Research School Network: Evidence Into Action How John Taylor MAT Schools use Mechanisms to Shape CPD (Part 2)

In Part 2 of this series from John Taylor Multi-Academy Trust, colleagues from John Taylor High School, The John Taylor SCITT and Kingsmead School share how different Professional Development mechanisms have supported the development of teaching techniques, instructional coaching, rehearsal, feedback and collaborative practice. 

Their reflections continue to highlight how evidence-informed professional development can be carefully adapted to different contexts whilst maintaining a consistent focus on sustained improvement.

You can read Part 1 here.

PD mechanisms prioritised:

6. Instructing teachers on how to perform a technique.

8. Modelling the technique.

Over time, we have maintained a sustained focus on Think, Pair, Share. Initially, the emphasis was on establishing the routines needed for learners to engage effectively in the process. Quality assurance evidence showed that these routines were embedded and that students were participating well; however, for some staff, Think, Pair, Share was still being viewed primarily as an activity, rather than as a purposeful strategy for assessing understanding and structuring high-quality classroom talk.

Through a structured twilight session, we shared credible evidence and research on how Think, Pair, Share can be used to develop oracy and support vulnerable learners, particularly disadvantaged students. Creating opportunities for students to think hard and deeply is vital for all learners and, within our context, is especially important for high prior attaining disadvantaged students who require consistent stretch and challenge. Equally, it is important to give careful consideration and explicit planning to seating arrangements and allocated partner (for example).

We then used the findings from QA learning walks and student voice to support staff in moving practice towards thinking hard, assessing understanding and structuring talk. Three workshops were offered. We saw PD mechanism 6 in action across all three workshops with specific instruction being provided to staff on how to take T‑P-S from a routine ​‘activity’ to a tool to check for understanding. Two of the sessions utilised mechanism 8, where facilitators used unfamiliar domains to engage staff actively in the T‑P-S
process. One session focused on using mini-whiteboards and the other session focused on explicitly planning for sentence stems to be used to promote structure talk. Staff were given the opportunity to rehearse the T‑P-S in pairs or 3s and the session facilitator modelled the role of the teacher in generating feedback and moving learning forward.

PD mechanisms prioritised:

7. Arranging social support 

10. Rehearsing the technique

Within Intensive Training and Practice (ITaP) weeks, careful consideration of PD mechanisms played a key role in developing the knowledge, understanding and professional behaviours of Initial Teacher Trainees. The two mechanisms above were emphasised in ITaP design and delivery.

Previously, trainees were experiencing high-quality modelling, strong mentor support and plenty of school-based experience, but we recognised an opportunity to sharpen and strengthen the way teaching techniques were developed so that structures and sequencing were as tight and consistent as they could be. In particular, the step-by-step journey from seeing a technique, to breaking it down, practising it deliberately, and refining it through feedback wasn’t always as explicit as it perhaps could have been.

ITaPs gave us the chance to refine that process. They enabled us to design a more deliberate cycle where trainees are explicitly taught how to deliver a technique, see it modelled by expert practitioners, observe it live in classrooms, discuss and analyse it in depth, and then rehearse the technique multiple times before applying it independently in their own teaching.

The biggest shift has been making sure that practice and rehearsal aren’t accidental or occasional, but a planned and central part of the training experience. Knowledge isn’t enough to change a behaviour or develop better practice. That, combined with clearer modelling and more focused feedback, has helped trainees build confidence and fluency more quickly.

A lot of the success of ITaPs has come down to making it work in a real school system, not just designing something that looks good on paper or delivered in an out-of-context PD session. We carefully designed ITaPs to create the time and space needed for deliberate practice. Each ITaP had a narrow focused on a specific teaching technique, allowing time for modelling, rehearsal and reflection rather than trying to cover too much at once.

To make the approach sustainable, we increased the interconnectedness of training inputs and built repetition and accumulation into the SCITT programme even more. A major part of making it stick was developing the expertise of SPTs (Subject Pedagogy Tutors) and mentors so that everyone used a consistent language and approach to modelling, feedback and coaching across both centre-based and school-based training. Key techniques were revisited through mentor meetings, lesson observations and feedback conversations, reinforcing learning over time rather than continually introducing new ideas.

Crucially, trainees were given meaningful opportunities to rehearse techniques collaboratively (rather than just talk about them), with peer support playing an important role in building confidence and consistency. We also embedded spaced practice through Teach Meets and follow-up sessions, ensuring ITaPs were not isolated islands in the programme and were integrated as part of an ongoing cycle of development.

PD mechanisms prioritised:

6. Instructing teachers on how to perform a technique
9. Monitoring and providing feedback
10. Rehearsing the technique

We have particularly focused on the mechanism of​‘Developing teaching techniques’ to secure improvements in formative assessment and adaptive teaching across the school. We designed a range of internally delivered CPD sessions focused on instructing teachers how to perform techniques (C6). For example, in our Adaptive Teaching Primer, we introduced staff to Craig Barton’s responsive teaching model, guiding teachers through three clear stages: gathering evidence, diagnosing understanding, and responding proportionately. Multiple video exemplars were used to model formative assessment strategies and demonstrate how teachers can adapt responsively within lessons.

When monitoring the quality of teaching, we also focused on providing personalised and credible sources of feedback tailored to teachers’ individual needs (C9). For some staff, this involved instructional coaching cycles that provided precise, actionable feedback linked to specific aspects of classroom practice. Coaches used modelling, rehearsal, and reflective dialogue to help teachers refine techniques incrementally, ensuring feedback was manageable, responsive, and embedded over time.

We also wanted our ECT+1 teachers to rehearse and embed techniques
introduced through CPD (C10). To support this, we established a collaborative triad model involving one expert teacher and two ECT+1 teachers. Through cycles of observation, reflection, and discussion, the triad explored formative assessment and adaptive teaching strategies within a supportive, non-judgemental environment. The ECT+1s then trialled these approaches in their own classrooms before reflecting collaboratively on their impact. To further promote professional ownership and collaboration, the triad created a podcast to share reflections and learning with colleagues across the school. This helped celebrate professional learning and reinforced the idea that effective CPD is collaborative, reflective, and sustained.

Our aim was to reduce variance across the school in two areas: formative assessment and adaptive teaching. Lesson observations showed that whole-class checks for understanding were not always secure, and participation during questioning was often uneven, with small groups of pupils dominating responses. In some cases, over-scaffolding limited opportunities for independent thinking, reflection, and ownership of learning. Although some adaptation was evident, it was not always systematic or sufficiently informed by assessment. Additionally, gaps in assessment at key transition points meant that learning occasionally moved on before all pupils were ready, resulting in patchy understanding and misconceptions becoming embedded.

Following each cycle of QA, we continually refined and adapted our approach to CPD in response to identified needs. During Autumn 1 and 2, our focus centred on TS6 before shifting to TS5 in Spring 1, allowing us to maintain a clear and manageable improvement focus over time. We used expert teachers to deliver targeted CPD sessions and model leading practice. Through our Teaching & Learning Innovation Team (TALIT) programme, classroom doors were opened for two-week periods to enable staff to observe formative assessment and adaptive teaching strategies in live classroom contexts. This helped normalise collaboration and provided regular opportunities for rehearsal, reflection, and professional dialogue.

To reduce workload and increase flexibility, we also introduced our ​‘Carousel’ programme. This enabled staff to engage with some CPD independently whilst also participating in collaborative sessions where teachers worked together to discuss, rehearse, and refine approaches.

In Summer 1, we narrowed our focus and moved towards department-based support so that teachers can collaborate more in subject-specific contexts and receive more tailored support linked to curriculum and pedagogy.

With a focus currently on TS5 and quality of feedback, we are trying to ensure teachers are getting a clear and consistent message to reduce variation in the quality of feedback.

• How effectively are expert modelling and collaborative professional learning being used to develop teaching practice in your context
• How do you maintain a sustained focus on improvement priorities without overwhelming staff with too many initiatives?