Future direction of TMSJN

Notes from the open meeting

Thirteen members attended the open meeting to discuss the future direction of the network which was held on 5^th July. In breakout groups, we discussed the results of the members’ survey (see summary below) before sharing ideas and considering actions for moving forward.

Suggestions from the groups included:

• Continuing with events and formats that have already proved successful, e.g. reading groups (with format involving authors) and sharing practice.
• Organizing face-to-face events where possible (on a regional basis) whilst continuing with regular online meetings.
• Providing more support and guidance to those working in schools on what existing resources are available and how they might be used.
• Identifying what additional resources might be useful and supporting practitioners in developing their own ideas.
• Strengthening relationships within existing members of the network rather than looking to expand in size.
• Focusing on small activities that a wide range of members can get involved in.
• Building stronger links between researchers/teacher educators and teachers/practitioners in schools.
• Supporting colleagues in early years/primary phases, particularly with developing subject knowledge and guidance for working within prescriptive schemes of work.
• Establishing smaller subgroups within the network that would meet separately and/or focus on different activities.
• Identifying members of the new Advisory Group to take on the organisation/facilitation of these subgroups.

We have therefore decided to establish the following TMSJN subgroups to take the network’s work forward beyond September 2023:

• WhatsApp Group (continuation of existing group)
• Reading Group (based on format of previous reading group meetings)
• Teaching Resources Group (for developing new resources and/or providing guidance on existing resources)
• Early Years and Primary Practitioners Group (might split into two groups if there is enough demand).
• Research Group (for facilitating links between researchers/practitioners and research collaborations).
• Regional groups for organising face-to-face events on sharing practice (leave it to members to suggest appropriate geographical areas).

Summary of the members’ survey

Here is a summary of the 25 responses to each question from the members’ survey on the future direction of the network …

Tell us about yourself. Which of these best describe your educational role/interests (tick all that apply)?

A majority of respondents identified themselves as a ‘teacher’ (15), followed closely by ‘researcher’ (10), ‘teacher educator’ (9), ‘academic’ (8), ‘Masters/Doctoral student’ (6). There were 10 ‘secondary’ phase practitioners, compared with 2 ‘early years’ and 2 ‘primary’ practitioners.

A) Rank each of the following aims according to how high a priority you think they should be for the TMSJN …

The three aims that respondents thought should be given the highest priority were ‘Contribute towards the development of classroom practice’ (92% ranked this as high or very high priority), ‘Expose processes that lead to the marginalisation of some learners’ (92%), and ‘Challenge common myths surrounding school mathematics’ (88%). This compared with ‘Build relationships and mutual support between members’ (60%) and ‘Encourage new members to join the network’ (56%). The aim with the lowest priority was ‘Ally our work with other groups or organisations’ (28%).

Are there any other aims that you think should be a priority for the TMSJN?

Themes that were evident in the responses to this question included developing resources to support TMSJ and facilitating research in this area.

B) Rank how well you think the TMSJN currently achieves each of these aims …

The aims which respondents thought the network ‘achieves well’ were similar to those that they thought were highest priority (although the rankings were generally lower). In the same order as above: ‘Contribute towards the development of classroom practice’ (56% ranked this as achieves well or very well), ‘Expose processes that lead to the marginalisation of some learners’ (60%), and ‘Challenge common myths surrounding school mathematics’ (44%), ‘Build relationships and mutual support between members’ (44%), ‘Encourage new members to join the network’ (32%), ‘Ally our work with other groups or organisations’ (12%).

For the aims you think are achieved well in part B (ranked 4 or 5), why do you think this is the case?

Themes that were evident in the responses included the mutual support provided by the network, opportunities to share practice, resources produced and organisation of reading groups.

For the aims you think are not achieved well in part B (ranked 1 or 2), why do you think this is the case?

Responses highlighted difficulties in networking through online meetings and tendency to focus more on secondary, rather than primary/early years, phases.

C) Rank each of the following activities according to how important you feel they are for achieving the TMSJN’s aims …

The activities that respondents thought were most important for achieving the TMSJN’s aims were ‘Facilitating collaborative research into classroom practice’ (88% ranked this as important or very important), ‘Developing and sharing good quality teaching resources’ (84%), ‘Organising events focusing on sharing good practice amongst members’ (80%), and ‘Organising events aiming to share good practice beyond the network (80%). ‘ Holding reading group meetings where members engage with research literature’ (72%) and ‘Disseminating ideas through social media’ (64%) were considered less important.

For the activities you think are important in part C (ranked 4 or 5), why do you think this is the case?

Themes that were evident in the responses included highlighting the benefits of sharing practice, networking, providing resources, promoting self-reflection and feedback.

For the activities you think are not important in part C (ranked 1 or 2), why do you think this is the case?

Responses highlighted how it was considered more important to build knowledge within the network than to disseminate ideas to others.

Given the aims in part B, where do you think the TMSJN might do more?

Themes that were evident in the responses included facilitating research (lesson study or action research), organising face-to-face meetings, and catering more for practitioners in early years and primary phases.

D) Which of the following do you prefer:

44% of respondents preferred attending online events, 20% of respondents preferred attending face-to-face events and 36% of respondents were happy to attend either.

Please give reasons for your preferences in part D.

Responses highlighted the desirability of face-to-face meetings for facilitating spontaneous and informal discussions, whilst online meetings were more pragmatic, easier to attend and more accessible to a wider range of people.

Is there anything else you would like to feed back that is not covered above?

Responses were generally appreciative, highlighting the value of the network.