Introduction
What is work analysis and why do we use it?
Work analysis refers to the systematic examination of students’ work by teachers and school leaders. The primary goal of work analysis is to assess the quality of teaching and learning within a classroom or across a school. It involves the review of various types of student work, as seen in books, portfolios, artefacts or that stored electronically.
Work analysis can be used for a variety of purposes. It can be used as an audit tool to
check compliance with agreed expectations and practices. In this sense, it serves a quality control function. It can also serve as a valuable tool for quality assurance, allowing schools to monitor and enhance the effectiveness of their curriculum and teaching and learning processes.
To get the most useful information from work analysis, it is important to apply the right principles and best practice to the activity.
What can work analysis do … and what can it not?
Work analysis helps leaders to see if the curriculum that is intended is the curriculum that students are experiencing, and whether the students are accumulating knowledge. Work analysis helps to triangulate whether the work students are completing over time reflects the intended curriculum. It can show whether knowledge and skills have been taught in a well sequenced way and developed incrementally.
Work analysis cannot be used to make definitive judgements about progress. There may be some indicators, such as whether students are applying previously taught knowledge, but you cannot say for sure that they have learned and remembered it. Neither does work analysis capture all of the learning that may have gone on in the classroom (eg. discussions).
However, work analysis does allow subject leaders to identify typicality and teachers’ expectations It can also give an indication of whether students are working at appropriate standards.
Looking at students’ work also gives valuable insights into leadership. It shows the extent to which leaders’ expectations are being followed. It can also show whether agreed policies and practices are having the desired impact on the quality of students’ work and on what they are learning.
Principles of effective work analysis:
Clear Objectives and Focus:
Clearly define the objectives of the work analysis, such as checking compliance with policies, evaluating teacher effectiveness, or identifying areas for improvement. Ensure a specific focus to guide the analysis process.
Established Criteria and Standards:
Once you know what you are looking for, identify what criteria you will use to evaluate against. Start with establishing what quality looks like, ‘What do we expect to see when we open this book?’ Then compare what is found with what was expected.
Representative Sample Selection:
Establish guidelines for selecting a representative sample of students’ work to align with the focus of the work analysis. For example, you might choose to ensure diversity across classes, subjects, and performance levels to provide a comprehensive view of teaching practices. Alternatively, you might select from a narrower range to focus on a specific line of enquiry, such as the performance of pupils with SEND or work from a particular teacher.
Include the right perspectives - involve the right people:
It is important that insights gained from work analysis do not sit in isolation and not be understood by all stakeholders. Coaches need to know where to focus their efforts, curriculum leaders need to know what books show about the curriculum design and its delivery. Leaders at all levels need to know what work analysis shows about curriculum, teaching, learning and standards.
Efficiency to make the most of the activity:
The principles are not mutually exclusive. For example, it is possible to focus on more than one thing in a single work analysis, such as curriculum coverage, teachers’ expectations and students’ attitudes to learning. However, it is important to have established these purposes and stick to them.
Making the most of analysing students’ work
Applying the principles to find out what you want to know
The following case studies capture how leaders used the principles of effective work analysis to answer their questions about teaching, students’ attitudes to learning and elements of leadership.
Case Study 1: secondary
Leaders’ question
Who was involvedwhy?
Why are we doing as we are and not better? Are any groups of pupils attaining less well than they should?
Is our curriculum being implemented as we intend in science in key stage 3?
SLT and subject lead/faculty director.
By seeing it together, they will identify jointly what is working well and what needs to change in science. This gives a shared sense of purpose and clarity over what needs to happen. The faculty director will know what senior leaders are expecting to see as a result of the actions to be taken. It enables senior leaders to hold the FD to account for the right things.
• Long- and medium-term plans.
• Knowledge organisers for selected units of work
• Selection of books from years 7 - 9, including PP, non-PP and SEND
The starting point is: what do we expect to see in the books? What is the intended curriculum? What knowledge have we committed to giving our students by this point in their science education? Starting with the planned curriculum applies the principle of establishing criteria to evaluate against.
When looking at the books, the leaders checked:
• the sequence of work in books compared with the long-term plan
• the sequence of lessons in a selection of units against the medium term plan
• the content of lessons in a selection of units against the knowledge organisers
• whether activity choices were enabling students to practise and apply the knowledge to be learned
• whether students were able to draw on previously taught knowledge as needed to complete tasks
• whether teachers consistently follow the expectation to routinely follow up assessment tasks by re-teaching content that has not been securely learned
Making the most of analysing students’ work
Supplementary to the curriculum focus, leaders used the opportunity to check whether:
• teachers consistently insist that students produce work that reflects their capabilities
• students are working to the best of their ability and taking pride in their work
What they found Very quickly, leaders confirmed that the curriculum is being covered in full. They saw that sequences of lessons covered the breadth of each topic in the medium-term plan.
However, books from one teacher showed lesson content was lacking in depth. Some of the knowledge on the knowledge organiser had only been taught superficially. There was a predominance of low-level activities, such as copying from the board. Much work was unfinished and there was little evidence that students were revisiting or applying the knowledge. SEND books for this teacher showed very little work. What was there, was largely not completed. Tier 3 vocabulary was often spelled incorrectly.
Teachers were following the practice of re-teaching content that tests showed was not secure, although sometimes it was not clear if their choices were right for some pupils.
Across the board, there were indications that teachers were not insisting on best quality work. Scribbles and doodles in books went unchecked. Rulers were not used to underline or draw such things as graph axes.
What actions did they identify?
As a result of their findings, leaders:
• Thanked teachers at the next departmental meeting for ensuring they were covering the curriculum and following the process of re-teaching after assessments.
• Explored with them how they select the content to be re-taught and agreed to make this the next CPL focus
• Established mentoring for the weak teacher
• Published a set of non-negotiables for students’ work in science and agreed that during spotlight tours they would routinely check in books that teachers are insisting they are followed
• Identified a date for a follow-up work scrutiny to check the impact of their actions.
Making the most of analysing students’ work
Case Study 2: primary
Leaders’ question
Who was involvedwhy?
What they looked atwhy?
Why are we struggling to get enough pupils to greater depth in writing?
Headteacher, deputy headteacher (also Year 2 teacher), English subject leader (also Year 5 teacher).
Senior leaders need to understand the reasons why pupils are not reaching greater depth so that they can ensure the right actions are taken and can hold staff to account for the right things. The English subject leader has the expertise to analyse the work in pupils’ books to see what the deficiencies are. She will then be in a position to support teachers to focus on the specific things needed to solve the issue.
• Long- and medium-term plans for English
• The national curriculum for English,specifically, the writing composition and vocabulary , grammar and punctuation programmes of study and Appendix 2: vocabulary, grammar and punctuation, Years 1-6
• Books from high and mid-prior attainers from Years 2 - 6.
Leaders know that too few pupils are performing at greater depth against the expectations of the national curriculum as that is the benchmark measured in Year 6 national assessments. They do not know if the issue lies with teaching, or the school’s curriculum itself. They need to know which elements of the requirements pupils are falling down on so that they know where to focus their efforts.
Therefore, they:
• Used the sections of the NC to establish the standard and criteria for the work scrutiny
• For all year groups except Year 2, compared pupils’ current writing to the previous year/phase requirements as well as the current one.
Supplementary to this focus, leaders were also able to gather information about teachers’ expectations for the quality and quality of pupils’ work, the impact of the school’s handwriting programme and pupils’ attitudes to their work.
Making the most of analysing students’ work
What they found Books showed that pupils were being taught all the elements of grammar and punctuation set out in the NC. However, many pupils were not using all of these in their writing. Leaders identified that when teachers were marking the assessed pieces of writing, they were not directing pupils to use specific grammar as part of their feedback. Therefore, pupils were not applying much of the grammar they had been taught. In effect, the teaching of grammar was superficial because teachers were not ensuring that pupils routinely practised and applied the knowledge.
Leaders also found that pupils’ books are well presented. They take care to follow the non-negotiables around dates, underlining, etc. Their handwriting is generally neat and in line with the school’s policy.
What actions did they identify?
As a result of their findings, leaders:
• Thanked teachers at the next staff meeting for the efforts put in to ensuring that pupils follow the handwriting policy and nonnegotiables for presentation
• Provided CPL on identifying next steps for pupils regarding the grammar they use in their writing
• Agreed to focus on English lessons for spotlight tours in the next two weeks to see the teaching of grammar in action
• Planned a follow-up work scrutiny in six weeks to check the impact of their actions.
Case Study 3: secondary
Leaders’ question Is our curriculum allowing for depth of knowledge in Year 7 English? And are there opportunities for students to be assessed on whether they have learned and can apply that knowledge?
Who was involvedwhy?
SLT leading on QI and curriculum, and subject lead of KS3 English, faculty director of English and school literacy lead.
KS3 English lead is currently reviewing the Year 7 Long term plans to review the component knowledge and assessment opportunities that are on offer to students, and determine whether the right knowledge is identified and sequenced to allow students to accumulate knowledge.
By seeing it together, the staff will identify whether the curriculum in Year 7 allows students to gain in depth knowledge and have opportunities to apply that knowledge. This gives a shared sense of purpose and clarity over what needs to happen. It enables senior leaders to support the expert subject lead in supporting the development of the curriculum.
Making the most of analysing students’ work
What they looked atwhy?
• Current Long Term plans that identifies the sequenced component knowledge, assessment opportunities and interleaving opportunities
• Component Knowledge banks for selected units of work
• Expected vocabulary expected to be taught and therefore evidenced in books
• Selection of books from years 7, including PP, non-PP and SEND from all teachers who teach Y7
The starting point is: what do we expect to see in the books? (this allows for a conversation based on expectations of English leaders, and whether leadership is strong if staff are complying with the expectations given by the department)
We looked at a particular point in time of the curriculum long term plan, what is the intended curriculum? What key vocabulary would you expect to see in the books at this point
Let us look at where/ when you say it is happening and now let us see it in the book’ Starting with the planned curriculum applies the principle of establishing criteria to evaluate against.
When looking at the books, the leaders checked:
• the sequence of lessons in books compared with the long-term plan
• the content of lessons in a selection of units against the knowledge organisers
• the identified vocabulary that students were expected to be exposed to
• whether activity choices were enabling students to practise and apply the knowledge to be learned
• whether students were able to draw on previously taught knowledge as needed to complete tasks
• whether teachers gave students the opportunity to apply that knowledge into extended written responses
• Whether key learning tasks allowed students to be tested on whether the taught knowledge has been learned and understood
Supplementary to the curriculum focus, leaders used the opportunity to check whether:
• teachers consistently insist that students produce work that reflects their capabilities
• students are working to the best of their ability and taking pride in their work
• teachers had given the relevant resources identified within the English faculty expectations
Making the most of analysing students’ work
What they found
What actions did they identify?
From just looking at a few books, leaders very quickly could see that students from a variety of subgroups and teachers were not given enough opportunities to allow for deep, extended pieces of writing. They saw that all staff were following the curriculum but the exposure to KLT (key learning tasks) was inconsistent depending on the teacher. For teachers who had trialled the use of green pen feedback with their students, it was clear where the students had progressed further in their learning.
It was clear that the understanding of how to plan for KLT was inconsistent between teachers, when key learning opportunities were successful you were able to see clear application of knowledge from the student, with green pen feedforward opportunities where students could further improve their knowledge and progress.
The vocabulary that was expected to be in the books based on the long term plan, was not evident in all student books. Some books had different vocabulary completely and others were not exposed to all of the vocabulary and could therefore not apply it into their work.
As a result of their findings, leaders within English and the SL co constructed the following actions; Year 7 cycle 1
• Review the amount of knowledge expected to be taught within the curriculum to allow for more extended writing opportunities
• Review the amount of key vocabulary expected (expose to all 10 of the words but identify 5 non-negotiables, know them, apply them, use them to great effect….)
• Review assessment: Multiple Choice Questions to allow for students to identify the right definition for example
• Create a tracking document to identify the vocab built up over time - share with faculty directors across schools to gather their opinion
• CPL on the rationale and frequency of KLT and what good learning application tasks look like (WAGOLL)
• Green pen feedforward - roll out within the whole department as the pilot demonstrates when it is applied effectively it allows for student progress