2026–27 · Teacher of Chemistry

This year’s research question came from a target set by my tutor: keep thinking of ways to scaffold the weakest students. My students could explain chemistry confidently out loud, yet 10 of 12 scored under half marks on an eight-mark written question without sentence stems.

What happened. When I withdrew the scaffolds too quickly, the class mean fell to 39.6%, even though the students had sorted the same ideas correctly in a card activity that morning. In the next cycle I added paired oral rehearsal before writing and matched support to each student. The mean rose to 62.5%, and students needed less help.

Reflection. The biggest change is in how I judge success. I now look separately at the mark, the help a student needed and the accuracy of the science, and I remove support only when the evidence shows the student is ready. This page will grow as the year progresses.

Goals for the year

Help lower-attaining writers build increasingly independent extended answers
Learn to judge, from evidence, when and for whom support should be withdrawn
Gain Hong Kong Registered Teacher status

What I did

Ran two action research cycles (EDPM97) with a Grade 9 IGCSE Chemistry class of 12, mostly EAL learners
Combined paired oral rehearsal before writing, model-building and support matched to each student
Treated the mark, the help needed and the accuracy of the science as separate measures of success

Impact

After scaffolds were withdrawn too quickly, the class mean on extended writing fell to 39.6%
After paired rehearsal and differentiated support, the mean rose to 62.5%, with students working more independently

Professional learning

PGCE with supervised practicum, University of Sunderland (completing 2026)
Hong Kong Registered Teacher status (application pending)