Over Christmas I stopped running in the morning. It took ages to get my fitness back to the stage of enjoying a run again and a whole heap of unadulterated pain.
Being someone that doesn't like pain and thinks that exercise is overrated, it was a big thing for me to get fit in the first place and rather unfortunate that I stopped exercise over the eating season. Hello 10 kg. Goodbye feet. My trousers are getting tight where I once needed a belt. It was probably time to do something about it.
My wife started hiding the chocolate biscuits. I had to do something.
Anyway, I had the bright idea to start running again.. so during the week I took out my running gear and each morning turned over and said to myself.. tomorrow is a good day to start again.
This morning I must have had some sort of brain malfunction and actually put the gear on and went for a run. It went great for the first 200m. The next 200m was getting tough. The next 2km was stabbing forks in my thighs and glass shards in my lungs. Unlike the propaganda for exercise (and consistent with anecdotal evidence of most unfit people trying to exercise), it was not fun, I do not feel good and wouldn't recommend it to anyone including the guy with a dog that poops on my lawn (well.. maybe him). Walking up the last hill, my legs were 200kg bags of cement and I could only breathe occasionally. When I finished I wanted to crawl into a small heap and moan at the moon.
What was I thinking??!?????
Will I do it again.. yes, probably.. like most addictions it crawls up at you and time to time demands that you again have a go.
Maybe I could just buy some new trousers....
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
One for Ornithologists
Was caught today using one of my lessons from uni. It is about drawing histograms and the following data was used:
score. f
1...... 2
2...... 2
3...... 8
4...... 2
5...... 1
It was quite funny then but not really appropriate for a maths class.
score. f
1...... 2
2...... 2
3...... 8
4...... 2
5...... 1
It was quite funny then but not really appropriate for a maths class.
Labels:
funny,
mathematics,
teacher
Being a know-it-all
Sometimes I read past entries and think that perhaps I said that a bit strongly, and what is an opinion is stated a bit too much like fact.
Well.. today I was caught by my own enthusiasm and after a little assessment have proof that some of the coursework was above the level of the students as I see retention of information from first term way below the level expected (On a scale of little recalled to perfect recall it fell off the scale in the OMG category).
As a new teacher, pitching classes at the right level is a little hit and miss at times (sometimes coursework is too easy other times too hard).. but oh boy.. this one was a doozy. It's not that the situation is irretrievable or that any real harm has been done (later learning will be done faster through introduction of the topic now) but it does raise the point that pre-testing and having the experience to estimate ability accurately is a real bonus once out of your initial years of teaching.
Pitching a lesson series at the wrong level creates a raft of issues. Firstly it damages the confidence of students. Secondly it upsets the sequence of learning and lastly it can cause behavioural issues as students turn off and look for other activities to stimulate them.
Being absent whilst baby was born hasn't helped either, as I may have caught the error earlier.
Bugger.
Well.. today I was caught by my own enthusiasm and after a little assessment have proof that some of the coursework was above the level of the students as I see retention of information from first term way below the level expected (On a scale of little recalled to perfect recall it fell off the scale in the OMG category).
As a new teacher, pitching classes at the right level is a little hit and miss at times (sometimes coursework is too easy other times too hard).. but oh boy.. this one was a doozy. It's not that the situation is irretrievable or that any real harm has been done (later learning will be done faster through introduction of the topic now) but it does raise the point that pre-testing and having the experience to estimate ability accurately is a real bonus once out of your initial years of teaching.
Pitching a lesson series at the wrong level creates a raft of issues. Firstly it damages the confidence of students. Secondly it upsets the sequence of learning and lastly it can cause behavioural issues as students turn off and look for other activities to stimulate them.
Being absent whilst baby was born hasn't helped either, as I may have caught the error earlier.
Bugger.
Labels:
mathematics,
teaching
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Literacy and the need for developing capacity
A common catch cry in schools is that we need to improve literacy. Each year the same old rubbish is wheeled out in the guise of cross curricula scaffolding, pro-forma templates and a bunch of clever sounding words that achieve little.
I think if we actually looked at what each learning area is actually doing, literacy is a common component that does not need to be explicitly looked at as a 'literacy' issue. Let's take mathematics for example and the current rhetoric.
Literacy Statement:
Gone are the days where you can teach and test a skill. To adequately support literacy in a school we need to implement literacy in every learning area. Texts used need to support literacy initiatives.
Maths Reply:
Mathematics is typically a text dependent subject. A good mathematics text typically has three components. Each section starts with explanatory text, an area where a student has the content explained - such as a worked example. Following the explanatory text is usually some form of text bank that identifies key words within a section and their meaning. Each word in the text is identified by the teacher and used in context to assist students expand their mathematical vocabulary. Following each bank of words is a section of practice starting with straightforward examples and leading to word problems that require varying degrees of English comprehension and analysis. Mathematical comprehension is verified against answers supplied to questions.
Literacy Conclusion:
Over time, whilst immersed in examples of the mathematical form, the student gains contextual understanding, developing processes and strategies guided by cues for usage. Students are encouraged to reflect upon the level of their skills through answer keys and response items in assessment. Students develop independent learning strategies through investigative tasks to extend their growing understanding."
At this point some people (predominantly non teachers and skeptics like myself) will go "what a load of BS". This is not "literacy" rocket science but just old fashioned teaching (no surprises here.. the maths response was teaching from a text with some testing).
Unfortunately a lot of the literacy movement seems to be just hot air .. a lot of documentation that outlines what we already do, with no defined outcomes or outcomes so unmeasurable that they are worthless.
When parents ask for literacy improvement they usually mean can my student paragraph, write a coherent sentence, deconstruct a problem, understand a text. These tasks are typically issues addressed in English departments as specific skills taught over five to ten years. In the same way we teach supporting mathematics for SOSE and Science, we need English to teach grammar, comprehension and reading skills to assist us. This seems to have been the first positive outcome from NAPLAN testing and the national curriculum debate.
The main issue with the literacy debate and to a lesser degree "the whole of language approach" is that core skills in English (and to a lesser degree other subjects) have been given a backseat to experiential learning and by distributing responsibility for learning language based skills we have watered down the ability and accountability for learning areas to deliver their subject specific content (and undervalued the real skill of English teachers). The value of cross curricula learning has been overestimated, with few realising the amount of work it takes to establish a working cross curricula programme.
As someone that couldn't write a paragraph properly until year 10 (when my English teacher forced us to write an essay every Friday afternoon last period for a whole year) I recognise that this is not a new problem.. but we have had 15 years since I was in school to identify the issue and pinpoint better ways of solving it than the current mess. When responsibility for written skills is devolved to many, responsibility for success is also distributed to the point often that no-one is responsible. Written skills (although supported by all learning areas) need to be the responsibility of English departments in the same way that mathematics is guided in a school by a Mathematics department.
I think that strong, visible and active English and Mathematics departments in a school are clear indicators of a good school.
We need to consider that developing capable English and Mathematics departments is not optional in schools.. it is a necessity and priority for success.
I think if we actually looked at what each learning area is actually doing, literacy is a common component that does not need to be explicitly looked at as a 'literacy' issue. Let's take mathematics for example and the current rhetoric.
Literacy Statement:
Gone are the days where you can teach and test a skill. To adequately support literacy in a school we need to implement literacy in every learning area. Texts used need to support literacy initiatives.
Maths Reply:
Mathematics is typically a text dependent subject. A good mathematics text typically has three components. Each section starts with explanatory text, an area where a student has the content explained - such as a worked example. Following the explanatory text is usually some form of text bank that identifies key words within a section and their meaning. Each word in the text is identified by the teacher and used in context to assist students expand their mathematical vocabulary. Following each bank of words is a section of practice starting with straightforward examples and leading to word problems that require varying degrees of English comprehension and analysis. Mathematical comprehension is verified against answers supplied to questions.
Literacy Conclusion:
Over time, whilst immersed in examples of the mathematical form, the student gains contextual understanding, developing processes and strategies guided by cues for usage. Students are encouraged to reflect upon the level of their skills through answer keys and response items in assessment. Students develop independent learning strategies through investigative tasks to extend their growing understanding."
At this point some people (predominantly non teachers and skeptics like myself) will go "what a load of BS". This is not "literacy" rocket science but just old fashioned teaching (no surprises here.. the maths response was teaching from a text with some testing).
Unfortunately a lot of the literacy movement seems to be just hot air .. a lot of documentation that outlines what we already do, with no defined outcomes or outcomes so unmeasurable that they are worthless.
When parents ask for literacy improvement they usually mean can my student paragraph, write a coherent sentence, deconstruct a problem, understand a text. These tasks are typically issues addressed in English departments as specific skills taught over five to ten years. In the same way we teach supporting mathematics for SOSE and Science, we need English to teach grammar, comprehension and reading skills to assist us. This seems to have been the first positive outcome from NAPLAN testing and the national curriculum debate.
The main issue with the literacy debate and to a lesser degree "the whole of language approach" is that core skills in English (and to a lesser degree other subjects) have been given a backseat to experiential learning and by distributing responsibility for learning language based skills we have watered down the ability and accountability for learning areas to deliver their subject specific content (and undervalued the real skill of English teachers). The value of cross curricula learning has been overestimated, with few realising the amount of work it takes to establish a working cross curricula programme.
As someone that couldn't write a paragraph properly until year 10 (when my English teacher forced us to write an essay every Friday afternoon last period for a whole year) I recognise that this is not a new problem.. but we have had 15 years since I was in school to identify the issue and pinpoint better ways of solving it than the current mess. When responsibility for written skills is devolved to many, responsibility for success is also distributed to the point often that no-one is responsible. Written skills (although supported by all learning areas) need to be the responsibility of English departments in the same way that mathematics is guided in a school by a Mathematics department.
I think that strong, visible and active English and Mathematics departments in a school are clear indicators of a good school.
We need to consider that developing capable English and Mathematics departments is not optional in schools.. it is a necessity and priority for success.
Labels:
literacy,
mathematics,
teaching
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)