Here's a study of the blatantly obvious:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24115399-2702,00.html?from=public_rss
Apparently, if you establish study skills during primary our students are more likely to be academic. If you have a work ethic, you are more likely to succeed. Duh!
I'm sorry about the primary rant.. I'm still fuming from the comments made at the PD session. I promise to go back to supporting my primary brethren and the great work they do tomorrow.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
PD day 2 Yawn...
They say you only get what you put in. It's a bit hard when the opportunities for comment are limited to predetermined answers. The issues with planning in today's environment were clearly circumnavigated. It amounted to, plan guys, you're professionals do what you think is right. Oh, and here are five teaching stratagies.
Here were some of my questions and comments by PD staff
1. How many schools engage in values based education planning: few
2. Has middle schooling research been analysed before implementation at new schools: no, currently being investigated by ECU
3. It is important to know what is taught above and below your year group in any subject as kids may be at multiple levels: Duh!
4. There is significant slippage in year seven and nine due to adolescent hormones: True for some, excuse for most.
Here were some answers given by my fellow primary teachers.
1. "It is more important that students enjoy maths than have developed skills that they will retain."
2. "It is ok to teach to level three as lower ability students will switch off if they don't understand."
3. "Oh, is that what is taught in year 8. Why are you complaining - you don't have to do that much!"
..and I suppose it is ok to be able to write sentences with poor spelling, without capitals and full stops too. Numeracy is as important as literacy. Maths should not always be fun - it should have a fun element but there is a need to learn the skills too. Understanding without the ability to retain knowledge is a useless pursuit; you are building a house of straw without retention in mathematics. This is not rocket science people!
Here is some other useful stuff that is not common knowledge (apparently):
1. If a student is meeting outcomes and standards framework 'targets' then they are performing at the level of a reasonable student (eg. a 'B' student). Targets are meant to be the mean teaching point.
2. If a student is just reaching a NAPLAN benchmark, it describes a minimum performance requirement indicating assistance required. The child probably requires an IEP to lift him off the benchmark.
The obvious conclusion here is that many teachers are only teaching to targets and not extending into higher levels. This has always been the concern with developmental strategies - a developmental strategy in a heterogenous class relies on teachers teaching multiple levels nearly all the time and having strategies available to monitor performance and stretch students (a notoriously difficult task) - saying that good kids will pick it up later is clearly not good enough.
Here were some of my questions and comments by PD staff
1. How many schools engage in values based education planning: few
2. Has middle schooling research been analysed before implementation at new schools: no, currently being investigated by ECU
3. It is important to know what is taught above and below your year group in any subject as kids may be at multiple levels: Duh!
4. There is significant slippage in year seven and nine due to adolescent hormones: True for some, excuse for most.
Here were some answers given by my fellow primary teachers.
1. "It is more important that students enjoy maths than have developed skills that they will retain."
2. "It is ok to teach to level three as lower ability students will switch off if they don't understand."
3. "Oh, is that what is taught in year 8. Why are you complaining - you don't have to do that much!"
..and I suppose it is ok to be able to write sentences with poor spelling, without capitals and full stops too. Numeracy is as important as literacy. Maths should not always be fun - it should have a fun element but there is a need to learn the skills too. Understanding without the ability to retain knowledge is a useless pursuit; you are building a house of straw without retention in mathematics. This is not rocket science people!
Here is some other useful stuff that is not common knowledge (apparently):
1. If a student is meeting outcomes and standards framework 'targets' then they are performing at the level of a reasonable student (eg. a 'B' student). Targets are meant to be the mean teaching point.
2. If a student is just reaching a NAPLAN benchmark, it describes a minimum performance requirement indicating assistance required. The child probably requires an IEP to lift him off the benchmark.
The obvious conclusion here is that many teachers are only teaching to targets and not extending into higher levels. This has always been the concern with developmental strategies - a developmental strategy in a heterogenous class relies on teachers teaching multiple levels nearly all the time and having strategies available to monitor performance and stretch students (a notoriously difficult task) - saying that good kids will pick it up later is clearly not good enough.
Labels:
benchmarks,
mathematics,
PD,
targets
Monday, August 4, 2008
PD, direct instruction, collaborative learning
Ok, I'm at my PD for this semester. Two days about hearing the great uses of placemats, four corners, PMI's, Y charts, jigsaws and blahdy, blah, blah. Yes, they're great. But when it comes down to it, a modelled lesson, some great notes followed by practice, practice, practice in a room of engaged students is still a more efficient use of time. Direct instruction and teaching vs facilitated learning and collaboration in a low ability environment - there's no comparison. DI wins each time.
For high ability students the collaborative stuff works, but it is still slower than a modelled lesson or students investigating worked examples. Good students don't become unmotivated whilst learning new content or seeking their next good assessment mark and don't need the Heinz 57 varieties teaching methods. Entertaining students and teaching are not synonymous. I hated some of my best teachers, and learned more from them than necessarily the classes I liked and were more wafty in their outcomes.
For low ability students I am sick of being told students just need to be taught how to do (insert strategy here).. if junior school teachers haven't managed to use these strategies and teach them effectively I don't have a hope at year 10/11/12 level. (I did see multiple strategy coordination done well at one school where teachers had recorded which year groups had been taught which strategies). And whilst we're at it, First Steps numeracy - please get the kids to do some work and not so much nonsense. Show me some real evidence (research with a valid statistical sample) that it works better with high ability students than traditional methods. I don't think it can, and am challenged to find a large number of low ability students responding to it in a high school either.
That's not to say I am disparaging alternate tasks such as investigative work on the white board (such as the graphing question posed in a previous blog entry). This does work, as long as it is strongly teacher directed. Teaching kids to play board games works as long as I am there playing adjudicator. I would love to see some of these 'I've been out of the classroom 5 years' or 'I like being home with my kids 3 days a week' presenters doing this sort of stuff with kids who like to stab calculators or will fly off the handle because a new student enters the class that they don't like.
Stability, a firm hand on behaviour including clear boundaries, an understanding of effective learning styles for each student and low student teacher ratios is a good recipe for low ability student success.
Give me a month, I'll dig out my Spencer Kagan/Developing Minds books again and go have another hack at collaborative strategies. Maybe I'll even be uni student enthusiastic about it again. I'll keep you posted.
For high ability students the collaborative stuff works, but it is still slower than a modelled lesson or students investigating worked examples. Good students don't become unmotivated whilst learning new content or seeking their next good assessment mark and don't need the Heinz 57 varieties teaching methods. Entertaining students and teaching are not synonymous. I hated some of my best teachers, and learned more from them than necessarily the classes I liked and were more wafty in their outcomes.
For low ability students I am sick of being told students just need to be taught how to do (insert strategy here).. if junior school teachers haven't managed to use these strategies and teach them effectively I don't have a hope at year 10/11/12 level. (I did see multiple strategy coordination done well at one school where teachers had recorded which year groups had been taught which strategies). And whilst we're at it, First Steps numeracy - please get the kids to do some work and not so much nonsense. Show me some real evidence (research with a valid statistical sample) that it works better with high ability students than traditional methods. I don't think it can, and am challenged to find a large number of low ability students responding to it in a high school either.
That's not to say I am disparaging alternate tasks such as investigative work on the white board (such as the graphing question posed in a previous blog entry). This does work, as long as it is strongly teacher directed. Teaching kids to play board games works as long as I am there playing adjudicator. I would love to see some of these 'I've been out of the classroom 5 years' or 'I like being home with my kids 3 days a week' presenters doing this sort of stuff with kids who like to stab calculators or will fly off the handle because a new student enters the class that they don't like.
Stability, a firm hand on behaviour including clear boundaries, an understanding of effective learning styles for each student and low student teacher ratios is a good recipe for low ability student success.
Give me a month, I'll dig out my Spencer Kagan/Developing Minds books again and go have another hack at collaborative strategies. Maybe I'll even be uni student enthusiastic about it again. I'll keep you posted.
Labels:
collaborative learning,
direct instruction,
teaching
Politics and education
Well, today the next round of would be state politicians destroyed a few more trees and wanted to make sure that I would vote for them at the next election by filing my mail box with pamphlets and questionaires. On one side we have the local Liberal candidate who does not know the current education policy of his party (because I dare say they don't have a leader or a policy) and on the other side our Labor candidate(..yes the spelling is correct for those reading from overseas) thinks that the most important local issue I need to consider is whether we need a skate park to alleviate local misdemeaners by our youth.
I wish the pair of them would take a wider viewpoint than this and discuss policy - particularly education policy. At least this election they seem not to be spending the whole time attacking the personality of the other.
My favourite nonsense was the bit at the end of the Labor pamphlet where the Labor party announces they are building WA. Selling WA and privatising it may be more accurate. A key component of building WA is our youth and both parties need to consider the state's role in education and the inequity growing between state and private schools. It would be great to see either party commit to rebuilding public faith and support in the teaching sector by addressing key issues raised by teachers. That would be building WA more than any stadium.
.. and I'd rather they stopped filling my mailbox with garbage and nonsense.
I wish the pair of them would take a wider viewpoint than this and discuss policy - particularly education policy. At least this election they seem not to be spending the whole time attacking the personality of the other.
My favourite nonsense was the bit at the end of the Labor pamphlet where the Labor party announces they are building WA. Selling WA and privatising it may be more accurate. A key component of building WA is our youth and both parties need to consider the state's role in education and the inequity growing between state and private schools. It would be great to see either party commit to rebuilding public faith and support in the teaching sector by addressing key issues raised by teachers. That would be building WA more than any stadium.
.. and I'd rather they stopped filling my mailbox with garbage and nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)