Teaching Assistants’ perceptions on their role in supporting children’s learning in one primary school

Louisa Jaques

BA (Hons) Professional Studies in Education

Abstract

The significant increase in the number of Teaching Assistants (TAs) throughout England has influenced the changes to their roles and responsibilities. Due to the rising extent of pupil needs and the considerable lack of available funding, more demands are being placed on TAs. Despite the need for TAs across the country, the focus on developing this workforce remains poor with insufficient training opportunities, poor access to planning, limited career progression and restricted time to communicate with their class teacher. This small-scale study provides an insight into a small sample of Teaching Assistants’ perceptions regarding these issues. Eight practitioners responded to an online questionnaire in order to explore the varying views relating to these issues. The findings suggested that the practitioners are often used as a teaching resource for lower ability pupils, frequently fee unprepared within their role and regularly have to conduct their own research due to limited opportunities for subject specific training. It is recommended that teachers share the responsibility of teaching lower ability pupils, dedicated planning and discussion time is set aside for teachers and TAs, and lastly that more subject specific training opportunities are provided for TAs.

Introduction

Evidence from November 2020 suggests that 271,370 staff members of state-funded schools in England are full time equivalent Teaching Assistants (United Kingdom Statistics Authority, 2021). Sharples et al., (2021) suggest that this number has more than trebled since 2000 when there were only 79,000 full time equivalent Teaching Assistants (TAs) in England. In addition to this, the Department for Education (2019) identify that the increase in numbers of TAs is often related to the significant increase of pupils in schools. The main factors affecting TA numbers in schools is dependent on the extent of pupil needs and the amount of available funding (Department for Education, 2019). In addition to this, Sharples et al., (2021) identify that TAs were also implemented to counteract teacher workload, resulting in the wide range of supporting roles and responsibilities which TAs now hold.

Experience working as a TA for the past six years found that most classes have one TA to support the whole-class. However, it became evident that the TAs who were employed as a whole-class resource are most often being used to informally teach lower ability children (Sharples et al., 2021). Additionally, it was found that TAs were going into lessons without knowing the expectations, lesson plans or having had prepared resources due to the insufficient amount of dedicated time for TAs to meet with their class teacher. Furthermore, the lack of discussion time with teachers, difficulties with accessing lesson plans and negligence of TAs being offered subject specific training resulted in TAs having to conduct their own research to progress their professional development in order for them to support the pupils effectively. To further develop understanding on this topic, a literature review was undertaken to explore the roles of TAs within 2023

the classroom, how TAs support learners in their class and the ways they can develop professionally. To investigate this further, the focused research question is: what are teaching assistants’ perceptions on their role in supporting children’s learning in one primary school?

Literature Review

Due to the large number of TAs in England and the high demands of this job role, this literature review will explore the role of classroom TAs, how TAs support learners within the classroom and how they support learning through professional development.

Role within the Classroom

The roles of TAs are constantly changing to meet the needs of the pupils who they work with and the settings they work in (Bentham et al., 2019). Due to the differing roles, there are multiple names for TAs including: Learning Support Assistants, Special Educational Needs Assistants and Classroom Assistants (Hryniewicz, 2013). For the purpose of this study, the term TA will be used to refer to classroom-based support staff. Furthermore, Bentham et al., (2019) state that one of the key roles for these differing job titles is ‘to enable pupils to access learning by supervising and assisting pupils across a wide range of activities and supported learning activities’ (p.18). Therefore, it may be seen how although the roles adapt depending on the needs of the pupils and the school, the main role for TAs is still focused on providing pupils with support to access the curriculum. According to Bentham et al., (2019) TAs have the main role of supporting the class teacher and pupil’s learning through preparing classroom resources, supporting pupils with their learning and providing interventions to further support with learning. In addition to this, NAHT et al., (2016) identify ‘the primary role of the teaching assistant should be to work with teachers to raise the learning and attainment of pupils’ (p. 4).

However, Webster et al., (2016) portray findings on deployment of TAs which highlight the inefficient role that TAs may hold within the classroom. It is further recognised by Blatchford et al., (2012) that the more attention pupils received from the TA, the less progress they made. Supporting this, Sharples et al., (2021) argue that the use of TAs is having a negative impact on pupil attainment. According to Webster (2021) TAs often provided too much support to pupils with regards to spoon-feeding information and sometimes writing down answers for pupils which may result in pupils not actually learning anything from this support and becoming too dependent on their TA. In contrast to this, it may be the lack of training or support within setting which may be leading to these undesirable outcomes. This is further supported by Webster et al., (2016) who stress the need for TAs to be given clear guidance on their expectations to ensure they are having a positive impact on the pupils they are supporting.

There are differing roles for how TAs are deployed in terms of whole-class TA, one-to-one TAs and intervention-based TAs (Bentham et al., 2019; Department for Education, 2019; Hryniewicz, 2013; Webster et al., 2016). Due to the TAs in practice being employed as whole-class TAs, this role will be explored more. Webster et al., (2016) recognise the advantages of having whole-class TAs as they have the opportunity to build relationships with the teacher and the pupils. In addition to this, Sharples et al., (2021) recognise the positive teacher perceptions of whole-class TAs as providing more attention and support to pupils who are not able to access the curriculum independently. Furthermore, whole-class TAs have been recognised as contributing to classroom management through reducing class disruption which in turn offers more input time for the teacher (Sharples et al., 2021). However, Webster et al., (2016) highlight a disadvantage of whole-class TAs, stating that teachers may start becoming dependent on their class TA, leaving them to teach lessons and prepare resources which may in turn take away from the time which TAs could be spending supporting the pupils and their learning.

Leading on from this, Webster et al., (2016) raise the concern that TAs will not offer effective support in comparison to teachers due to them not receiving the same level of training. From this, it may be suggesting that teachers must go through training and placements to achieve their role whereas some TAs are volunteers who are learning on the job. Therefore, this may suggest that too much is expected of TAs in terms of the academic support that they provide to the pupils. According to Blatchford et al., (2012), the key difference between teachers and TAs is that teachers provide direct teaching input whereas TAs assist pupils with their learning. In addition to this, Blatchford et al., (2012) argue ‘TAs do not so much provide additional support, as alternative support’ (p. 91). From this it may be gathered that a whole-class TA can provide alternate support based on their own knowledge of pupils to allow them to access the curriculum through offering different explanations and more simple questions catered to the pupil’s needs. In relation to this, Sharples et al., (2021) argue that the role of the TA is to compliment and assist the teacher, not to replace them. Further suggesting that school leaders should be responsible for developing the effective role of TAs (Sharples et al., 2021). Concerning this, Webster (2021) recognises that the lack of clarity within TAs roles and responsibilities means that school leaders are undervaluing TAs’ contributions, and consequently not utilising them as effective resources to the school. Therefore, it may be suggested that if school leaders provided more clarity around the role of the TA and provided additional training then TAs could have the opportunity to have more of a positive impact on pupils’ learning.

Supporting Learners

Exploring the ways in which TAs support pupils with their learning may give an insight into how this role can be effective. A key finding from the Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools (DISS) Project, suggests that TAs spent most of their time directly supporting pupils in groups (Blatchford et al., 2009). Webster et al., (2016) recognise that the group support offered may be through specific interventions or within the classroom. In terms of TAs delivering interventions, the Department for Education (2019) highlight that these sessions may take place in addition to lessons, or instead of lessons and are often delivered to pupils with identified needs. Webster et al., (2016) suggest that a disadvantage of pupils being withdrawn from lessons for intervention time as being time taken away from the teacher. Further stating ‘interventions are not a substitute for consistently good teaching’ (Webster et al., 2016, p. 78). In addition to this, Sharples et al., (2021) recognise the difference between TAs delivering high-quality structured interventions having a positive impact on pupils’ learning, in comparison to informal, unstructured interventions which can impact negatively on pupils’ learning. Therefore, this may suggest that although the interventions do not substitute teaching, they can be useful towards pupils’ learning if the interventions are high-quality.

In terms of whole-class TAs supporting small groups or specific children within the classroom, evidence suggests that TAs are often deployed to support the pupils in most need (Sharples et al., 2021). The Department for Education (2019) further support this by highlighting that in-class TAs usually support pupils with Special Educational Needs (SEN), pupils with additional needs and lower attaining pupils. In relation to this, Webster et al., (2016) recognise that TAs are often primary educators for pupils with SEN or lower attaining pupils. Sharples et al., (2021) suggest ‘TAs should not be used as an informal teaching resource for low attaining pupils’ (p. 13). This may be suggesting that lower attaining pupils require high-quality, structured work which is catered to their needs rather than receiving informal and unstructured teaching. In addition to this, Webster et al., (2016) identify the need for teachers to take responsibility for the progress and development of pupils with SEN. Therefore, whole-class TAs may be seen to be providing more support to SEN pupils when in fact, these pupils may require more teacher support due to their level of training. To counteract this from occurring, Webster et al., (2016) suggest the teacher and TA altering their roles in the sense of the teacher working with a group and the TA moving around the classroom ensuring all pupils are on task.

The level of interactions between TAs and pupils has been recognised as a method of supporting pupils’ learning (Bentham, 2011; Blatchford et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2016). According to Bentham et al., (2019) ‘a key recommendation for schools wishing to maximise the impact of teaching assistants is to train TAs in the ability to effectively utilise talk and questions’ (p. 145). In addition to this, Webster et al., (2013) suggest that ‘TAs tend to close down the talk to pupils rather than open it up’ (p. 91). It is further recognised that TAs more commonly ask pupils more closed-questions as opposed to open-questions (Blatchford et al., 2009; Blatchford et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2013). Research also suggests that TAs have the tendency to focus on task completion as opposed to aiding pupils with their understanding (Blatchford et al., 2009; Blatchford et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2013). Therefore, TAs may be trying to lead pupils to correct answers through closed questions in order for them to complete the task quickly. Concerning this, Sharples et al., (2021) promote teaching strategies for TAs to enable pupils to become more independent learners through offering them support when it is needed and using open-ended questions to encourage pupils’ thinking skills (p. 15). Furthermore, it is highlighted that pupils gain more individual attention and differentiation from their whole-class TA which can encourage pupil engagement (Blatchford et al., 2012, p. 115).

Supporting Learning

TAs’ level of preparedness in terms of how they support pupils learning will be explored. Research suggests that TA preparedness has been identified in terms of day-to-day preparedness, access to planning and feedback, and the subject-knowledge which they hold (Blatchford et al., 2009, Blatchford et al., 2012, Webster et al., 2016). Regarding TA preparedness, Webster et al., (2016) highlight the difficulty of TAs going into lessons unprepared, not knowing the expectations and therefore not being able to provide appropriate support to the pupils. According to Bentham et al., (2019) school leaders are responsible for ensuring teachers and TAs have dedicated time to discuss plans and feedback, offering TAs opportunities to develop their subject knowledge and providing TAs with training opportunities.

Regarding day-to-day preparedness, Webster et al., (2016) suggest that many TAs are under-prepared for daily tasks due to the lack of allocated time for teachers to meet with their TA. According to Webster et al., (2013) it is concerning how little time there is for TAs to receive pre-lesson planning and post-lesson feedback. This is further supported by the Department for Education (2019) who suggest that the inefficient time for TAs to prepare for lessons acts as a barrier to them being effective support to pupils’ learning. Concerning this, Sharples et al., (2021, p. 16) suggest methods to ensure for dedicated liaison time between the teacher and TA: adjust the working hours of TAs to enable them to start early, use of assembly time and for TAs to join teachers during their Planning, Preparation and Assessment (PPA) time. However, Webster et al., (2016) argue the financial complications of employing TAs for extra time to counteract this issue, further recognising that TAs will be using their own unpaid time to allow for this liaison time to occur. Although, the implications of TAs not receiving this liaison time may lead to inefficient and undervalued TAs (Blatchford et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2016)

In terms of TAs supporting pupils’ learning, the level of subject-knowledge which they hold can be beneficial to the level of support they can provide. According to Bentham et al., (2019) ‘As a TA, supporting pupils’ learning, having an understanding of relevant curriculum areas is crucial’ (p. 142). This is supported by Ofsted (2021) who argue that TAs need good subject knowledge in order to support pupils effectively. Webster et al., (2016) highlight how training for TAs to develop their subject knowledge has been neglected. The Department for Education (2019) stress the negligence of training opportunities for TAs. The lack of TA subject specific training has been recognised with Blatchford et al., (2012) further stating that TAs may have to depend on listening to the teacher’s lesson input in order for them to gain the appropriate subject knowledge for supporting the pupils’ learning. This is further supported by Webster et al., (2013) who argue that TAs tend to develop their subject knowledge through tuning in to the teacher’s lesson input, reading through the lesson plans, informal and formal training. However, Webster et al., (2013) identify that tuning in to the teacher’s input is the least effective way of developing subject knowledge and that the lesson plans are not always provided to TAs meaning that some of them are supporting pupils’ learning with no prior subject knowledge. This may suggest that TAs are not receiving the formal training required to develop their subject knowledge in order to support pupils effectively.

To investigate these findings further, participants will be asked the focused research question of: what are teaching assistants’ perceptions on their role in supporting children’s learning in one primary school?

Research Method

As a Teaching Assistant working in a large primary school, the research was conducted in the setting where I am based (Setting A). Due to the research question being aimed at Teaching Assistants’ perspectives, eleven TAs from Setting A were sent a qualitative questionnaire online consisting of seven open-ended questions. The online questionnaire was sent out to all participants with a ten-day window to allow them sufficient time to complete the questionnaire. Out of the eleven TAs, eight questionnaires were completed.

Study Design

With the research being focused on Teaching Assistants’ perspective, the choice to use a qualitative paradigm was made. A qualitative paradigm portrays the participants’ assumptions, personal values and beliefs through the data gathered being in written language (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Creswell and Poth, 2018). The research method chosen was an online questionnaire. Bell and Waters (2018) recognise that questionnaires are often used with a quantitative paradigm. Braun and Clarke (2013) suggest how questionnaires can be used in a qualitative way through the use of open-ended questions. Therefore, the online questionnaire used for this research project consisted of seven open-ended questions to ensure that it was used in a qualitative way gathering participants thoughts and beliefs.

According to Thomas (2017) the term ‘reliability’ refers to the research producing ‘the same result on different occasions’ (p. 144). Bell and Waters (2018) highlight how participants’ experiences can alter their opinions and beliefs meaning that their responses may be affected due to differing circumstances, leading to the research method not being reliable. This is supported by Bryman et al., (2021) who suggest this research method may be deemed as unreliable due to the study not being able to be replicated due to the changing social circumstances and experiences of the participants. However, it is further highlighted that qualitative studies are reliable in the sense of the trustworthiness of the responses due to the open-ended questions which are asked (Braun and Clarke, 2013).

With regards to the validity of this research method, Braun and Clarke (2013) define validity as ‘whether the research actually shows what it claims to show’ (p. 338). According to Thomas (2017) qualitative data is questionable in terms of its validity due to the research being based on the participants’ assumptions and how this data is interpreted. However, as the research was aimed at gathering perceptions, the use of open-ended questions in an online questionnaire allowed the participants to share their honest thoughts and feelings on this topic. In contrast to this, Bryman et al., (2021) states ‘external validity is concerned with whether specific findings can be generalised across different social settings’ (p. 363). Further arguing that the use of a small sample size within a certain setting may create the issue that the findings cannot be generalised towards other settings (Bryman et al., 2021).

The decision to choose an online questionnaire for the study design was made due to this being an efficient method of data collection within the setting (Braun & Clarke, 2013). However, the use of structured interviews was also considered as a research method for this project. Although, Braun and Clarke (2013) recognise a limitation to structured interviews as them being time consuming with regards to the researcher conducting and transcribing the interview, together with the impact on participants due to the lengthy interview process. This may have caused an issue due to there being a short time frame for data collection. Whereas the use of an online questionnaire allowed participants to respond at a time which was convenient to themselves (Bryman et al., 2021).

Participant Sample

A purposive convenience sample was chosen for this study as TAs within Setting A were accessible to the researcher, together with them having an insight and understanding on the focus of this study (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Bryman et al., 2021). All TAs from Setting A were emailed asking for volunteers to answer the online questionnaire. Eleven TAs were chosen on a first come first serve basis. Bryman et al., (2021) stress the importance of using a sample size based on the nature of the research. Therefore, the sample size of eleven was chosen due to this being a qualitative small-scale research project to allow for a deep analysis of the responses. All participants were female; however, this is due to all TAs within Setting A being female.

Ethical Considerations

Before conducting the research project, a research proposal needed to be completed and approved by an ethics panel at Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU). Ethical frameworks were adhered to throughout the research process (BERA, 2018; BGU, 2019). All participants were administered an information letter which addressed the focus of the project, what the process would entail and their right to withdraw. Consent was gained from BGU and from Setting A through the signed ethics form. Consent was also gained from participants through a signed consent form. A copy of the questionnaire was also approved to ensure that the questions were ethical prior to sending them out to participants.

To ensure confidentiality, all participants were kept anonymous through the accessing the online questionnaire through a shared link, meaning that the researcher was not aware of who had submitted which response. A recognised strength of using an online questionnaire has been identified as having a high level of anonymity (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Burton et al., 2014). Thomas (2017) emphasises the importance of changing the names of participants and settings to ensure anonymity. Therefore, for the ethical consideration of the research project, all participants were kept anonymous and will be referred to as Participant A, B, C etc, together with the setting being referred to as Setting A. With further regards to confidentiality, all participants were made aware of who would have access to the results within the information letter, in addition to them being informed of their anonymity when taking part in the research and the inability to administer their right to withdraw.

Ethical considerations were taken regarding data protection. The need for data to be kept anonymous and stored in a secure place was followed (BERA, 2018; Thomas, 2017). Therefore, the data was stored on the researcher’s BGU OneDrive and not on any personal devices (BGU, 2019). In addition to this, the Data Protection Act (2018) stresses the importance of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and further states that data should be ‘kept for no longer than in necessary’. Due to this, all data collected will be destroyed once the final mark has been received.

Research Outcomes, Discussion and Analysis

To analyse the data received from the questionnaire, the data responses were converted into a spreadsheet. Braun and Clarke (2013) recognise the importance of preparing data to be analysed. Following this, thematic analysis was used to group key findings together. Braun and Clarke (2013) state that thematic analysis is often used to analyse qualitative data, further recognising that it is ‘a method for identifying themes and patterns of meaning across a dataset in relation to a research question’ (p. 175). From this, three main themes were identified: Lower Ability Support, Day to Day Preparedness and Subject Knowledge.

Lower Ability Support

One of the key findings from this research project portrayed that TAs are more commonly used as support for lower ability pupils to enable them to access the curriculum. According to Participant A

‘I largely spend my time supporting lower attaining children within the class’.

In addition to this, Participant B stated that one of their main roles was

‘Working with children through the lesson to give extra support if I can see they are struggling with something’.

Participant E further stated that a key role of their job is

‘Helping when children are struggling during lessons’.

Therefore, these findings may suggest that one of the key roles of TAs is to provide support to the lower ability pupils, or to pupils who require additional support for them to access the learning materials. This is supported by Bentham et al., (2019) who states a key role of TAs is ‘to enable pupils to access learning by supervising and assisting pupils across a wide range of activities and supported learning activities’ (p. 18). Sharples et al., (2021) also recognised that TAs provide more attention and support to pupils who are not able to access the curriculum independently.

Another key finding from this research suggested that a key responsibility of TAs is to provide additional support to pupils. Blatchford et al., (2012) recognised that pupils tend to gain more individual support and differentiation from their whole-class TA. In relation to this, Participant F stated their responsibilities as including

‘Creating and differentiating resources to ensure children can access learning’.

Participant F further identified part of their role as ‘Contributing to planning/differentiation of lessons for SEN children’.

Regarding this, Participant A stated,

‘If the children are struggling to grasp something, I try and explain in a different way or make a practical, visual activity. I make learning visual or tailor it to their individual needs.’

These finding appears to suggest that the class TA holds the responsibility of providing learning resources and delivering differentiated lessons to SEN pupils. This contradicts Webster et al., (2016) who acknowledge the requirement for teachers to take ownership of the development, differentiation and progression of SEN pupils. However, Sharples et al., (2021) identify that TAs tend to have a negative impact on pupil attainment. From these findings, it may indicate that TAs predominantly support lower attaining pupils through having to differentiate and alter the work to allow the pupils to access it. Therefore, it may be suggested that the negative impact on pupil attainment may be due to the lack of guidance from the teacher in supporting these lower ability or SEN pupils as opposed to the accountability being placed on the TA.

TAs working with lower ability pupils in small groups was another key finding from this research. According to Participant C as part of their role they

‘Sometimes take a group to work with at a slower pace to help with understanding or any misconceptions they may have’.

Participant G stated that they

‘Support children in smaller groups when completing activities – explain tasks, support with answers.’

These findings may suggest that TAs take pupils out in groups to provide them with alternate support from the rest of the class to aid them with their work. In relation to this, Bentham et al., (2019) recognised one of the TAs roles is to provide interventions to pupils to further support their learning. Blatchford et al., (2009) further identified that TAs spend the majority of their time supporting pupils in groups. Although, Participant F stated that their role consists of

‘Supporting groups of children with differentiated learning outside of the classroom.’

This finding may indicate that pupils are taken out of the lesson for this group work to take place. Webster et al., (2016) recognise a disadvantage to pupils being taken out of lessons for group work or interventions as it being time taken away from the teacher. Therefore, TAs taking pupils out of the class may be viewed as a negative due to the children missing the taught lessons delivered by the teacher.

Day to Day Preparedness

In terms of day-to-day preparedness, evidence suggests that there is not an adequate amount of allocated time for teachers and TAs to meet to discuss daily plans. Webster et al., (2013) highlighted the concern around the limited time for TAs to be informed of lesson plans prior to the lesson being taught. Regarding this, Participant A stated,

‘I am usually debriefed each morning however it is only brief as school is so busy and there is little time to communicate’.

In addition to this, Participant G stated,

‘Sometimes the timetable of the day is briefly explained to me in the morning of that day’.

These responses may be implying that they are informed of the bare minimum information for the day ahead due to the lack of time for teachers to meet with their TAs. In relation to this, Webster et al., (2016) identified that many TAs are often under-prepared for daily tasks and lessons due to the insufficient amount of allocated time for TAs to meet with their teacher.

Another key finding suggested that teachers are not prioritising the need for TAs to be made aware of lesson plans which may lead to resources not being prepared. According to Participant F

‘If it is maths or another lesson usually, I only find out moments before the lesson what the children I am supporting are doing, therefore I do not have time to plan ahead and get additional resources ready’.

Additionally, Participant G

‘Most times I’m made aware of the lesson/tasks at the start of each lesson or after the input’.

Participant A also stated,

‘I may sometimes only be told about an activity I am doing quickly during the lesson’.

Therefore, these findings may be suggesting that they are unable to prepare resources to assist the pupils, or to be able to enhance their knowledge by reviewing the lesson plan prior to the lesson being taught. This may lead to them not being able to support the pupils effectively. Webster et al., (2016) recognised the issue of TAs going into lesson unprepared with regard to not knowing the lesson plan or the expectations for that lesson. The Department for Education (2019) suggested that the inefficient amount of time given to TAs to allow them to prepare for the lessons can act as a barrier to them being able to effectively support the pupils’ learning.

Conversely, a key finding has found that most participants do have access to lesson plans, despite the insufficient amount of time for teachers and TAs to talk. According to Participant D

‘Planning is shared and left out for reference’.

In addition to this, Participant E stated,

‘I am sent planning and smart notebook presentations’.

Participant B further stated,

‘There is a lesson plan available to read’.

Therefore, these findings suggest that TAs are provided with lesson plans prior to the lessons which take place. Blatchford et al., (2012) recognised the importance for TAs to have access to planning. Additionally, the findings suggest that the lesson plans are emailed or left out which may be a way for teachers to provide planning to their TAs without having to worry about the limited time to talk during the school hours. Although, Sharples et al., (2021) suggested alternate methods for teacher and TAs to provide extra time to meet during assembly time or during PPA time. However, Bentham et al., (2019) recognised that it is the responsibility of school leaders to ensure teachers and TAs are provided dedicated time to discuss plans and feedback. Webster et al., (2016) stressed that TAs not receiving dedicated liaison time may lead them to feeling undervalued. Through the plans being emailed, this may imply that TAs do not have the dedicated time for them to verbally discuss the plans with their teachers prior to the lesson. In addition to this, lesson plans being emailed may indicate that it is the TA’s obligation to check these plans prior to the lessons taking place, in their own time.

Subject Knowledge

Another key finding from this research suggests the requirement of subject knowledge to allow TAs to support the pupils effectively. The research findings suggested that most participants felt confident with regard to their subject knowledge. However, Participant B recognised

‘As a TA with many years’ experience, my subject knowledge is good’.

Additionally, Participant H stated,

‘I have been able to enhance my subject knowledge by working in the same year group before as I can look back on what I remember/learnt in previous years’.

According to Participant A

‘Not always, I do in most subjects but that is because I have been in that year group for five years now’.

Therefore, these findings suggest that the TAs felt more confident with their subject knowledge after working with the year group in previous years, allowing them to recap prior knowledge. Although, Participant A further stated, ‘Recently the RE curriculum has changed and I do not feel confident delivering it with my limited subject knowledge’.

Bentham et al., (2019) highlighted the crucial need for TAs to have understanding and knowledge of the relevant curriculum areas. In addition to this, Ofsted (2021) argued the need for TAs to have good subject knowledge to allow them to effectively support the pupils.

One of the key findings implied that TAs depend on discussions with their class teacher as a way of developing their subject knowledge. According to Participant E

‘In areas where I am less confident, I will discuss with my class teacher’.

Additionally, Participant F stated,

‘If I was not sure of something I would ask the class teacher for additional information’.

Although, it has previously been highlighted the lack of dedicated time for teachers and TAs to communicate with each other, this may imply that TAs relying on their class teacher may not be beneficial due to the insufficient amount of time allowed for these conversations to take place. Regarding TAs not being given specific information and instruction on the subject knowledge which they require, Webster et al., (2016) stressed the importance for TAs to have clear guidance on their expectations to allow them to positively impact on the pupils they support. Furthermore, Webster et al., (2016) also identified the issue of TAs not receiving the same training opportunities as teachers which may hinder the support they provide to pupils. According to Sharples et al., (2021) school leaders should be responsible in providing TAs with opportunities for development. Therefore, it may be suggested that school leaders are responsible for enhancing TAs’ subject knowledge through offering more developmental opportunities.

Lastly, another key research finding suggests that TAs are not provided with specific training. According to Participant A

‘We don’t often have training’.

The Department for Education (2019) stressed how training opportunities for TAs have been neglected. Webster et al., (2016) further identified the need for TAs to receive specific training to allow them to develop their subject knowledge. Another key finding implied that TAs are responsible for conducting their own research to allow them to develop within their role. In relation to this, Participant D stated

‘If unsure about subject knowledge, this can be easily researched using books/access to the internet in school’.

Participant G stated,

‘Look into the subject further at home’.

Participant E referred to this as

‘Self-directed learning’.

Webster et al., (2013) recognised that TAs may develop their subject knowledge through reading lesson plans, tuning into the teacher’s lesson input or by informal and formal training. It may be suggested that TAs conducting their own research could be deemed as informal training. A problem with TAs conducting their own research may be that there are inconsistencies in their findings. This may result in the pupils being taught inaccurate information rather than TAs all receiving the same formal training which could provide them with accurate expectations for what they need in order to teach the pupils effectively.

Conclusion

It is evident that Teaching Assistants hold a crucial role in supporting children’s learning within the classroom. However, this small-scale research project presents the findings of the perceptions of TAs from one setting. Therefore, it cannot be used to generalise.

The research found that TAs view one of their main responsibilities as supporting pupils who are struggling within lessons and providing them with additional support. However, this led to the finding that the majority of TAs are used as an informal teaching resource for lower ability pupils through the use of teaching the pupils in small groups either inside or outside the classroom.

Furthermore, research found that TAs viewed the importance of being aware of the lesson plans prior to the lesson taking place to ensure they are aware of expectations and given enough time to prepare resources. Conversely, these plans were not always shared with TAs or it was down to the TA to access these plans in their own time. This resulted in a key finding that TAs are not provided with dedicated time for them to meet with their teacher to communicate plans. Finally, research also found that TAs who had previously experienced working in the same year group viewed themselves as feeling confident with regard to their subject knowledge. Nevertheless, most of the TAs portrayed that they had to conduct their own research to enhance their subject knowledge due to the negligence of subject specific training sessions for TAs.

Recommendations

• It is recommended that more time is set aside for teachers to meet with TAs to discuss lesson plans, and to communicate expectations.

• Teachers to share the responsibility of teaching lower ability pupils with their TA to allow the pupils to be taught by a mixture of practitioners along with the TA being given opportunities to work with a variety of mixed ability pupils.

• TAs to be provided with opportunities for more subject specific training to allow them to develop within their role without having to conduct their own research or having to rely on the teacher to inform them of subject specific lesson content.

• As a Teaching Assistant, a recommendation for personal practice would be to ensure that time is set aside for myself and the class teacher to share information, discuss plans and prepare resources.

• Moving forward, a personal recommendation based on own development with regard to being a researcher would be to ensure that questions asked are open questions to allow for practitioners to share their views without it being a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.

References

Bell, J., & Waters, S. (2018). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-time Researchers (7th ed). Open International Publishing Ltd.

Bentham, S. (2011). A Teaching Assistant’s Guide to Child Development and Psychology in the Classroom. Routledge.

Bentham, S., Sheach, S., & Saunders, H. (2019). How to be a brilliant teaching assistant. Routledge.

Bishop Grosseteste University. (2019). Research Ethics Policy (2nd ed). BGU. https://padlet-uploads.storage.googleapis.com/1641567463/1ae61b4d37542a370fb2689bfa233463/Research_Ethics_Policy_2019.pdf

Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2009). Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools: Characteristics, Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction of Support Staff in Schools (Strand 1, Waves 1-3 in 2004, 2006 and 2008). Institute of Education. https://maximisingtas.co.uk/assets/content/disss1w123r.pdf

Blatchford, P., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2012). Reassessing the impact of Teaching Assistants: How research challenges practice and policy. Routledge.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research: a practical guide for beginners. SAGE.

British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (4th ed). BERA. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018-online

Bryman, A., Clark, T., Foster, L., & Sloan, L. (2021). Bryman’s Social Research Methods (6th ed). Oxford University Press.

Burton, N., Brundrett, M., & Jones, M. (2014). Doing Your Education Research Project (2nd ed). SAGE.

Creswell., J. & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed). SAGE.

Data Protection Act. (2018). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted

Department for Education. (2019). Deployment of Teaching Assistants in Schools. HMSO. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/812507/Deployment_of_teaching_assistants_report.pdf

Hryniewicz, L. (2013). Teaching Assistants: The Complete Handbook (3rd ed). Adamson Publishing.

NAHT., National Education Trust., MITA & UNISON. (2016). Professional standards for teaching assistants: Advice for headteachers, teachers, teaching assistants, governing boards and employers.

Ofsted. (2021). Supporting SEND: Research and Analysis. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-send/supporting-send

Sharples, J., Webster, R., & Blatchford, P. (2021). Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants: Guidance Report. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/teaching-assistants

The Skills Network. (2020). Skills and Employment Trend Report: October 2020. TSN and EMSI. https://blog.theskillsnetwork.com/hubfs/TSN%20and%20EMSI%20-%20Skills%20and%20Employment%20Trend%20Report%202020.pdf?__hstc=233546881.724fe3cc5a79e4f206fb82f213460b3e.1605701841607.1605701841607.1605701841607.1&__hssc=233546881.1.1605701841607&__hsfp=1429748429

Thomas, G. (2017). How To Do Your Research Project: A Guide for Students (3rd ed). SAGE.

United Kingdom Statistics Authority. (2020, Nov). School Workforce in England. Crown Copyright. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-workforce-in-england

Webster, R. (2021, September). Why schools should rethink teaching assistants’ role. TES. https://www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/general/why-schools-should-rethink-teaching-assistants-role

Webster, R., Blatchford, P., & Russell, A. (2013). Challenging and Changing How Schools Use Teaching Assistants: Findings from the Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants Project. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 33(1), 78-98. https://maximisingtas.co.uk/assets/content/edta-project-final.pdf

Webster, R., Russell, A., & Blatchford, P. (2013). Maximising the impact of Teaching Assistants: Guidance for school leaders and teachers. Routledge.