Common use of Ethical Considerations Clause in Contracts

Ethical Considerations. This section will describe the process with regard to the following of the ethical considerations within this research. The rules of confidentiality and adherence to anonymity of all the information the participants present or produce were followed in accordance with ethical conformance. The names of participants stayed anonymous. Moreover, the obtained data was not available to school administrators in order not be used in any school evaluation of the participants’ performance. Consequently, the school administrators were not informed about what was discussed during interviews to avoid the cases of misinterpretation. To alleviate with the participants’ stress as a researcher I mentioned that all collected data was used only to research the issue of assessment practices, and all the views were reported anonymously in the thesis or any subsequent research publications. The research did not collect personal sensitive information, although it aimed to gather teachers’ assessment practices’ challenges and changes. In a case of the research publication I will not use any personal information for any purposes that will make it possible to identify the participants. Regarding research instruments, both individual semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in a quiet place without disrupting environment. I tried to arrange comfortable time for the participants in order not to effect negative their work. The focus group discussion participants were reminded about the risks of following full confidentiality because of the group setting. Moreover, the participants had a right not to answer some of the interview questions, if they considered them to be biased or prejudiced. In addition, the participants might quit the research at any time if they had decided to stop their participation without providing reasons. Another risk was distraction caused due to my presence in the classroom during lesson observations, but it was kept to the minimum by being a non-participant observer and sitting quietly at the back. The recordings of interviews were transcribed only by me. The consent forms were available for the participants who agreed to take part in the present research. Study-specific benefits and risks were articulated through the informed consent process and in the consent form. Another potential risk was associated with identifying of the research site. To diminish this risk, the researcher did not mention the original name of the school where the research was conducting by figuring out the research site as “one NIS school”. Since there are 21 NIS schools, the research site and sampling were not defined. There were also some potential benefits of this research. Firstly, the results of the research tend to support the newly hired teachers in adopting assessment practices applied in NIS. Then, the participants started to reflect on how to develop and improve their own assessment practices after being hired to work in NIS. Finally, their participation brought the participants experience due to which they could make some positive changes of their own assessment practices.

Ethical Considerations. This section will describe The study strictly followed NUGSE Ethical Protocols in order to guarantee respect for people’s rights and to safeguard the process with regard anonymity, privacy and confidentiality of the research sites and participants. Prior to the following conducting the study, the proposed research was reviewed and approved by NUGSE Research Committee to guarantee the protection of participants’ interests (Gay et al., 2011). The participants received an Information letter that included detailed information about the purpose and nature of the ethical considerations within this researchstudy, its duration, a brief research description and requirements for participants. Participation in the study was based on participants’ free will. The rules of confidentiality researcher considered the participants’ schedule and adherence to anonymity of all the information the participants present or produce were followed in accordance with ethical conformancedid not impose on them her own preferred time. The time and the place for conducting an interviews were chosen by the participants. Rights to privacy were protected by confidentiality. Therefore, the names of participants stayed anonymousand schools were not disclosed and pseudonyms were used for schools and participants. MoreoverAlthough participation in the project may or may not have posed a minimal risk for participants, they were also asked to sign informed consent forms to confirm their agreement and be ensure that their rights were protected (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012). The participants were informed that all interviews would be recorded and only the obtained data researcher and her/his supervisor would have access to the information. As soon as the research was not available completed, all recordings were deleted. The research site belonged to a limited number of secondary schools in Kazakhstan; therefore, there was a minimal risk of the schools being identified. In order to further minimize the risks, all possible identifiers of the schools were removed from all papers and documents generated by the study. School names were coded as School A and School B. Furthermore, since participants were working with me during school administrators in order not be used in any hours, it was possible that other staff at the school evaluation of may have noticed us working together and thus may have deduced the participants’ performanceidentity. ConsequentlyTo ensure this did not happen, I did not discuss with anyone anything about the research and participants at the schools. All identifiers were removed from the research tools, transcripts and subsequent documents / thesis. At the same time, the school administrators participants were required not informed about what was to communicate any information discussed during interviews to avoid the cases of misinterpretationinterview. To alleviate with the participants’ stress as a researcher I mentioned that all collected data was used only to research the issue of assessment practices, and all the views were reported anonymously in the thesis or any subsequent research publications. The research did not collect personal sensitive information, although it aimed to gather teachers’ assessment practices’ challenges and changes. In a case Another possible risk of the research publication I will not use any personal information for any purposes study was that will make it possible to identify the participants. Regarding research instruments, both individual semi-structured interviews participants may have felt emotional discomfort being interviewed about their colleagues and focus group discussions were conducted in a quiet place without disrupting environment. I tried to arrange comfortable time for the participants in order not to effect negative their work. However, I assured them and gained their trust that all their responses would remain confidential and no one from the school or outside would ever have access to those responses. The focus group discussion informed consent form also provided participants were reminded with sufficient details about the risks of following full confidentiality because nature and purposes of the group settingstudy. Moreover, It was explained to them that the participants had a right consequence of their participation would not affect their employment and their anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed. The information gained during the interviews was not reported to their colleagues or senior management team. They were free to choose not to answer some respond to a question or to withdraw at any stage of the interview questions, if they considered them to be biased or prejudiced. In addition, the participants might quit the research at any time if they had decided to stop their participation without providing reasons. Another risk was distraction caused due to my presence in the classroom during lesson observations, but it was kept to the minimum by being a non-participant observer and sitting quietly at the back. The recordings of interviews were transcribed only by me. The consent forms were available for the participants who agreed to take part in the present research. Study-specific benefits and risks were articulated through the informed consent process and in the consent form. Another potential risk was associated with identifying of the research site. To diminish this risk, the researcher did not mention the original name of the school where the research was conducting by figuring out the research site as “one NIS school”. Since there are 21 NIS schools, the research site and sampling were not defined. There were also some potential benefits of this research. Firstly, the results of the research tend to support the newly hired teachers in adopting assessment practices applied in NIS. Then, the participants started to reflect on how to develop and improve their own assessment practices after being hired to work in NIS. Finally, their participation brought the participants experience due to which they could make some positive changes of their own assessment practicesstudy.

Ethical Considerations. This section will describe In order to ensure the process with regard to the following anonymity of the ethical considerations within this research. The rules participants of confidentiality and adherence to anonymity the online survey, no contact information of all the information the participants present research participants, such as phone numbers, email, or produce were followed in accordance with ethical conformance. The names of participants stayed anonymous. Moreover, the obtained data was not available to school administrators in order not be used in any school evaluation of the participants’ performance. Consequently, the school administrators were not informed about what was discussed during interviews to avoid the cases of misinterpretation. To alleviate with the participants’ stress as a researcher I mentioned that all collected data was used only to research the issue of assessment practices, and all the views were reported anonymously in the thesis or any subsequent research publications. The research did not collect personal sensitive information, although it aimed to gather teachers’ assessment practices’ challenges and changes. In a case of the research publication I will not use any personal information for any purposes that will make it possible to identify the participants. Regarding research instruments, both individual semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in a quiet place without disrupting environment. I tried to arrange comfortable time for the participants in order not to effect negative their work. The focus group discussion participants were reminded about the risks of following full confidentiality because of the group setting. Moreover, the participants had a right not to answer some of the interview questions, if they considered them to be biased or prejudicedrequested. In addition, the participants might quit the research at any time if they had decided to stop their participation without providing reasons. Another risk was distraction caused due to my presence questions in the classroom online survey did not require participants to mention the specific names of educational materials, employers’ names or addresses, courses they sell or buy, and other data that could allow them to be identified. Participation in the online interview was not anonymous; audio recordings were done during lesson observationsthe interview. However, but it all interviews were conducted in a one-to-one format; no one except myself and my supervisor has access to these records. All interview data were kept confidential in an electronic folder on the researcher’s password-protected computer. I assigned pseudonyms (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2, Interviewee 3) to data from interviews to ensure the confidentiality of individual participants; their real names were not recorded during the interviews. Confidentiality was kept guaranteed to the minimum participants to the extent possible and allowed by being a non-participant observer and sitting quietly at the backlaw. The recordings same measures as discussed above will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of interviews the participants and data in any presentation and publication made from this study. Some of the survey questions might have reminded participants of their negative experience of engaging in teacherpreneurial activities and causing psychological discomfort. However, this discomfort was unlikely to be greater than those ordinarily encountered in their daily life. Interview participants could also felt psychological discomfort when they were transcribed only by measked about their motivation to become teacherpreneurs, especially the financial aspect and its role in their decision to engage in teacherpreneurship. In order to mitigate those risks, the researcher reminded the participants of confidentiality procedures that were implemented in the study. The consent forms online survey was anonymous and was hosted on Qualtrics, with a design that did not allow me to trace out an individual respondent. Interview and survey participants were available for the participants who agreed asked to take part in the present research. Study-specific benefits and risks were articulated through sign the informed consent process forms (see Appendix A, B); they were informed that participation in that study is voluntary, and they could refuse to participate in the consent formstudy at any moment they wanted. Another potential risk was associated with identifying of the research site. To diminish this risk, the researcher did not mention the original name of the school where the research was conducting by figuring out the research site as “one NIS school”. Since there are 21 NIS schools, the research site and sampling The participants were not defined. There were also some potential benefits of this research. Firstly, the results of the research tend to support the newly hired teachers in adopting assessment practices applied in NIS. Then, the participants started to reflect on how to develop and improve their own assessment practices after being hired to work in NIS. Finally, their participation brought the participants experience due to which they could make some positive changes reminded of their own assessment practicesrights and freedom to skip a question or discontinue the interview if they felt uncomfortable. They were reminded of all the measures I took to ensure confidentiality.

Ethical Considerations. This section will describe Every researcher should put ethical practices at the process forefront before they even begin their research. Therefore, when conducting my study, I complied with regard to the following standards specified by the NU Institutional Research Ethics Committee. The informed consent form included all the key information about the research: benefits, details about the study and interviews, a clear and informative introduction about the researcher and her contact details, contact details of the ethical considerations within this research supervisor and the NUGSE Ethics Committee, the assurance of confidentiality (use of unidentifiable pseudonyms for the research sites and participants so that no one but myself knows about the place and the participants), the explanation of voluntary participation and withdrawal from the study at any time. Although it is almost impossible to guarantee anonymity and confidentiality in qualitative research, I took every possible measure to ensure the confidentiality of the teachers and research sites. To ensure my participants’ anonymity from others, I concealed their names and, to protect their confidentiality, they are unidentifiable in all reporting (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2006). For example, to ensure that nobody knows that they are participating in my research, pseudonyms were used throughout the study and the final paper. In addition, to protect the teachers’ confidentiality, when transcribing the data, I assigned them numbers instead of using their names. Soft data was stored on my laptop computer in a password- protected folder, while the filled-in observation forms were locked away in my study desk drawer at home. However, there is always the risk that the collected data can be lost, stolen or someone might access it without my permission. To prevent such adversities from occurring, I transferred all the recorded interviews to a password-protected folder on my personal computer so that I was the only person who had access to it. I also made a copy of the folder and kept it in Dropbox. The rules observation form and other papers with notes were kept in a safe place, a loc ked drawer of confidentiality my desk. Another risk could be that the teachers themselves decide to disclose their participation or information about the research to third parties. These acts would obviously break their anonymity and adherence to anonymity confidentiality. Therefore, when explaining the consent form and my research, I stressed the importance of remaining anonymous and keeping all the information the participants present or produce were followed in accordance with ethical conformance. The names of participants stayed anonymous. Moreover, the obtained data was not available to school administrators in order not be used in any school evaluation of the participants’ performance. Consequently, the school administrators were not informed about what was discussed during interviews confidential if they wanted to avoid any negative consequences. While my study does not pose any threats to the cases of misinterpretationteachers’ reputations or employment, they could still face some psychological pressure, gossip, envy or unwanted, provocative questions from colleagues, being few examples. As a researcher, I have the responsibility to report all my findings, positive and negative, honestly and objectively (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2014). To alleviate accomplish this, I did not plagiarise or added any of my thoughts or opinions to the findings section. I was impartial throughout my study, did not disclose any information to anyone I knew, asking for their advice for example, and not build any personal relations with the participants’ stress as a researcher I mentioned that all collected data was used only to research the issue of assessment practices, and all the views were reported anonymously in the thesis or any subsequent research publications. The research did not collect personal sensitive information, although it aimed to gather teachers’ assessment practices’ challenges and changes. In a case of the research publication I will not use any personal information for any purposes that will make it possible to identify the participants. Regarding research instruments, both individual semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in a quiet place without disrupting environment. I tried to arrange comfortable time for the participants in order not to effect negative their work. The focus group discussion participants were reminded about the risks of following full confidentiality because of the group setting. MoreoverBesides, the participants had a the right not and freedom to answer some of withdraw from the study or from the interview questions, if they considered them to be biased or prejudiced. In addition, the participants might quit the research at any time if they had decided to stop their participation without providing reasonsgiving a reason and it would not have any negative consequences for them. Another risk was distraction caused due to my presence They could also skip answering the questions that made them feel uncomfortable. Upon having analysed the data and written about the results, in accordance with the classroom during lesson observationsNU policy and international academic rules, but it was kept to I must retain the collected soft and hard data for a minimum by being a non-participant observer and sitting quietly at the backof three years. The recordings In case of interviews were transcribed only by me. The consent forms were available for the participants who agreed to take part in the present research. Study-specific benefits and risks were articulated through the informed consent process and in the consent form. Another potential risk was associated with identifying of the research site. To diminish this riskan official inspection, the researcher did not mention the original name of the school where the research was conducting by figuring out the research site as “one NIS school”. Since there are 21 NIS schools, the research site and sampling were not defined. There were also some potential benefits of this research. Firstly, the results of the research tend to support the newly hired teachers in adopting assessment practices applied in NIS. Then, the participants started to reflect on how to develop and improve their own assessment practices after being hired to work in NIS. Finally, their participation brought the participants experience due to which they could make some positive changes of their own assessment practicesdata should be readily available.

Ethical Considerations. This section will describe As both the process with regard to researcher and the following Headteacher of the ethical considerations within this research. The rules of confidentiality and adherence to anonymity of all the information the participants present or produce were followed in accordance with ethical conformance. The names of participants stayed anonymous. Moreoverschool, the obtained data was not available to school administrators in order not be used in any school evaluation one of the participants’ performance. Consequently, the school administrators were not informed about what first ethical issues I considered was discussed during interviews to avoid the cases of misinterpretation. To alleviate with the participants’ stress as a researcher I mentioned that all collected data was used only to research the issue of assessment practices, and all the views were reported anonymously in the thesis or any subsequent research publications. The research did not collect personal sensitive information, although it aimed to gather teachers’ assessment practices’ challenges and changes. In a case of the research publication I will not use any personal information for any purposes that will make it possible to identify the participants. Regarding research instruments, both individual semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in a quiet place without disrupting environment. I tried to arrange comfortable time for the participants in order not to effect negative their work. The focus group discussion participants were reminded about the risks of following full confidentiality because of the group setting. Moreover, the participants had a right not to answer some of the interview questions, if they considered them to be biased or prejudiced. In addition, the participants might quit the research at any time if they had decided to stop their participation without providing reasons. Another risk was distraction caused due to my presence in the classroom during lesson observations, but it was kept to the minimum by being a non-participant observer and sitting quietly at the back. The recordings of interviews were transcribed only by me. The consent forms were available for the participants who agreed could have felt under pressure to take part in the present interviews and/or to answer questions in a particular way, i.e. to say the ‘right’ things to the person at the top of the hierarchy. A lot of care was therefore exercised to ensure that participants were recruited in a manner that was as pressure-free as possible. I avoided approaching pupils directly and, instead, used posters to attract potential interviewees together with signposting from a member of staff who saw more of the pupils on a daily basis (Sixth Form Learning Mentor) and was, therefore, less likely to be seen as a powerful and potentially oppressive individual. All the pupil participants were in either Year 12 or Year 13. These older learners were, I thought, more likely to feel comfortable discussing their education and would generally have had a longer period in the school, thus furnishing them with more experiences on which to draw. Every effort was made to put both the pupil and the teacher participants at their ease during the interviews and I made sure that I did not ask any questions that could have potentially made them vulnerable to exposure regarding possible shortcomings, either personal or, in the case of the teachers, something in their professional practice. The teachers who took part in the study were all established members of staff and with whom I had had previous, informal discussions about personalisation, differentiation and intervention. No participants asked to withdraw or to have their data withdrawn and every effort was made to allow plenty of time for the interviews and for them to be carried out in a relaxing and pleasant environment. Anonymity was assured by assigning all pupils a pseudonym, taking care not to use any actual names of girls currently on role in Years 12 and 13. Teachers are referred to by fictional sets of initials, with care taken not to use any combinations that identified actual staff members working at Kite Hill at the time of the research. StudyAll participants were given an information sheet and asked to sign a consent form (see appendices 4 and 5). The interviews took place during the normal school day so as not to impact negatively on the work-specific benefits life balance of the participants. My Headteacher’s office was used, which although to an outsider might seem like a place of some potential discomfort, is a large and risks pleasant space, with plants and comfortable chairs. It is in a quiet part of the school, which minimised any potential for interruptions. The interviews took between 12 and 35 minutes, the end of each one occurring naturally with the asking of the final question and followed by any subsequent discussion. I regularly asked participants if they could give examples of the instances they described so as to try and build a richer data set. As a Headteacher who has always taught, and takes great pride in doing so, the teachers and some of the pupils know me not just as the leader of ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, but as a teacher of French, too. Copies of my King’s Institution Focussed Study have been freely available to all teachers and, over the 7 years of my Headship at Kite Hill, I have had many discussions with colleagues about the impact of government directives, some of which seem to be about making improvements to pupils’ education, but which can often have unintended and unwelcome consequences. All these things, I believe, helped the interviewees to open up and talk about the things that were articulated important to them. My belief was that the participants and I would, through the informed consent process asking and answering of questions, construct new insights into learning and teaching. We would be ‘co-constructors of knowledge’ (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇, 2015: 22) and, having undertaken my King’s Institution Focussed Study at Kite Hill, I was confident that both teachers and pupils appreciated my genuine desire to improve the school and that, by their involvement in this new piece of research, they would be helping me to accomplish this. As noted by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Our respect for our research participants pervades how we collect data and shapes the content of our data. We demonstrate our respect by making concerted efforts to learn about their views and actions and to try to understand their lives from their perspectives. (Charmaz, 2006: 19) Over the forthcoming chapters I will be looking at the context in which personalised learning sits, both in terms of the policies from which it emanates and the way in which it plays out at Kite Hill. I will examine some of the pressures and challenges in English schools, looking in particular at how teachers try to implement government initiatives that seek to align more closely what is taught, and how it is taught with pre-determined pupil needs and externally set pupil targets. Towards the middle of the thesis we will look at how pupils feel about their learning, especially in terms of lessons where worksheets and questions at different levels are used. The often hidden effects of institutionalised help and intervention are then explored along with the impact of an increasingly performative school experience on the self-image of the learners. Given that personalised learning and differentiation are currently seen by OFSTED and the DFE as part and parcel of good teaching, an examination of the difficulties of defining this concept is offered. We will also learn about the efforts of pupils to retain some control and power over their own learning. A summary of this qualitative study constitutes the final chapter together with some ideas about changes that might be made in schools by way of lessons learnt. It seems reasonable to claim that, for any service to be truly personalised, the assumption would be that the better the needs of the user are understood, the better the service can be shaped around the individual. In this chapter we will look at how teachers try to understand and respond to their pupils’ needs. We will also look at how ‘pupil need’ is a contested concept with competing definitions jostling for supremacy and at some of the contestations around pupil grouping and labelling practices, before turning to the specific case of pupils identified as having special educational needs. Here we will consider in particular some of the ▇▇▇▇▇ associated with well-intentioned attempts to categorise and meet the needs of learners identified as belonging to this cohort. For perhaps any human being, the idea of having one’s needs met is an attractive prospect. ‘Need’, however, is not so easily defined, especially in something as complex as a human being where needs can range from a very small addition to the status quo (a cup of tea, for example, at the end of a long and tiring day) to something which could mean the difference between life and death, e.g. a heart transplant. This vast range of potential human need can be, perhaps, better understood by the explanations of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1943) who developed his theory of human motivation by suggesting that there were five types of need ranging from the ‘physiological’ to ‘self- actualization’, that is from basic physical need such as that of hunger to the need to live a rewarding and fulfilled life. He also argued that, ‘Man is a perpetually wanting animal’ (Maslow, 1943: 370). This infers, perhaps, that needs are continuous and difficult to satisfy. New parents know that as soon as their child is born, nearly all their time becomes focussed on meeting the baby’s needs. Much time is devoted in schools too in considering how pupils’ needs can be best met, from the most basic (what, for example, should be served in the consent formcanteen) to the higher level needs such as how to help pupils fulfill their potential. Another potential risk Recently published OFSTED reports make extensive reference to how schools appear either to be meeting, or not meeting, the needs of their pupils. Excerpts from reports, such as those below, make it clear that the visiting inspectors will expect to see evidence of this. The school about which the following statement was associated with identifying made is seen as doing a good job of meeting at least some of its pupils’ needs. The inspectors reported that: Students who are identified for further reading support follow clear, well-planned reading programmes. These successfully raise their reading ages and meet their literacy needs.(North Liverpool Academy, OFSTED inspection, 28-29 April 2015) The next statement, however, illustrates an example of the research sitekind of criticism likely to be levelled at a school that does not seem to be meeting its pupils’ needs. To diminish this riskWork given to students does not always match their needs. This is often the case for the more able who do not have enough opportunities to think differently about problems, or have more time to explore a wide range of solutions for themselves. For example, in mathematics, more able students are often asked to move through the same work as other students, but faster, in order to gain access to questions they could usefully have begun with. (Bexhill High Academy, Ofsted inspection 29-30 April 2015) In spite of the positive comments made about the first school, both North Liverpool Academy and Bexhill High Academy are, according to their April 2015 OFSTED reports, ‘Requiring Improvement’. Clearly, even the apparent successful meeting of some pupils’ needs is insufficient to bring about a judgment of ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’. However, the researcher issue that is perhaps of greater concern is the idea that pupils’ needs can be so quickly identified and quantified by an external observer who may only be present in a lesson for as short a period as twenty minutes. How exactly the visiting inspectors can be so confident in diagnosing pupils’ needs and then ascertaining how well a school is meeting, or not meeting them is clearly a matter for some debate. Looking once again at the comments about the pupils at North Liverpool Academy whose literacy needs, states the inspection report, are being met, therein also lies the question as to what, exactly, a ‘literacy need’ is. Such a need could, conceivably, be to appreciate the colourful stories of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ or take part in the acting out of a Shakespeare play, but in the extract from the OFSTED report, it would seem that the inspectors are confident that the pupils’ literacy needs have been met given that the approach taken by the school has brought about a rise in the learners’ reading ages. A higher score, therefore, on an artificially constructed scale, becomes a proxy for a need being met. With little or no conversation with the pupils or their teachers, the inspector has decided that in the case of learners who are receiving support for their reading, their need is to get a higher score on this scale. The reduction of need into an assumed deficit is an example of how the rich, exciting, chaotic and thrilling thing that is education, can be surgically reduced into an activity which seeks primarily to move the participants (i.e. the pupils) from one point on a scale to a higher one. It is also an example of what I have come to refer to as the practice of ‘edumetrics’, i.e. the measuring of education as if it were a type of industrial production system (See Ceska, 2013). For Bexhill High, it was deemed by the OFSTED team that some of their pupils’ needs were not being met, especially those that the inspectors believed to be ‘more able’. Once this label had been attached to a group of pupils, their needs were thought to centre on the completion of more difficult work. Again, quite probably without any sort of consultation with the pupils or teachers, the inspectors decided that the needs of the ‘more able’ learners were to do more complicated work straight away, without working through the less demanding activities, that other pupils, presumably those the inspectors did not mention think to be so able, were doing. An alternative explanation as to why the original name pupils deemed to be more able were doing easier tasks first, could have been that the teacher knew they lacked confidence in this particular topic and felt that they would therefore benefit from starting with something not so challenging. In this scenario, however, it would seem that the professional judgment of the school where teacher in terms of deciding how her pupils’ needs should be met, was disregarded by the research was conducting by figuring out OFSTED inspector who arrived, instead, at the research site as “one NIS school”possibly over-▇▇▇▇▇ conclusion that able pupils should be doing more difficult work right from the start of the lesson. Since there are 21 NIS schoolsFor pupils in both North Liverpool Academy and Bexhill High, the research site pronouncement on their educational needs was, for the OFSTED inspectors, a straightforward process. It also appeared that once the inspectors had decided upon the needs of particular groups of pupils, it was another relatively simple thing for them to observe how their teachers were either succeeding in, or failing to meet those needs, whether of a literacy or mathematical variety. The knowledge of the inspectors, therefore, becomes the dominant player in decisions about what should be happening in the classroom with the teachers’ knowledge sidelined or ignored. Whether or not teachers can lay claim to a distinct body of knowledge is a contested issue and sampling were not defined. There were also some potential benefits linked, at least in part, to the issue of this research. Firstlyteacher competence, the results improvement of which has long been on the policy makers’ radar. Short (1985) makes the point that competence is difficult to define and is particularly problematic in the case of teachers who lack the security of a durable definition of what exactly ‘good’ teaching is. What can be established, however, is that in high stakes inspections, the inspectors are positioned as having a type of knowledge superior to that of the research tend classroom teachers. Exactly what knowledge teachers do possess has been subject to support some considerable debate together with the newly hired teachers in adopting assessment practices applied in NIS. Then, the participants started to reflect on how to develop and improve their own assessment practices after being hired to work in NIS. Finally, their participation brought the participants experience due degree to which they could make some positive changes should be in control of their own assessment practices.work (Winch 2004). In the case of teachers subjected to high levels of surveillance, through, for example, the implementation of rigid inspection regimes, it appears that both their knowledge and their pedagogical techniques, i.e. the decisions about what should be happening in their classrooms, are deemed to be of little importance in that they can so easily be overruled by the inspectors. The current OFSTED framework makes it clear that, in order for a school to secure a good or better judgment, all groups of pupils must be seen to be making expected, or better than expected, progress. Before arriving at a school, the team of inspectors will have had the opportunity to peruse what is known as the ‘RAISEonline’ documents containing highly detailed information about the performance, in the most recent GCSE examinations, of different groups of pupils, e.g. those deemed to have low prior attainment, those of middle ability and those who are ‘most able’. Also, there will be information about pupils who have a Special Educational Need, those who have English as a Second Language and those for whom the school receives the Pupil Premium, money ring-fenced in the budget to be spent on closing the gap between the achievement of socio-economically disadvantaged pupils (those who receive Free School Meals or have received them in the last six years, those who are in the care of the Local Authority or who have been adopted and those who have been Service Children in the last five years) and non-disadvantaged pupils. For a teacher in a classroom, this retrospective measuring of the performance of different groups of pupils means that in addition to considering the needs of the pupils that she/he has come to understand using her/his own professional judgment, thought must also be given to considering whether, during the course of the lessons, explanations, questioning, tasks and activities will be sufficiently visibly measurable by a potential observer in terms of how effective they are in meeting the needs of the different, official RAISEonline pupil groups, of which there could be as many as six. However, in every class, there will be children who are not members of any of the RAISEonline groups but who might, nonetheless, have particular needs. There could, for example, be learners who need lots of reassurance because of a lack of confidence. There will also be those whose over-exuberance needs calming down o

Ethical Considerations. This section will describe ▇▇▇▇▇ observes that ‘Qualitative researchers are guests in the process with regard to the following private spaces of the ethical considerations within this researchworld. The rules Their manners should be good and their code of confidentiality and adherence to anonymity of all the information the participants present or produce were followed in accordance with ethical conformance. The names of participants stayed anonymous. Moreoverethics strict’ (Stake, the obtained data was not available to school administrators in order not be used in any school evaluation of the participants’ performance. Consequently2003, the school administrators were not informed about what was discussed during interviews to avoid the cases of misinterpretation. To alleviate with the participants’ stress as a researcher I mentioned that all collected data was used only to research the issue of assessment practices, and all the views were reported anonymously in the thesis or any subsequent research publications. The research did not collect personal sensitive information, although it aimed to gather teachers’ assessment practices’ challenges and changes. In a case of the research publication I will not use any personal information for any purposes that will make it possible to identify the participants. Regarding research instruments, both individual semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in a quiet place without disrupting environment. I tried to arrange comfortable time for the participants in order not to effect negative their work. The focus group discussion participants were reminded about the risks of following full confidentiality because of the group setting. Moreover, the participants had a right not to answer some of the interview questions, if they considered them to be biased or prejudicedp.154). In addition, he also stresses the participants might quit need to maintain active dialogue with the participants, and to ‘listen well for signs of concern’ (ibid.) My responsibility as an empathic and engaged researcher was not lost on me and I exercised great care to conduct myself accordingly throughout the process. In obtaining access to each school, I approached the head teacher’s personal assistant in every case. I was then often directed immediately towards the Head of MFL, except in Leafy, where the Head Teacher had a particular interest in MFL. I made initial contact by email and this was then always followed up by a brief meeting and presentation of my research focus with the Head of MFL, offering them the opportunity to ask any questions that they needed to in order to make their decisions about whether they wanted to engage with my research by allowing me to observe their lessons. In making sure that I was diligently adhering to guidelines on research ethics in interviewing young people, which are set out by ESOMAR (2002), I was careful to seek explicit consent to conduct the focus group interviews with selected students. A sample consent form can be seen in Appendix 2. I sought advice from King’s College Ethics Committee and obtained the relevant approval for conducting my research. The approval letter can be found in Appendix 1 of this study. I worked hard to follow ▇▇▇▇ (British Educational Research Association) guidance (2018) at any time if they had decided to stop their participation without providing reasonsevery stage of my study. Another risk was distraction caused due to For my presence in the classroom during lesson observations, but which were also audio-recorded, parents of all students were notified of the intention to observe and record, their being asked to raise any objections with the Head of MFL, which we could then together address. Consent was also sought from the students, and the process was again fully explained to all participants. No objections were raised by the participants. For the staff interviews, explicit consent was obtained. At the beginning of every focus group and interview, I reminded the participants of their rights relating to the data and its use, and I made due note of this reminder on the recording itself for additional ethical rigour. Mindful of the power imbalance between myself as adult researcher and my participants as children (▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2000), I worked hard to reassure the young people that I was not seeking any particular opinion or answer and that all their contributions were valid. Pseudonyms have been used in transcription. There are certain conventions in terms of turn-taking when it comes to interviews, and these were likely to be expected by participants. These conventions inevitably play into power dynamics between researcher/interviewer and those being interviewed, and the reinforcement of these roles within the questioning, as ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2003) observes concerning the creation of asymmetry by the question and response sequence. I took care therefore to avoid taking the lead all the time, and to allow the information to flow as freely as possible. There were, pleasingly, times at which the children created their own discussion and effectively interviewed one another. I was also mindful of the order in which I asked some of the prompt questions, for example, some of those requiring more reflection, were saved until the children were growing more comfortable in the interview setting. This was done with ▇▇▇▇▇▇’ (1986) observation in mind, that the stage at which questions are asked can affect the data generated. When interviewing children and young people, there are often concerns about the validity of their contributions (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1987). I am of the view that there are many possible versions and interpretations of any contextual moment, and I believe that the constant comparative method offered by grounded theory facilitates researcher reflexivity across the data sets, with this method involving checking and comparing, being ultimately an exercise in validation it itself. In a similar vein, in order to remain faithful to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s (1996) focus on not assuming a shared definition of language, I often sought clarification. In this process, I also took great care with the language that I used (▇▇▇▇▇, 1994). It was also important to me to exercise caution with my body language and facial expression. I warned the participants in advance that I might take notes – as this is also important in grounded theory methods –, whilst also informing them that this was not any evaluation of their contributions; it was kept for my own benefit. I wanted to maintain an attentive and interested approach, while also ensuring the minimum by being a non-participant observer and sitting quietly at the backrichness of my data. The recordings of interviews All research participants were transcribed only by me. The consent forms were available for the participants who agreed to take part anonymised in the present research. Study-specific benefits and risks study, as were articulated through the informed consent process and in the consent form. Another potential risk was associated with identifying of the research site. To diminish this risk, the researcher did not mention the original name of the school where the research was conducting by figuring out the research site as “one NIS school”. Since there are 21 NIS schools, the research site and sampling were not defined. There were also some potential benefits of this research. Firstly, the results of the research tend to support the newly hired teachers in adopting assessment practices applied in NIS. Then, the participants started to reflect on how to develop and improve their own assessment practices after being hired to work in NIS. Finally, their participation brought the participants experience due to which they could make some positive changes of their own assessment practicesschools themselves.

Ethical Considerations. This section will describe the process with regard to the following The goal of the ethical considerations within this researchstudy and the participants' rights throughout the procedure was explained to them before the interviews start. The rules of confidentiality and adherence to Since participants' identities were known before they arrive for the interview or join an online interview, complete anonymity of all participants' identities cannot be entirely ensured in the information the participants present or produce were followed in accordance with ethical conformancecurrent study. The names of participants stayed anonymous. MoreoverYet, the obtained data gathered during the procedure was not available to school administrators only communicated with the thesis supervisor in order to maintain confidentiality. Additionally, all participants were given the assurance that their identities and their schools’ names would not be used in any school evaluation of the participants’ performance. Consequently, the school administrators were not informed about what was discussed during interviews to avoid the cases of misinterpretation. To alleviate with the participants’ stress as a researcher I mentioned that all collected data was used only to research the issue of assessment practices, and all the views were reported anonymously appear in the thesis or any subsequent since they would be replaced with pseudonyms and numbers. Also, participants were allowed to not write their names during Zoom interviews and turn off their cameras if they felt uncomfortable with having names written and cameras on. All information collected and interview protocols were stored on the researcher's own, password-protected laptop, which was only accessible to the researcher and the research publicationssupervisor. The research did not collect personal sensitive information, although it aimed to gather teachers’ assessment practices’ challenges and changes. In a case paper copies of the protocols and notes were kept at the researcher's workplace in a secured cabinet. The study is considered to be no more than minimal risk. Subsequent actions were taken to further reduce the risks. Even though principals know who the participants were, they were not given any information about the exact time when the interview was going to be conducted, and what the responses of the interviewees were. Thus, any information connected with the research publication I will was not use any personal information for any purposes that will make it possible to identify shared with the principals of the selected schools, nor with other participants. Regarding research instruments, Considering that the researcher was acquainted with both individual semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in a quiet place without disrupting environment. I tried to arrange comfortable time for the participants in order not to effect negative their work. The focus group discussion participants were reminded about and the risks of following full confidentiality because of the group setting. Moreoverprincipals, the participants had there was also a right not to answer some of the interview questions, if they considered them to be biased or prejudiced. In addition, chance that the participants might quit feel uncomfortable and worry that the research at any time if they had decided to stop their participation without providing reasonsdata may somehow be revealed. Another risk was distraction caused due to my presence in the classroom during lesson observations, but it was kept to the minimum by being a non-participant observer and sitting quietly at the back. The recordings of interviews were transcribed only by me. The consent forms were available for the participants who agreed to take part in the present research. Study-specific benefits and risks were articulated through the informed consent process and in the consent form. Another potential risk was associated with identifying of the research site. To diminish In this risksituation, the researcher did not mention reassured the original name of the school where respondents that the research was conducting by figuring out the research site as “one NIS school”confidential to earn their faith. Since there are 21 NIS schoolsAdditionally, the research site and sampling were not defined. There were also some potential benefits interviewees might have negative emotions as a result of this research. Firstlyrecalling difficult experiences; as a result, the researcher had to monitor for the participant's emotions to become more sensitive during the procedure. The results of the research tend to support the newly hired teachers in adopting assessment practices applied in NIS. Then, presented might be useful for the participants started as it might help them to reflect understand experiences of working with high school students in terms of challenges and ways of resolving them and provide some advice on how to develop and improve their own assessment practices after being hired to organize career guidance work in NIStheir school. Finally, The school administration and the Head of the Psychology Department might find it useful for promoting effective career guidance in their participation brought the participants experience due school and department. It may also give clues to which they could make some positive changes of education stakeholders on how to create and promote career guidance programs among school psychologists and raise their own assessment practicesawareness on how to assist students with this highly essential problem.