2023 Guide To Models of Collaborative Inquiry

NSW Department of Education
Guide to evidence-based models

of collaborative inquiry
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation
January 2023
The Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE) undertakes in-depth
analysis of education programs and outcomes across early childhood, school,
training, and higher education to inform whole‑of‑government, evidence-based
decision-making. Put simply, it seeks to find out what works best. Its focus is all
education in NSW. CESE’s main responsibilities within the department are:
• qualitative and quantitative research, including data analysis, evidence
papers and case studies that build understanding and uptake of
evidence‑based practice
• robust data collection to enable research and statistics for the education
and training sector
• evaluating key policies and programs to strengthen quality delivery and
student outcomes
• national engagement on research agenda and data strategy
• driving capability uplift in the use of data and evidence as part of
everyday practice
• trialling innovative initiatives to improve student outcomes.
Authors
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, January 2023, Sydney, NSW
Please cite this publication as:

CESE (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation) (2023) Guide to evidence-
based models of collaborative inquiry, NSW Department of Education.
For more information about this report, please contact:

Department of Education
GPO Box 33
Sydney NSW 2001
[email protected]
+61 2 7814 1527
education.nsw.gov.au/cese
Acknowledgements
CESE would like to thank and acknowledge the contribution to this paper made
by the Metropolitan North School Performance Directorate.
We acknowledge the homelands of all Aboriginal people and pay our respect to Country.
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2

About this resource
This resource identifies and outlines 5 models of collaborative inquiry from the literature
that can be used by schools to facilitate evidence-based practices of collaboration. The
contents of this guide are in alignment with the School Excellence Framework (SEF)
which identifies collaboration as the key to sustaining quality teaching practices.
How to use this resource

This resource can be used by directors, educational leadership (DELs), principals
and other school leaders to inform processes and practices for teacher inquiry and
collaboration. School leaders and teachers can use this resource as part of the School
Success Model processes, in combination with the School Excellence Cycle, What
works best 2020 update, and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. School
leaders can also use this resource to assist with their cycle of implementation, progress
monitoring and evaluation of school initiatives related to professional collaboration.
Alignment to system priorities and/or needs: NSW Department of Education Strategic Plan
2018-2023: ‘Every student is engaged and challenged to continue to learn, and every student,
every teacher, every leader and every school improves every year’
Alignment to School Excellence Framework: Learning domain – assessment, reporting,
student performance measures; Teaching domain – effective classroom practice,
professional standards, learning and development; Leading domain – school planning,
implementation and reporting
Alignment with other existing frameworks: What works best – use of data to inform
practice, collaboration
Reviewed by: Metropolitan North School Performance Directorate, Teaching Quality and
Impact, School Excellence
Created/last updated: Originally published January 2023

To be reviewed: CESE publications are prepared through a rigorous process. Resources are
reviewed periodically as part of an ongoing evaluation plan.
Contact
Email feedback about this resource to [email protected].
You can also subscribe to the CESE newsletter and connect with us on Yammer.
Table of contents
Introduction 6
Purpose of this resource 6
Using this resource as part of the School Success Model 7
The School Excellence cycle 7
What works best 8
Australian Professional Standards for Teachers 9
Common elements across the models 10
Instructional rounds 12
What is this model? 12
Why use this model? 12
What does the evidence say? 12
What are the actions involved with using this model? 13
What school factors act as enablers or barriers to implementation? 14
Quality Teaching Rounds 15
Data walls 18

Table of contents
Learning walks 21
Spirals of inquiry 24
Conclusion 27
References 28

Introduction
Collaboration is key to sharing successful and innovative evidence-informed practices
across the teaching profession. The What works best 2020 update identifies collaboration
as especially important for teachers in breaking down any potential ‘silo effects’ and
ensuring best practice is identiﬁed and shared across classrooms (CESE 2020). Teachers
should continually engage in professional collaboration that explicitly aims to improve
teacher practices and student outcomes. The School Excellence Framework (SEF) also
identifies collaboration as a key theme to sustain quality teaching practice. Collaboration
can be enacted through collaborative inquiry.
Collaborative inquiry is an embedded professional learning process in a school, where

continuous teacher inquiry is transformed into high-impact classroom practice (Sharratt
2019). It is an ongoing process where teachers and school leaders work together to:
• identify focus areas or questions
• collect, analyse and reflect on student data
• collaboratively adapt teaching practices to improve teaching quality
• review any impacts of applying actions from collaborative inquiry (Donohoo 2013;
Nelson and Slavit 2008; Sharratt 2019).
The Professional Learning Policy for Teachers and School Staff requires all staff to engage
in a cycle of continuous professional learning which reflects a collaborative inquiry
process and is informed by the High Impact Professional Learning (HIPL) model.
School leaders who would like to create or deepen a culture of collaborative inquiry
in their schools can be informed by the School Leadership Institute’s framework
on Leadership for Innovation and Inquiry. The framework is one of 3 Leadership
for Learning Frameworks that underpin all programs offered by the School
Leadership Institute.
Collaborative inquiry can be enabled through a range of different models. The

5 models of collaborative inquiry covered in this paper are:
• instructional rounds
• Quality Teaching Rounds
• data walls
• learning walks
• spirals of inquiry.
Purpose of this resource

The aim of this resource is to describe the evidence for these 5 models of collaborative
inquiry and the conditions under which they work best so that school leaders can
determine which model is most suitable for their context. The evidence was drawn from
a review of over 60 pieces of literature from both Australian and international contexts
published between 2008 and 2022. This resource also identifies common elements
across the 5 models of collaborative inquiry.
This resource supports the NSW Department of Education’s strategic goals and priority
areas, such as the goal that ‘every student, every teacher, every leader and every school
improves every year’. The guide is intended to be accessible to all NSW public schools
and enable opportunities for a guided approach in partnership with other department
staff such as principals, school leadership and directors, educational leadership.

Using this resource as part of the
School Success Model
This resource can be used as part of the School Success Model processes. Schools
can use this resource to inform continuous school improvement planning in
combination with the School Excellence Cycle, the What works best 2020 update
and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. The Effective improvement
measures and strategies page of the department’s website has further information
about continuous school improvement planning.
The School Excellence cycle

Schools can use this resource as
they move through the School
Excellence cycle. The School
Excellence cycle is underpinned by
the School Excellence Framework
(SEF) and supports all NSW public
schools in the pursuit of excellence.
‘Collaborative practice and
feedback’ is identified in the SEF
as a key theme within the learning
and development element of the
Teaching domain.
The resource can assist schools

to select and apply one or
more models of collaborative
inquiry to support the cycle
of implementation, progress
monitoring and evaluation of their
school initiatives, including during
annual reflection. For example,
information from collaborative
inquiry activities could be used
by schools to inform evaluative
thinking processes that are
part of school planning and
monitoring, such as the Question,
Data, Analysis, Implications
(QDAI) process.
Where models of collaborative inquiry are used to inform school planning and
monitoring, schools should follow principles and protocols for the collection, use
and reporting of data as part of the SEF. Following these principles and protocols
can help to ensure school and student achievement data is validly collected and
used appropriately so that schools can get the most from their data.
Use of this resource to identify and apply one or more models of collaborative
inquiry can also contribute to schools meeting the priorities of the School Success
Model, which may be informed by Premier’s Priorities.

Using this resource as part of the School Success Model
What works best
The What works best 2020 update outlines 8 quality teaching practices that are
known to support school improvement and enhance the learning outcomes of all
students. The 8 practices are a useful framework for teachers and school leaders to
consider when deciding how to address student improvement.
Collaboration is one of the 8 practices outlined in the What works best 2020
update. Collaboration allows best practice to be identified and shared across
classrooms. Effective collaboration explicitly aims to improve teacher practices and
student outcomes. This resource can be used to enact collaboration through use of
one or more models of collaborative inquiry.

Using this resource as part of the School Success Model
Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers identify focus areas that are
relevant to teacher collaboration and collaborative inquiry (Table 1). These focus
areas describe the need for teachers to support and work with their colleagues to
develop and/or implement:
• teaching strategies, teaching and learning programs, and classroom strategies
that address the learning needs of students
• student assessment data to evaluate and modify learning and teaching
programs, and identify interventions
• assessment moderation for consistent and comparable judgements of
student learning.
Table 1
Focus areas that are relevant to teacher collaboration and collaborative inquiry
Domain Standard Focus areas
1. Know students and how they learn 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
Professional knowledge
2. Know the content and how to teach it 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6
3. Plan for and implement effective teaching

3.2, 3.3, 3.6
and learning
4. Create and maintain supportive and safe

Professional practice 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5
learning environments
5. Assess, provide feedback and report on

5.1, 5.3, 5.4
student learning
6. Engage in professional learning 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4

Professional engagement
7. Engage professionally with colleagues, parents/carers
7.4
and the community
Source: Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership (AITSL).

Common elements across the models
Table 2 provides a snapshot of elements categorised by focus, requirements and
outcomes across the 5 models. These elements have been identified through
review of the available literature. An element is only indicated against a model
where this element has been explicitly identified in the literature. As such, there
may be elements that participatory experience or anecdotal evidence suggest are
part of a given model but, because these are not stated in the literature, they have
not been identified in this table.
Table 2
Focus, requirements and outcomes as identified in the reviewed literature
Quality
Aspect identified in Instructional Teaching Learning Spirals
reviewed literature rounds Rounds walks Data walls of inquiry
Focus
Tracking achievement and

Yes Yes
growth of students
Improving classroom practice and

Yes Yes Yes Yes
addressing instructional gaps
Building pedagogical knowledge Yes
Contributing to whole-school
Yes Yes
improvement strategies
Requirements
Non-judgemental and
Yes Yes Yes Yes
non‑evaluative
Establishment of professional
learning communities or
Yes Yes Yes Yes
teams/groups of teaching and/or
non‑teaching staff
Regular monitoring of student

Yes Yes
data (as cohorts or all students)
Moderated student
Yes
assessment data
Access to classrooms to
Yes Yes Yes Yes
observe practice
Relief staff to replace classroom

teachers undertaking Yes Yes Yes
collaboration
Attendance at external workshops Yes
Dedicated professional learning

(conducted internally or Yes Yes Yes Yes
externally)

Common elements across the models
Quality
Aspect identified in Instructional Teaching Learning Spirals
reviewed literature rounds Rounds walks Data walls of inquiry
School-developed guiding
documents such as frameworks, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
norms, rules, principles and so on
Supportive school culture with a

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
high level of trust between staff
Support from school leadership

Yes Yes Yes
to apply the model
Process for supporting teachers Yes Yes Yes
Accessible to all teaching staff

Yes Yes Yes
and leaders
Private and confidential

Yes
dedicated location
Outcomes
Builds collective effectiveness Yes
Builds teacher capacity to

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
use evidence
Goal-setting for future

Yes Yes Yes
school priorities
Creates shared language

and vision around high-quality Yes Yes Yes
teaching
Enables self-reflection to
Yes Yes Yes
improve teachers’ own practice
Builds an evidence base for

Yes Yes Yes Yes
schools to use
Reduces variation in assessment

Yes Yes
and/or teaching practices

Instructional rounds
What is this model?

Instructional rounds is an iterative process of observation and dialogue to improve
student outcomes at the school and/or system level (City 2011). During the
instructional rounds process, a team of educators and/or administrators identify
a ‘problem of practice’ affecting the school. A problem of practice can be any
issue that the school cares about, finds difficulty with, and wants to understand in
more depth (City 2011). The problem is addressed through rounds comprising of
observations, debriefing and discussions about the next steps to improve student
outcomes and learning goals (Teitel 2014). Instructional rounds can be conducted
by external visitors (for example, executive staff from other schools) and/or
internally by teachers working at the school (Teitel 2014).
Why use this model?

Instructional rounds is a strategy to collectively improve schools and existing
systems rather than focusing on individual teachers or classrooms (City 2011).
This emphasis on collective improvement ensures that teachers are supported
to make changes in their own classrooms, with understanding of the broader
education system and its impact (Meyer-Looze 2015). This model can also be used
to address any instructional gaps by allowing teachers to reflect on their colleagues’
pedagogical practices, leading them to observe patterns and find practices that
could be improved at the school level (Meyer-Looze 2015). Instructional rounds
can also establish a common language and understanding among teachers
about what constitutes high-quality teaching. The process of peer observation
encourages teachers to draw upon evidence to explore each other’s practices
(City 2011; Allen et al. 2016). The observations act as non-judgemental ways to share
strategies around student improvement (Moyer 2017). Overall, instructional rounds
aim to foster a collaborative learning culture between all staff.
What does the evidence say?

The reviewed literature about instructional rounds primarily consists of articles that
summarise how the model should be used and practical ways it can be applied
in schools. There is limited evidence in this literature to determine the ability of
instructional rounds to improve student or teacher outcomes due to the absence
of robust studies or evaluations. Some studies, however, do suggest instructional
rounds can support the improvement of specific teacher outcomes. For example,
instructional rounds can promote positive changes to teachers’ conceptions about
assessment (DeLuca et al. 2015) and the formation of supportive organisational
networks for educators (Moyer 2017).
The reviewed articles also identify key elements of the model which could
contribute to supporting teacher decision-making. The model:
• enables collaboration and dialogue between school administrators and/or
executive staff from different school networks (Moyer 2017)
• establishes innovative ideas to support student achievement as part of a cycle
of continuous improvement (City 2011)
• supports teachers in making evidence-based decisions and observations about
student learning that is – or is not – taking place (Meyer-Looze 2015)
• reduces variability of instruction across classroom (City 2011)

• builds collective understanding of effective teaching and learning for teachers

across different districts/networks (Roegman and Riehl 2012)
• allows teachers to oversee their own learning by observing others’ practices in
a non-judgemental manner (City 2011)
• provides data to inform future learning and professional development strategies
(Teitel 2014; City 2011)
• provides opportunities for teachers to reflect on their own practices, while
acknowledging the role of wider systems in supporting student learning
(Meyer‑Looze 2015; Allen et al. 2016; City 2011; Teitel 2014).
What are the actions involved with using this model?

Plan and prepare
• Assemble a group of teacher colleagues that will meet over time, known as the
‘network’. Ideally, a lead teacher within a school agrees to organise a network to
conduct instructional rounds and recruits 3 to 5 members to participate (City
2011; Marzano 2011). The network can consist of internal school staff, or people
who are external and are visiting to observe the school’s practice (City 2011).
• Establish specific goals for pedagogical improvement. The goals should be
focused on an instructional issue known as a ‘problem of practice’ identified
by the network.
• To explore the problem of practice, teachers ask questions such as: Where do we
feel stuck? Where are we struggling? How do we know we’re struggling? Which
situation do we need help collecting data on and thinking about? (Roegman
et al. 2017; City 2011)
Implement and use

• The network typically visits 4 random classrooms in each round, staying for at
least 20 minutes in each classroom (City 2011; Meyer-Looze 2015).
• During the observation, each network member is asked to identify 6 to 8 pieces
of observational evidence to share with the team. Network members write
down specific, non-judgemental and descriptive notes about what teachers and
students are doing or saying related to the problem of practice (Teitel 2014).
• After each round, network members come together to reflect on their
experiences. The network members can guide the discussion by reflecting on
what produced a positive outcome, and any concerns or questions they had
during the rounds (Marzano 2011).
Sustain and monitor

• The network members identify the next steps of work to ensure system-wide
improvements to student learning are sustained.
• The following questions are used to guide the next steps:
• What do we now understand about the school-wide issue that we were stuck
on, considering all evidence observed in the instructional rounds?
• How can the school focus its energy and resources to make progress on the
problem of practice?
• What new knowledge and skills might teachers need, and how might the
school support that learning? (City 2011)

What school factors act as enablers or barriers

to implementation?
School leaders and teachers can consider how to manage the following enablers
and barriers within their own context to support the implementation of this model.
Enablers Barriers
• A school culture of ownership • A school culture where teachers are
and accountability for all teachers not comfortable being observed by
participating in instructional rounds colleagues due to teacher resistance
• Foundation of trust between participants and anxiety
to discuss their perspectives and open • High staff turnover, leading to
their classrooms for observation fragmentation of the instructional
• Mobilisation of resources, including time rounds process
for teacher collaboration (for co‑planning • Instructional rounds being treated by
and ongoing professional dialogue) the school as a ‘tick-box’ exercise for
• School flexibility to vary the instructional accountability purposes (DeLuca et al.
rounds process to meet their contextual 2015; Meyer-Looze 2015; Hatch et al. 2016)
needs (Meyer-Looze 2015; DeLuca et al.
2015; Teitel 2014)
Resources and further reading

• NSW Department of Education: Collaborative professional learning [DOCX 593KB]
• Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE): Data collection and
analysis for evaluation
• Meyer-Looze CL (2015) ‘Creating a cycle of continuous improvement through
instructional rounds [PDF 296KB]’, International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, 10(21):29-45.
• Moyer DA (2017) ‘Creating coherence with instructional rounds: an Illinois district
uses learning targets to drive its instructional gains’, School Administrator,
74(11):22‑25.

Quality Teaching Rounds
What is this model?

Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR) is an approach to teacher development and
professional learning. It is based on the NSW Department of Education’s
pedagogical framework known as the Quality Teaching Model, as detailed in ‘Quality
teaching in NSW public schools: a classroom practice guide’ (NSW Department of
Education and Training 2003). QTR involves groups of teachers working together
in a team, or a ‘professional learning community’ (PLC). They undertake a process
of a professional reading discussion, observational rounds, coding of observations
according to the Quality Teaching Model elements, and discussions about future
steps (Bowe and Gore 2017). The overall aim of QTR is to transform the teaching
culture and collective quality of teaching in schools through collaboration, critical
reflection and analysis of existing teaching practices (Gore et al. 2017).
Why use this model?

QTR supports teachers to reach a shared language and understanding of classroom
practice through observation and detailed analysis of pedagogy using the Quality
Teaching Model. The Quality Teaching Model is a framework detailing 18 elements
categorised under 3 dimensions that underpin effective teaching: intellectual
quality, quality learning environment and significance (NSW Department of
Education and Training 2003). Teachers participating in QTR can engage deeply
with each element in the Quality Teaching Model by identifying evidence they have
observed in their own or others’ practice, and opportunities where elements could
have been enhanced (Gore et al. 2017). QTR can also be used to foster collaboration
between staff who otherwise may not have connected professionally because PLCs
may be comprised of teachers who are teaching across different key learning areas
and/or stages and have different levels of experience.

The reviewed literature about QTR primarily consists of journal articles that
describe the model and report findings from studies examining the impact of
QTR on participating schools. There is some evidence in this literature to suggest
that QTR supports improved student outcomes in specific areas and conditions.
A randomised control trial by Gore et al. (2021) involving 133 schools examined the
effectiveness of a 10-week QTR intervention in improving Year 3 and 4 students’
outcomes in mathematics, reading and science. Student performance was
measured at baseline (prior to the intervention), and then in follow-up assessments
8 months later. In schools that had been trained in the QTR process by one
of the lead researchers, students displayed an additional 2 months’ growth in
mathematics relative to students in schools in a waitlist control group. This benefit
was not found for students in schools that had been trained in the QTR process
by non-researcher advisers,1 or for students in schools in an active control group
where a collaborative professional development model known as peer observation
was used as an alternative to QTR.2 In addition, student outcomes in reading and
science were not significantly greater for either QTR intervention groups or the
active control group, relative to a waitlist control group.
These advisers were competitively selected and attended 25 days of training led by the developers of QTR.
Schools in the peer observation active control group received the same release time and funding as
the QTR intervention groups.

There is also some evidence in the reviewed literature to suggest that QTR supports
improved teacher outcomes in specific areas. A study by Gore et al. (2016) found
that teachers who participated in QTR reported improved teaching practice,
increased sense of collegiality between themselves and other teachers in the PLC,
better school culture, increased morale, and reaffirmation of their professional
identities and capabilities as teachers compared to the baseline responses from
surveys completed at the beginning of the study.
The reviewed literature also identifies key elements of the model which could
• encourages close engagement with the Quality Teaching Model so teachers
can talk about and conceptualise what constitutes effective teaching, including
pedagogical matters related to the curriculum, student engagement and social
justice (Gore et al. 2021)
• promotes an integrated culture of collaboration across grade groups and key
learning areas (Gore and Rosser 2020) which can lead to teachers organising
professional networks outside of the formal QTR process (Gore and Rosser 2022)
• creates an environment where beginning teachers feel they can more readily ask
experienced teachers for assistance to improve their classroom practice (Gore
and Rosser 2022)
• provides opportunities for teachers with different levels of experience to observe
their colleagues’ questioning techniques for students, the unique ways that
curriculum content could be differentiated, and other pedagogical practices that
teachers may otherwise not have been exposed to (Gore et al. 2021; Gore and
Rosser 2022).

Plan and prepare
• Select teachers to attend QTR training professional learning workshops to
learn all aspects of the QTR process and elements of the Quality Teaching
Model in detail. The University of Newcastle’s Quality Teaching Academy (2022)
recommends several ways for teachers to receive this professional learning. For
example, 2 teachers from a school can attend a QTR foundational workshop
(held across 2 days), or the whole school can participate in a professional learning
day tailored to their implementation needs.
• Establish PLCs – 4 participants are recommended for one PLC.
Implement and use

Each QTR round is comprised of 3 sequential sessions, undertaken in a single day.
• Session 1: reading discussion with the aim to collaboratively develop a shared
theoretical basis and language of effective pedagogy according to the Quality
Teaching Model. The reading discussion also seeks to develop PLC members’
sense of professional community and safety in sharing their ideas.
• Session 2: observing one teacher in the PLC who will teach a lesson in their own
classroom. The lesson is observed by all other members in the PLC. This is usually
a full lesson, lasting approximately 30 to 80 minutes. Other members of the PLC
will be observed in each subsequent round. In other words, 4 days of ‘rounds’ are
required to observe every teacher in a PLC of 4 teachers.

• Session 3: coding and discussion of the observation. Each member of the PLC
undertakes individual coding of the lesson according to the 18 elements of the
Quality Teaching Model. The coding is followed by a group discussion in which all
PLC members justify their coding choices. This final session takes approximately
2 hours (Gore et al. 2015; Quality Teaching Academy 2022).
Sustain and monitor

• Expand the QTR process across the school after all members of the PLC host a
lesson and complete the observation and coding process.
• Participants form new PLCs with other teachers in their school (Quality Teaching
Academy 2022).

to implementation?
Enablers Barriers
• Active attempts by schools to build a • Requirement for at least 2 teachers to
culture of learning and collaboration attend a 2-day preparatory workshop
among teachers, including providing which covers the Quality Teaching
opportunities for teachers to work Model and QTR implementation
beyond grade levels / key learning areas processes – this may require schools
outside of the QTR process to use resources to cover teachers
• ‘Flattening’ of hierarchies within attending the workshop, potentially
schools so that all members of the resulting in financial costs to the school
PLC are equally empowered to and loss of student instructional time
contribute, regardless of their length • Hierarchical power relations between
of teaching experience experienced and beginning teachers
• A sense of trust, whereby participants • A culture of resistance to critical analysis
feel comfortable about being observed of classroom practice
and providing input during the • Lack of resourcing for release from
post‑observation stage (Gore et al. 2017; face‑to-face (RFF) teaching to conduct
Gore and Rickards 2020) QTR (Gore et al. 2016; Gore et al. 2021)

• NSW Department of Education: Quality Teaching Model, QTR resources,
QTR workshops
• Gore J, Lloyd A, Smith M, Bowe J, Ellis H and Lubans D (2017) ‘Effects of
professional development on the quality of teaching: results from a randomised
controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds’, Teaching and Teacher Education,
68:99-113, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007.
• Gore J and Rickards B (2020) ‘Rejuvenating experienced teachers through
Quality Teaching Rounds professional development’, Journal of Educational
Change, 22(3):335-354, doi:10.1007/s10833-020-09386-z.

Data walls
What is this model?

A data wall is a model of collaborative inquiry which involves placing student data
on a wall at a school (Harris et al. 2018). A data wall will be unique to a school’s
context (Sharratt 2019) and uses sticky notes or cards, which can be colour coded,
to visualise the achievement and growth of individual students (Bishop and
Bishop 2017; Harris et al. 2018; Renshaw et al. 2013; Sharratt and Fullan 2012). It can
be used to visualise data for all students or a selected cohort of students (Sharratt
2019). Ideally the data wall should be accessible for all teaching staff and school
leaders to observe, discuss and update (Adie et al. 2020; Bishop and Bishop 2017;
Sharratt 2019).
Why use this model?

A data wall aims to make student learning visible by tracking student data over
time, and identifying and observing any patterns in the data (Goss et al. 2015;
Stratford et al. 2022). The physical aspect of viewing student data is seen as a
way to make connections between students and their respective data (Victoria
Department of Education and Training 2021; Sharratt 2019; Sharratt and Fullan
2012; Stratford et al. 2022). It is important that a data wall is co-constructed by
teachers and school leaders to support collaborative decision-making for learning
(Sharratt 2019).

The reviewed literature about data walls consists of a range of sources, including
journal articles, books and reports, that describe the model and how it should be
used. There is limited evidence within this literature to support the effectiveness
of data walls due to an absence of robust studies or evaluations that measure
the impact of data walls on student or teacher outcomes. This absence of robust
effectiveness studies has been noted in 2 systematic literature reviews (Adie et al.
2020; Harris et al. 2018).
The reviewed literature does identify key elements of the model which could
• provides oversight of student performance, and identifies where interventions
may be required and any intervention outcomes (Goss et al. 2015; Sharratt and
Fullan 2012; Renshaw et al. 2013; Sharratt 2019; Wyatt 2017)
• creates accountability through visibility of learning to target improvement and
enables teachers to justify assessment decisions made (Charteris 2022; Victoria
Department of Education and Training 2021; Goss et al. 2015; Stratford et al. 2022)
• reduces variation in assessment and teaching practices which provides a level of
consistency (Goss et al. 2015)
• enables teachers to have a targeted focus on student learning (Goss et al. 2015)
• builds teacher confidence in using data and evidence (Victoria Department of
Education and Training 2021; Goss et al. 2015)
• builds collective effectiveness and collective responsibility for all students
(Victoria Department of Education and Training 2021; Stratford et al. 2022).

Data walls
Plan and prepare

• Collaboratively establish norms, guiding principles and protocols. This
important first step to creating a data wall will ensure it is successfully set
up, and outlines expectations for the purpose, goals and use of the data wall
(Sharratt 2019; Victoria Department of Education and Training 2021).
• Identify a location that allows all teaching staff and school leaders access to
observe, discuss and update the data wall, while also providing confidentiality
and privacy (Charteris 2022; Victoria Department of Education and Training 2021;
Renshaw et al. 2013; Sharratt 2019). A professional learning space or staffroom
can be a suitable location (Victoria Department of Education and Training 2021).
• Together, teachers and school leaders identify the student data which will be
used on the data wall from diagnostic, formative or summative assessment
sources (Adie et al. 2020; Victoria Department of Education and Training 2021).
The assessments should be common and moderated to establish measurement
of student growth, and the data should be linked to an agreed goal such as a
learning or school improvement goal (Victoria Department of Education and
Training 2021; Harris et al. 2018; Wyatt 2017).
Implement and use

• Data is linked to individual students using paper, cards or sticky notes with
visual aids such as colour coding and stickers to provide oversight and monitor
student learning and achievement (Sharratt and Fullan 2012).
• Teachers and school leaders should observe the data wall as part of regular
professional practice to find patterns in the data, and use prompts to generate
collaborative professional dialogue to identify targeted teaching strategies
(Victoria Department of Education and Training 2021; Sharratt and Fullan 2012;
Sharratt 2019).
• Data walls should be updated at regular agreed points in the school calendar
to follow student achievement and growth, to identify any impact the targeted
strategies may have had on student learning, and to ensure interventions for
students are applied promptly (Bishop and Bishop 2017; Victoria Department
of Education and Training 2021; Wyatt 2017).
Sustain and monitor

• Regularly reflect on, monitor and evaluate the use of a data wall within a school.
This is important for ensuring it is providing value to teachers and students
and meeting agreed learning improvement goals. How is the data wall used to
support pedagogy, provide teachers with improved understanding of student
learning, build the data literacy skills of teachers and school leaders, and/or
improve collaborative inquiry with colleagues? (Adie et al. 2020; Harris et al. 2018)
• It is also important to regularly monitor privacy to ensure ethical use of the data
(Harris et al. 2018).

Data walls

to implementation?
Enablers Barriers
• School culture and climate that: • School culture and climate of:
• has strong relationships and trust • accountability and audit
• values building the data literacy • comparison and competition
of teachers • Top-down implementation
• has collective responsibility for • Time commitment required from staff
all students to create and update data walls and
• Support provided from systemic and attend meetings
school administrative levels • Compromises to student privacy, and
• Focus of data wall is aligned to school psychological safety of students
priorities and goals and teachers
• Professional conversations are • Lack of confidence and ability of teachers
connected to the data wall in using data to inform teaching
• Capacity of staff to interpret and use data • Teachers and leaders not being willing
• Agreement on what student data is and/or able to engage in reflective
included on the data wall (Victoria practice (Adie et al. 2020; Bishop and
Department of Education and Training Bishop 2017; Harris et al. 2018, 2020)
2021; Harris et al. 2018, 2020; Renshaw et
al. 2013; Sharratt 2019; Stratford et al. 2022)

• CESE: What works best in practice (‘Use of data to inform practice’ section)
• Adie L, Harris L and Wyatt-Smith C (2020) ‘Examining research into the use of
data walls for teaching and learning: how are they being implemented within
data use cycles?’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 89:1-16,
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.103012.
• Sharratt L (2019) Clarity: what matters most in learning, teaching, and leading,
Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, California.

Learning walks
What is this model?

Learning walks3 involve a group of teachers conducting short observations of
classroom practice and having collaborative reflective discussions (Allen and
Topolka-Jorissen 2014; NSW Department of Education n.d.). Learning walks are
a collaborative process driven by teachers and supported by school leaders
(AITSL 2017; Finch 2010). An essential component of learning walks is that they
are non‑evaluative and non-judgemental, with the focus on learning from
observations, not on providing teachers with feedback about individual practice
(AITSL 2017; Bole and Farizo 2013). Learning walks can also be linked to broader
school goals and priorities.
Why use this model?

Learning walks aim to improve instruction (Finch 2010), build the capacity of
teachers, and develop a shared understanding of high-quality teaching by
learning from what is observed in each visited classroom (AITSL 2017; Allen and
Topolka‑Jorissen 2014; Feeney 2014). Learning walks can also support student
achievement through reflection and discussion on data collected (Bartholomew
and Grady 19-20 May 2016). At a whole-school level, learning walks can be used as
part of a cycle of continuous school improvement (Feeney 2014), especially when
the focus of learning walks is linked to broader school goals and priorities.

The reviewed literature about learning walks consists of a range of sources,
including journal articles, books and how-to guides that describe the model and
how it should be used. There are no robust studies or evaluations that measure the
impact of learning walks on student or teacher outcomes in this literature.
The reviewed literature does identify key elements of the model which could
• provides opportunities to identify areas for improving own practice, such as
through reflective conversations (Fisher and Frey 2014)
• may encourage teachers to be more open to adapting their instructional
practice and changing or trying new teaching strategies in their classrooms
(Allen and Topolka-Jorissen 2014)
• develops participation of teachers in collaborative professional dialogue to
improve practice and reduces feelings of isolation (Allen and Topolka-Jorissen
2014; Bartholomew and Grady 19-20 May 2016)
• creates a shared vision between teachers of high-quality teaching (AITSL 2017)
and deepens understanding of high-impact instruction through reflective
conversations (Bartholomew and Grady 19-20 May 2016)
• develops the collective capacity-building of teachers (Sharratt 2019), and
can create positive morale and collective purpose for teachers (Allen and
Topolka‑Jorissen 2014)
• provides opportunities to adapt and target professional learning within a school
based on observations made (Sharratt 2019).
Learning walks may be referred to as classroom walkthroughs or teacher walkthroughs

(Bartholomew and Grady 19-20 May 2016; Feeney 2014; WSASCD n.d.).

Learning walks
Plan and prepare

• School leaders invite any teachers who would like to opt in and voluntarily
participate in the process of learning walks (AITSL 2017; Feeney 2014). Providing
opportunities for teachers to volunteer and opt in helps demonstrate that
learning walks are non-evaluative (AITSL 2017).
• Participating teachers work together, supported by school leaders, to develop
norms and rules for learning walks in their school (Feeney 2014). Teachers also
work together with the support of school leaders to establish data collection
documents such as rubrics, frameworks and/or questions with focus areas or
‘look fors’ to guide the observations (Finch 2010; Ginsberg et al. 2018; Sharratt
2019; WSASCD n.d.). This is critical for establishing expectations and a common
language for observations, and for ensuring learning walks are purposeful (Bole
and Farizo 2013; WSASCD n.d.).
• Participating teachers work with school leaders to identify a problem of practice
or focus to target for the learning walks and undertake a review of the relevant
instructional practices (Feeney 2014).
Implement and use

• The learning walk begins with a pre-walk meeting, run by a group-nominated
leader (AITSL 2017). This meeting is used to set expectations with reference to
the established norms and rules, and provide a reminder for the focus of the
learning walk with reference to data collection documents being used such as
rubrics, frameworks and/or questions (AITSL 2017).
• The observation of learning occurs with a visit to a classroom. The observation
should be brief, spending no more than 10 to 15 minutes in the classroom
with minimal disruption (AITSL 2017; Fisher and Frey 2014). The purpose of the
observation is to collect evidence of teaching and learning related to the agreed
focus of the learning walk using data collection documents (AITSL 2017; Bole and
Farizo 2013; Ginsberg et al. 2018).
• The group then have a short debrief immediately outside the visited classroom
(AITSL 2017). This allows the group to collaboratively discuss observations and
data collected, and provides an opportunity to reflect on what was observed and
own practice (AITSL 2017; Sharratt 2019).
• The group then repeats the observation of learning and short debrief processes
for all classrooms being visited as part of the learning walk (AITSL 2017).
• The group conducts a final debrief, in a space such as a staffroom, to reflect
on overall practices observed and data collected in relation to addressing the
targeted focus of the learning walk, and to determine next steps (AITSL 2017;
Feeney 2014; Ginsberg et al. 2018). This can also be an opportunity for the group
to provide any feedback on the process.
• Throughout all stages of the learning walk, non-evaluative and non-judgemental
conversations should be modelled by the leader as a reminder for the group of
the agreed expectations, particularly for ensuring observations are discussed
appropriately (Bartholomew and Grady 19-20 May 2016; Feeney 2014; WSASCD n.d.).

Learning walks
Sustain and monitor

• Regular monitoring and evaluation of the use of learning walks within a school
ensures the process is providing value to teachers in identifying ways to improve
practices (Bartholomew and Grady 19-20 May 2016).
• Setting up structures for applying learning from learning walks is important
to ensure that the model is seen as a regular part of professional learning
(AITSL 2017).
• Findings and outcomes from learning walks should be shared with all staff using
agreed-upon methods of reporting (AITSL 2017; Ginsberg et al. 2018).

to implementation?
Enablers Barriers
• School culture that is trusting • Not having agreed-upon focus areas
and supportive for observation, with participants
• Development of protocols, procedures attempting to observe too much at once
and documents which support the • Lack of resourcing for release from
agreed purpose for the learning walks face‑to-face (RFF) teaching for teachers
• Professional development on learning to participate in learning walks
walks prior to their use • Teachers seeing learning walks as a
• Teachers supported by school leaders to form of judgement or evaluation
apply changes based on data collected • When learning walks are an isolated
• Creation of school-based structures to event and not embedded as part of
follow up and apply any learning (AITSL regular practice (Bartholomew and
2017; Bole and Farizo 2013; Feeney Grady 19-20 May 2016; Fisher and Frey
2014; Finch 2010; Fisher and Frey 2014; 2014; Ginsberg et al. 2018; WSASCD n.d.)
Ginsberg et al. 2018; Sharratt 2019;
WSASCD n.d.)

• NSW Department of Education: Collaborative professional learning [DOCX 593KB]
• AITSL: Learning walks how-to guide
• Allen AS and Topolka-Jorissen K (2014) ‘Using teacher learning walks to build
capacity in a rural elementary school: repurposing a supervisory tool’, Professional
Development in Education, 40(5):822-837, doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.851104.
• Ginsberg M, Bahena O, Kertz J and Jones I (2018) ‘Motivation in motion: learning
walks benefit teachers and students in a dual-language primary school’,
Journal of Staff Development, 39(3):38-46.
• Sharratt L (2019) Clarity: what matters most in learning, teaching, and leading,

Spirals of inquiry
What is this model?

Spirals of inquiry is a process of collaborative inquiry that aims to improve
student outcomes in specific areas of concern (Kaser and Halbert 2017). It is a
learner‑centred approach to decision-making that involves gathering and using
evidence to identify problems and generate innovative solutions.4 Spirals of inquiry
provides a step-by-step framework for teachers to work in teams to develop new
ways of thinking and creative practices to address the key challenges in their
school and ensure that their students’ needs are being met (Timperley, Kaser
and Halbert 2014).
Why use this model?

Spirals of inquiry is based on the idea that innovation and change are driven by
systems that encourage, nurture and sustain curiosity (Timperley, Kaser and Halbert
2014). Advocates of spirals of inquiry suggest that teacher professional learning
is most effective when it is based on problem-solving through investigation,
collaborative, led by professionals, linked and coherent, and sustained over time
(Halbert and Kaser 2016). Teachers can use spirals of inquiry to understand what is
going on for learners, interrogate how they know what is going on and reflect on
why it matters. Using a spiral of inquiry, teachers can find new ways to improve their
practice by responding to student needs (Kaser and Halbert 2014).

The reviewed literature about spirals of inquiry primarily consists of articles that
describe the model and practice guides that explain how the model should be
used. There are no robust studies or evaluations that measure the impact of spirals
of inquiry on student or teacher outcomes in this literature.
The reviewed articles and guides do identify key elements of the model which
could contribute to supporting teacher decision-making. The model:
• puts students at the centre of all decisions relating to their learning, by
understanding what is going on for students and involving learners and their
families and communities in the process (Timperley, Kaser and Halbert 2014)
• takes a collaborative approach that stimulates learning conversations that are
informed by evidence
• promotes a shift in perspective to encourage students and teachers to view
challenges and failures as opportunities to develop skills (Kaser and Halbert 2017)
• promotes a shared moral purpose to drive change in the school with a focus on
common goals (Kaser and Halbert 2014).
• respects the judgement, experience and language of teachers (Kaser and
Halbert 2017)
• regularly collects evidence of the impact that the process is having on learners
(Kaser and Halbert 2014).
The term ‘learner’ is used in the spirals of inquiry literature to refer to anyone who participates
in learning throughout the process, including staff who undertake professional learning as
well as students.

Spirals of inquiry
Plan and prepare

• Establish ‘inquiry teams’ within schools that are comprised of teachers who
are teaching the same subjects or the same stage(s) and are responsible for
identifying issues experienced by the students in their classes. Inquiry teams can
also include support staff where appropriate (Kaser and Halbert 2014).
• Promote a clear, shared sense of moral purpose among members of inquiry
teams. A common mindset and goals can increase energy and motivation
within inquiry teams. However, schools that want to use spirals of inquiry are
encouraged to start using the model even if not everyone is on board yet
(Timperley, Kaser and Halbert 2017).
• Create processes for support, dialogue, observation and reflection within
inquiry teams. These processes should be geared towards making teachers
feel comfortable to try new and innovative practices without fear of failure or
judgement from their peers (Kaser and Halbert 2017).
Implement and use

The spirals of inquiry model has 6 steps. Some of the spirals of inquiry steps may
overlap, or teachers may need to go back and forth between steps to achieve the
desired outcomes.
• Scanning to understand what is going on for students. Over a period of no more
than 2 months, the inquiry teams gather information about what is going on
for students in a key area of learning. Methods of gathering information include
observations, interviews and surveys.
• Focusing on the most critical adaptive challenge identified during the scanning
stage, and where the inquiry teams feel that their time and energy will make the
most impact for students.
• Developing a hunch about why that challenge is occurring, through team
reflection and dialogue. The inquiry teams should test their hunches by
gathering more information from students.
• Engaging in new ways of learning to address the challenge. While learning
is embedded in all stages of the spirals of inquiry model, this step involves
high-quality professional learning that is targeted to addressing the identified
challenges.
• Taking action to apply the new learning through innovative practices. Some
inquiry team members may be hesitant to try new practices as it feels risky, so
the importance of learning from ‘failure’ should be emphasised. Team members
should be encouraged to try the new practices multiple times and reflect on the
process as they go.
• Checking to see if things have improved as a result. This stage can help inquiry
teams to understand what changes have occurred, if any, and what further
changes they may need to make to their practices.

Spirals of inquiry
Sustain and monitor

• Monitoring the success of the spirals of inquiry model is built into the framework
through the ‘checking’ stage, which requires inquiry teams to reflect on and
evaluate their practice (Kaser and Halbert 2017).
• Spirals of inquiry is designed to be a ‘slowed down’ process to allow time for
inquiry teams to gather information, reflect, and transform their practices.
Timperley, Kaser and Halbert (2014) suggest that encouraging inquiry teams to
take their time and learn from their mistakes makes spirals of inquiry helpful in
developing sustainable and persistent practices.

to implementation?
Enablers Barriers
• School culture and climate with: • School culture and climate with:
• strategic and persistent leadership • a lack of collaboration and teamwork
• a high level of trust between staff • resistance to change and new ways
• Strong support from leadership and the of working
school system • Staff perception of increased workload
• High motivation and energy among • Different levels of teacher experience
inquiry team members, built through a may require some negotiation and
collective sense of purpose mentoring to be on the same page
• Relief time for teachers to engage in • Lack of confidence and knowledge
collaborative professional learning and among teachers about how to collect
to practice different stages of the spiral and use data in the scanning and
• Ability for teachers to observe and record checking stages, including a lack of
other teachers’ classroom practice openness to new ways of collecting data
• Access to new strategies and professional • Individual teachers’ reluctance to put in

learning (Kaser and Halbert 2017, 2014; the required effort or collaborate with
Timperley, Kaser and Halbert 2014) others (Kaser and Halbert 2017, 2014;
Timperley, Kaser and Halbert 2014)

• The Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales (AISNSW):
Inquiry learning networks and spiral of inquiry [PDF 575KB]
• C21 Canada: The spiral playbook: leading with an inquiring mindset in school
systems and schools
• Network of Inquiry and Innovation – NSW
• Centre for Strategic Education: A framework for transforming learning in schools:
innovation and the spiral of inquiry
• Kaser L and Halbert J (2014) ‘Creating and sustaining inquiry spaces for teacher
learning and transformation,’ European Journal of Education, 49(2):206‑221.

Conclusion
Collaboration is key to sharing successful and innovative evidence-informed
practices across the teaching profession, and for ensuring best practice is identiﬁed
and shared across classrooms. Collaboration can be achieved through collaborative
inquiry. This resource describes the evidence for 5 models of collaborative inquiry,
and identifies the common elements across these 5 models from the literature.
This resource can be used as a starting point to support schools making

decisions about approaches to collaborative inquiry that can inform their school
improvement agenda. Schools can consider which of the models are suitable
to support the cycle of implementation, progress monitoring and evaluation
of their school initiatives, such as for their strategic improvement plan. School
leaders and teachers can draw on the findings in the common elements table
and the evidence for each model to support their strategic improvement plan
by considering their area/s of focus, the requirements of their context and the
outcomes they hope to achieve.
School leaders and teachers may choose to apply one or more models depending
on their school’s context. By reviewing the common elements across the models
table, and the actions involved for each model, school leaders and teachers can
develop a beginning understanding of which models may meet which needs or
purposes in their school. Careful consideration should also be given to how the
school can manage enablers and barriers to support the use of a model in their
school. Before applying any model, schools should engage with further reading
and/or professional learning to deepen their understanding.

References
Adie L, Harris L and Wyatt-Smith C (2020) ‘Examining DeLuca C, Klinger D, Pyper J and Woods J
research into the use of data walls for teaching (2015) ‘Instructional rounds as a professional
and learning: how are they being implemented learning model for systemic implementation
within data use cycles?’, Teaching and Teacher of assessment for learning’, Assessment
Education, 89:1-16, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.103012. in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
22(1):122‑139, doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.967168.
AITSL (Australian Institute for Teaching and School
Leadership) (2017) Learning walks how-to guide, Donohoo J (2013) Collaborative inquiry for educators:
AITSL, accessed 22 July 2022. a facilitator’s guide to school improvement,
Allen AS and Topolka-Jorissen K (2014) ‘Using
teacher learning walks to build capacity in a rural Feeney E (2014) ‘Design principles for learning
elementary school: repurposing a supervisory to guide teacher walk throughs’, The Clearing
tool’, Professional Development in Education, House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
40(5):822-837, doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.851104. and Ideas, 87:1, doi:10.1080/00098655.2013.823903.
Allen D, Roegman R and Hatch T (2016) Finch P (2010) ‘Learning-walk continuum’, School
‘Investigating discourses for administrators’ Administrator, 67(10):16-22.
learning within instructional rounds’, Educational
Fisher D and Frey N (2014) ‘Using teacher learning
Management, Administration & Leadership,
walks to improve instruction’, Principal
44(5):837-852, doi:10.1177/1741143215574507.
Leadership, 14(5):58-61.
Bartholomew M and Grady K (19-20 May 2016)
Ginsberg M, Bahena O, Kertz J and Jones I (2018)
Classroom walkthroughs: teachers and
‘Motivation in motion: learning walks benefit
school leaders working collaboratively to raise
teachers and students in a dual-language
student achievement [PDF 3.2MB] [conference
primary school’, Journal of Staff Development,
presentation], Excellence in Professional Practice
39(3):38-46.
Conference, Victoria, accessed 22 July 2022.
Gore J and Rickards B (2020) ‘Rejuvenating
Bishop K and Bishop K (2017) ‘Improving student
experienced teachers through Quality Teaching
learning outcomes: using data walls and case
Rounds professional development’, Journal of
management conversations’, Literacy Learning,
Educational Change, 22(3):335-354, doi:10.1007/
25(1):i-x, doi:10.3316/aeipt.215164.
s10833-020-09386-z.
Bole PT and Farizo KP (2013) ‘Using learning
Gore J and Rosser B (2022) ‘Beyond content-focused
walks to improve collaboration and charter
professional development: powerful professional
school performance (a university/P-12 school
learning through genuine learning communities
partnership): Year One’, New Educator,
across grades and subjects’, Professional
9(4):328-345, doi:10.1080/1547688X.2013.841507.
Development in Education, 48(2):218-232, doi:10.1
Bowe J and Gore J (2017) ‘Reassembling teacher 080/19415257.2020.1725904.
professional development: the case for Quality
Gore J, Lloyd A, Smith M, Bowe J, Ellis H and Lubans
Teaching Rounds’, Teachers and Teaching,
D (2017) ‘Effects of professional development
23(3):352-366, doi:10.1080/13540602.2016.1206522.
on the quality of teaching: results from a
CESE (Centre for Education Statistics and randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching
Evaluation) (2020) What works best: 2020 update, Rounds’, Teaching and Teacher Education,
NSW Department of Education, accessed 68:99‑113, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007.
22 July 2022.
Gore J, Miller A, Fray L, Harris J and Prieto E (2021)
Charteris J (2022) ‘Post-panoptic accountability: ‘Improving student achievement through
making data visible through ‘data walls’ for professional development: results from a
schooling improvement’, British Journal of randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching
Sociology of Education, 43(3):333-348, Rounds’, Teaching and Teacher Education,
doi:10.1080/01425692.2021.2018651. 101:103-297, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2021.103297.
City EA (2011) ‘Learning from instructional rounds’,

Educational Leadership, 69(2):36.

References
Gore J, Smith M, Bowe J, Ellis H, Lloyd A and Meyer-Looze CL (2015) ‘Creating a cycle of
Lubans D (2015) ‘Quality Teaching Rounds as continuous improvement through instructional
a professional development intervention for rounds [PDF 296KB]’, International Journal of
enhancing the quality of teaching: rationale Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(21):29-45.
and study protocol for a cluster randomised
Moyer DA (2017) ‘Creating coherence with
controlled trial’, International Journal of
instructional rounds: an Illinois district uses
Educational Research, 74:82-95, doi:10.1016/j.
learning targets to drive its instructional gains’,
ijer.2015.08.002.
School Administrator, 74(11):22-25.
Gore J, Smith M, Lloyd A, Bowe J, Ellis H, Taggart
Nelson T and Slavit D (2008) ‘Supported teacher
W and Lubans D (2016) The impact of Quality
collaborative inquiry’, Teacher Education
Teaching Rounds: report on the results of a
Quarterly, 35(1):99-116.
randomised controlled trial: final report to
the NSW Department of Education, Teachers NoII (Network of Inquiry And Innovation) (n.d.)
and Teaching Research Centre, University of Resources, NoII website, accessed 7 October 2022.
Newcastle, accessed 26 July 2022.
NSW Department of Education (n.d.) Collaborative
Goss P, Hunter J, Romanes D and Parsonage H professional learning [DOCX 593KB], NSW
(2015) Targeted teaching: how better use of data Department of Education website, accessed
can inform student learning, Grattan Institute, 14 July 2022.
accessed 22 July 2022.
NSW Department of Education (2022) Quality
Halbert J and Kaser L (2016) ‘Inquiry learning Teaching Model, NSW Department of Education
networks and spiral of inquiry [PDF 575KB]’, The website, accessed July 21 2022.
Brief, 2:2, The Association of Independent Schools
of New South Wales Limited, accessed 6 October NSW Department of Education and Training
2022. (2003) Quality teaching in NSW public schools:
a classroom practice guide, Sydney, Australia.
Harris L, Wyatt-Smith C and Adie L (2018) ‘Data
walls: the state of the evidence’, Independent Quality Teaching Academy (2022) QT professional
Education, 48(3):18-20, doi:10.3316/aeipt.221748. development, Quality Teaching Academy website,
accessed 1 August 2022.
Harris L, Wyatt-Smith C and Adie L (2020) ‘Using
data walls to display assessment results: a Renshaw P, Baroutsis A, van Kraayenoord C, Goos
review of their affective impacts on teachers and M and Dole S (2013) Teachers using classroom
students’, Teachers and Teaching, Theory and data well: identifying key features of effective
Practice, 26(1):50-66, doi:10.1080/13540602.2020.17 practices: final report [PDF 3.4MB], The University
39018. of Queensland, accessed 26 July 2022.
Hatch T, Hill K and Roegman R (2016) Roegman R and Riehl C (2012) ‘Playing doctor with
‘Investigating the role of instructional rounds education: considerations in using medical
in the development of social networks rounds as a model for instructional rounds’,
and district-wide improvement’, American Journal of School Leadership, 22(5):922-952,
Educational Research Journal, 53(4):1022-1053, doi:10.1177/105268461202200505.
doi:10.3102/0002831216653205. Roegman R, Allen D and Hatch T (2017) ‘The
Kaser L and Halbert J (2014) ‘Creating and elusiveness of equity: evolution of instructional
sustaining inquiry spaces for teacher learning rounds in a superintendents network’,
and transformation,’ European Journal of American Journal of Education, 124(1):127-159,
Education, 49(2):206-221. doi:10.1086/693957.
Kaser L and Halbert J (2017) The spiral playbook: Sharratt L (2019) Clarity: what matters most in
leading with an inquiring mindset in school learning, teaching, and leading, Corwin Press,
systems and schools, C21 Canada, accessed Thousand Oaks, California.
5 October 2022. Sharratt L and Fullan M (2012) ‘Putting faces on the
Marzano R (2011) ‘The art & science of teaching / data’, Principal Leadership, 13(4):48-52.
making the most of instructional rounds’,
Educational Leadership, 68(5):80-82.

References
Stratford E, Stewart S and te Riele K (2022) ‘School

data walls: sociomaterial assemblages to
aid children’s literacy outcomes’, Children’s
Geographies, 20(3):361-374, doi:10.1080/14733285.2
022.2029348.
Teitel L (2014) ‘Teachers at the center of

improvement: school-based instructional rounds
in a Connecticut district engages teachers as
classroom observers, leading to instructional
adjustments’, School Administrator, 71(1):35-39.
Timperley H, Kaser L and Halbert J (2014) ‘A

framework for transforming learning in schools:
innovation and the spiral of inquiry’, Seminar
Series Paper No. 234, Centre for Strategic
Education, accessed 5 October 2022.
Victoria Department of Education and Training

(2021) ‘Using data walls to turn data into
instruction’, Professional Practice Note 5, Victoria
State Government, accessed 15 July 2022.
WSASCD (Washington State Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development) (n.d.)
Conducting the classroom walkthrough: a key
practice of continuous school improvement
[PDF 94KB], WSASCD, accessed 22 July 2022.
Wyatt T (2017) ‘Developing evaluative thinking

and evidence-based practice: a synthetic case
study [PDF 551KB]’ [conference presentation],
Research Conference 2017, Australian Council for
Educational Research, accessed 15 July 2022.

GPO Box 33, Sydney NSW 2001, Australia
Visit our website to subscribe to the CESE newsletter
02 7814 1527
This work is licensed under the
321_270123_GS_v7_AA1GS

2023 Guide To Models of Collaborative Inquiry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 Guide To Models of Collaborative Inquiry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 Guide To Models of Collaborative Inquiry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NSW Department of Education

Guide to evidence-based models

Please cite this publication as:

For more information about this report, please contact:

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2

How to use this resource

Created/last updated: Originally published January 2023

Purpose of this resource 6

Using this resource as part of the School Success Model 7

The School Excellence cycle 7

What works best 8

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers 9

Common elements across the models 10

What is this model? 12

Why use this model? 12

What does the evidence say? 12

What are the actions involved with using this model? 13

What school factors act as enablers or barriers to implementation? 14

Quality Teaching Rounds 15

What is this model? 15

Why use this model? 15

What does the evidence say? 15

What are the actions involved with using this model? 16

What school factors act as enablers or barriers to implementation? 17

What is this model? 18

Why use this model? 18

What does the evidence say? 18

What are the actions involved with using this model? 19

What school factors act as enablers or barriers to implementation? 20

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 4

What is this model? 21

Why use this model? 21

What does the evidence say? 21

What are the actions involved with using this model? 22

What school factors act as enablers or barriers to implementation? 23

What is this model? 24

Why use this model? 24

What does the evidence say? 24

What are the actions involved with using this model? 25

What school factors act as enablers or barriers to implementation? 26

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 5

Collaborative inquiry is an embedded professional learning process in a school, where

Collaborative inquiry can be enabled through a range of different models. The

Purpose of this resource

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 6

The School Excellence cycle

The resource can assist schools

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 7

What works best

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 8

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

Domain Standard Focus areas

3. Plan for and implement effective teaching

4. Create and maintain supportive and safe

5. Assess, provide feedback and report on

6. Engage in professional learning 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 9

Tracking achievement and

Improving classroom practice and