fairly consistent pattern of experience across the cohort: students increased their understanding as they progressed through the course, acquiring more experience and developing their knowledge of the school environment, leading to a reduction in the perceived challenge. This appeared to be the dominant feature in Q25, which deals with the core of practical teaching and is broken down into four quite specific and unequivocally skill-based areas. Its implications arguably became quickly apparent to students, enabling them to focus on understanding what is involved in adjusting their practice to realise these implications; the result was a fairly uniform picture of decreasing difficulty during the course. This was also the case for Q22 (planning for progression within and across lessons), which became less challenging for many students in the second half of the year.

In other cases, however, it seemed that the implications of a standard became more extensive and involved as they become better understood, making it more difficult to achieve. Q19 (‘Know how to personalise learning, including for pupils with EAL, SEN and disabilities, taking account of diversity’) appeared to become more challenging, as the students understood the extent of pupils’ individual needs and the challenge of providing for them in the context of a class.

Other Standards gave rise to a diverse range of responses, with roughly equal numbers of students finding that that they become easier, harder or remained the same since the previous survey. Where the pattern is more diverse, the implication is that the response to these standards is driven more by the individual circumstances and aptitudes of the trainees.

In a surprising number of cases, students did not register a change in their perception of their difficulty of a standard at either S2 or S3 (this was so in 17% of responses). It might be that the factors arising from the understanding of a standard cancel each other out. For example, Q18 and Q20 (both to do with pupil diversity) display a relatively high concentration of “no change” responses. It is possible that the increased difficulty that might result from improved understanding of the standard is compensated for by the reduced difficulty of gaining a better practical idea of how to work with these pupils.

We also considered the standards as a model for assessment. In the first survey there was no correlation between the standards that students identified as the most challenging per se, and those that they thought would be difficult to evidence. In the second survey there was some correlation, with three of the top five most challenging standards also appearing in the top five most difficult to evidence. In the third survey, the five standards most widely identified as the most challenging were also identified as the most difficult to evidence. This trend suggests that providing evidence of having achieved a standard becomes an increasingly significant factor in the students’ perception of challenge. In other words, the process of assessment comes to have an increasingly important role in shaping students’ understanding of the standards and therefore quite possibly their priorities in the classroom. This growing concern with providing evidence is also reflected in the students’ comments at the second and third surveys to do with “ticking boxes” and “jumping through hoops”.

1. As a teacher educator, how do you respond to the Q Standards? Do you see them as a useful means for planning, teaching and assessing, or do you see them as a matter of “jumping through hoops”?
2. How do you require your students to provide evidence of meeting the Q Standards? Is there a reasonable balance between the effort required to meet the Standards, and the effort required to provide evidence?
3. Are there any of the Q Standards that you consider to be unreasonably difficult for music trainees?
4. Are there additional standards that you would expect your music trainees to meet? How do you assess these?