Friday, 24 February 2012
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Wow...
...where did February go? Lots to write about, and didn't make myself any time to write about it. New post brewing for this weekend, on the subject of Noam Chomsky and a cheeky bit of radicalism in the classroom...
TBC...
TBC...
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
I had a new thought. The thought is about Performance Management. Here's the thought:
We (the college) clearly think that in terms of potential success gains, it is worth the financial outlay to employ four whole people specifically to coach the students for achievement.
These achievement coaches are distinct and different from the teaching staff, and are employed to work almost entirely on a one-to-one basis with students on target setting, development of skills, all that sort of stuff. If you like, they're responsible for developing an individual "Performance Management" plan with each student.
The fact that they're not the teaching staff is seen as advantageous in this, as the coaching/mentoring role they're fulfilling is a bit different to the relationship between teaching staff and their charges (which is more of a line management relationship - the teacher is the leader/manager directly "in charge" of the student's progress in a specific curriculum area).
Anyhow, is there any reason why there shouldn't / couldn't be someone employed to do for teaching staff what the Achievement Coaches do for students?
Just like the students, the teaching staff are a mixed bunch of folks, all of whom have individual needs, strengths and weaknesses.
Just like the students, the teaching staff would surely benefit from a non-judgemental, solution-based second opinion on their progress from someone able ot look at their work from an outside perspective.
And just as a third party (the Achievement Coach) doing this for the students instead of a teacher is seen as advantageous, wouldn't it follow that a third party doing this for teachers would be advantageous compared to their line managers having to take on this role?
So, yeah, my idea is - Would Performance Management be better if we, the teaching staff, had a Performance Coach, like the students have an Achievement Coach?
Actually, that's a question. The idea is - Performance Management would be better if we, the teaching staff, had a Performance Coach, like the students have an Achievement Coach.
We (the college) clearly think that in terms of potential success gains, it is worth the financial outlay to employ four whole people specifically to coach the students for achievement.
These achievement coaches are distinct and different from the teaching staff, and are employed to work almost entirely on a one-to-one basis with students on target setting, development of skills, all that sort of stuff. If you like, they're responsible for developing an individual "Performance Management" plan with each student.
The fact that they're not the teaching staff is seen as advantageous in this, as the coaching/mentoring role they're fulfilling is a bit different to the relationship between teaching staff and their charges (which is more of a line management relationship - the teacher is the leader/manager directly "in charge" of the student's progress in a specific curriculum area).
Anyhow, is there any reason why there shouldn't / couldn't be someone employed to do for teaching staff what the Achievement Coaches do for students?
Just like the students, the teaching staff are a mixed bunch of folks, all of whom have individual needs, strengths and weaknesses.
Just like the students, the teaching staff would surely benefit from a non-judgemental, solution-based second opinion on their progress from someone able ot look at their work from an outside perspective.
And just as a third party (the Achievement Coach) doing this for the students instead of a teacher is seen as advantageous, wouldn't it follow that a third party doing this for teachers would be advantageous compared to their line managers having to take on this role?
So, yeah, my idea is - Would Performance Management be better if we, the teaching staff, had a Performance Coach, like the students have an Achievement Coach?
Actually, that's a question. The idea is - Performance Management would be better if we, the teaching staff, had a Performance Coach, like the students have an Achievement Coach.
Friday, 27 January 2012
I Think I'll Pass... ive
Wow. Haven't written anything in ten days.
Lots on my mind, see. Mosty absolute nonsense of my own invention, as it happens. The meeting you have with your line manager in your head every night for a week is so much worse than the one in his office at the end of that week, isn't it?
Anyhow, a link to an article about a particular form of unhelpful thinking which I know affects me and hampers the way I work sometimes, and, now that I've been thinking about it a lot, I rather suspect is behind a lot of issues in education, both in the line management of teaching staff and the classroom management of students.
Basically, I've been very conscious of Passive Agressive mithering on my own part, and it's led me to think it'll be a good idea to look out for it and try to deal with it better when I see it in others, too.
I may post more on this subject later, as I think there are definitely some students and almost definitely some staff members who I can work more efficiantly with if I apply some of the observations in the article.
Got to go now. Weekend ahoy!
Lots on my mind, see. Mosty absolute nonsense of my own invention, as it happens. The meeting you have with your line manager in your head every night for a week is so much worse than the one in his office at the end of that week, isn't it?
Anyhow, a link to an article about a particular form of unhelpful thinking which I know affects me and hampers the way I work sometimes, and, now that I've been thinking about it a lot, I rather suspect is behind a lot of issues in education, both in the line management of teaching staff and the classroom management of students.
Basically, I've been very conscious of Passive Agressive mithering on my own part, and it's led me to think it'll be a good idea to look out for it and try to deal with it better when I see it in others, too.
I may post more on this subject later, as I think there are definitely some students and almost definitely some staff members who I can work more efficiantly with if I apply some of the observations in the article.
Got to go now. Weekend ahoy!
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
8 out 10 Cat Owners...
...or rather, 16 out of 18 A-Level students...
Here's the task we did today:
I gave them four concepts we've been thinking about recently and asked them to rate them from "The topic I'd most confident talking about," to "The thing I'd be least confident in talking about."
Based on this self-assessment, I then divided them into four equal-sized groups. About half of them got to be in a group which reflected their number one choice, and the rest ended up in a group themed around their second or third choice. Significantly, it panned out that no-one was in a group themed around their least confident concept, and that I was able to bring together people who don't usually work with each other and break up potentially unhelpful partnerships. (It'll be interesting to see if this is true again tomorrow when I do this with the parallel group).
Each group received individual copies of a text and a prompt-sheet with some questions relating to their chosen concept. The groups then had to read and discuss the text they'd been given. I emphasised that each member of the group would need to make their own record of the discussion because they'd need it later.
(each group, by the way, was looking at the same text, but I didn't mention this to them)
I was able to take quite a leisurely stroll around the room and chip in occasionally, but their discussions seemed to be on-topic and self-motivated, after the initial stimulus of my guide questions on the instruction sheet.
After the discussions had run their course, I pointed out that each group now had knowledge that the other three-quarters of the class didn't. I explained that their challenge now was to share their specialist knowledge with their peers.
The class then moved into four new groups (the only influence I had on the make-up of the second set of groups was to insist they had to have a representative from each of the first four groups in, but apart form that, they were free to select who they worked with for this bit). Each member of the new group took it in turns to be the "teacher" on their table, and explain to their peers what they'd gained from the text. The others in the new group were free to listen, ask questions, seek clarifications, respond with their own reactions, etc, based on what each of their expert peers told them.
Near the end of this task, I was able to go from table to table and speak to individuals, "So... Tell me something you've learned in the last 12 minutes..." and get some instant in-their-own-words indications of who was learning what.
We followed this up with a written task, where I set a series of broad questions based on the initial four concepts to prompt them to write detailed notes for their folders on these concepts. They had loads to write. Some even asked for more time on the written task.
They've now got a homework to contribute to discussions on some related ideas on a forum on our VLE. This'll hopefully stimulate some cross-pollination of ideas between the two classes as well as being a way of further checking individuals' understanding of / confidence about the concepts which will shape the planning of the follow-up lesson.
Oh, yeah. The 16 out of 18 thing. At the end, I asked them all to write anonymously on a scrap of paper the most useful thing they'd gained from the lesson and a single comment, positive or negative, about the way the lesson worked. Several of them then asked if they could also give it a mark out of 5 (something I've asked for in the past). Only two students gave it a mark below 4 - both of those cited the fact that they just don't like group work, especially with folks they don't usually sit with, and both of them had also named something useful they'd learned.
Can't please all the people all the time (these two more exclusively intrapersonal learners will probably love the exam-style essay coming up next week, mind you), but such a positive reaction makes me feel very optimistic about tomorrow's parallel lesson (especially as that group are the ones who were so positive about the "Stewart Can't Ask/Answer Questions" lesson I wrote about last week.
Here's the task we did today:
I gave them four concepts we've been thinking about recently and asked them to rate them from "The topic I'd most confident talking about," to "The thing I'd be least confident in talking about."
Based on this self-assessment, I then divided them into four equal-sized groups. About half of them got to be in a group which reflected their number one choice, and the rest ended up in a group themed around their second or third choice. Significantly, it panned out that no-one was in a group themed around their least confident concept, and that I was able to bring together people who don't usually work with each other and break up potentially unhelpful partnerships. (It'll be interesting to see if this is true again tomorrow when I do this with the parallel group).
Each group received individual copies of a text and a prompt-sheet with some questions relating to their chosen concept. The groups then had to read and discuss the text they'd been given. I emphasised that each member of the group would need to make their own record of the discussion because they'd need it later.
(each group, by the way, was looking at the same text, but I didn't mention this to them)
I was able to take quite a leisurely stroll around the room and chip in occasionally, but their discussions seemed to be on-topic and self-motivated, after the initial stimulus of my guide questions on the instruction sheet.
After the discussions had run their course, I pointed out that each group now had knowledge that the other three-quarters of the class didn't. I explained that their challenge now was to share their specialist knowledge with their peers.
The class then moved into four new groups (the only influence I had on the make-up of the second set of groups was to insist they had to have a representative from each of the first four groups in, but apart form that, they were free to select who they worked with for this bit). Each member of the new group took it in turns to be the "teacher" on their table, and explain to their peers what they'd gained from the text. The others in the new group were free to listen, ask questions, seek clarifications, respond with their own reactions, etc, based on what each of their expert peers told them.
Near the end of this task, I was able to go from table to table and speak to individuals, "So... Tell me something you've learned in the last 12 minutes..." and get some instant in-their-own-words indications of who was learning what.
We followed this up with a written task, where I set a series of broad questions based on the initial four concepts to prompt them to write detailed notes for their folders on these concepts. They had loads to write. Some even asked for more time on the written task.
They've now got a homework to contribute to discussions on some related ideas on a forum on our VLE. This'll hopefully stimulate some cross-pollination of ideas between the two classes as well as being a way of further checking individuals' understanding of / confidence about the concepts which will shape the planning of the follow-up lesson.
Oh, yeah. The 16 out of 18 thing. At the end, I asked them all to write anonymously on a scrap of paper the most useful thing they'd gained from the lesson and a single comment, positive or negative, about the way the lesson worked. Several of them then asked if they could also give it a mark out of 5 (something I've asked for in the past). Only two students gave it a mark below 4 - both of those cited the fact that they just don't like group work, especially with folks they don't usually sit with, and both of them had also named something useful they'd learned.
Can't please all the people all the time (these two more exclusively intrapersonal learners will probably love the exam-style essay coming up next week, mind you), but such a positive reaction makes me feel very optimistic about tomorrow's parallel lesson (especially as that group are the ones who were so positive about the "Stewart Can't Ask/Answer Questions" lesson I wrote about last week.
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Speak To Me...
I want them to talk more. I really want them to enjoy discussing academic stuff out loud. So I did this thing...
1) Students recieve chapter of dry, dull textbook (actually really cool, interesting textbook, but there's no accounting for tastes).
2) I instruct them to read in pairs and discuss what the chapter tells them about today's key terms (In this instance - The Standards Debate; Descriptivism; Prescriptivism)
2a) Today's Key Terms are, in this instance, never explicitly defined in the extract given, meaning they students actually have to understand and synthesise the info they have got to get anywhere (I slung in this curve-ball because they're A2 students who need some stretching).
3) At the end of the task, each student takes a piece of paper and writes, anonymously -
- one question they have about what they've just read;
- one opinion they've formed about the issues they've read about
- one thing they'd need to find out more about to understand the ideas even better.
4) After they come back from their dinner break, everyone sits around in a circle, with no desks (I'm currently really into getting rid of the desks unless they're really needed). On each chair is someone's anonymous piece of paper.
5) Going round the circle, each student reads out one of the three items on their piece of paper to the rest of the group and responds to it. Ie, they answer or critique the question; they agree or disagree with the opinion, and explain why; or they discuss what they know about the field someone wants to know more about.
6) When a student reads out from a paper, any other student may respond by agreeing, disagreeing or building on what has been said, or by taking the discussion off in a tangential but related direction.
7) If there is eerie, tumbleweed silence after someone has read out an item, the class can decide whether they need to spend a "Stewart Voucher" - a free pass which means I have to chip in and "give them the answers" in a didactic style.
There are only six "Stewart Vouchers," so the class cannot expect me to have the last word (or any word) on too much of the discussion.
Decisions to spend a Stewart Voucher must be unanimous amongst the group. Anyone who vetos the spending of a Stewart Voucher will be expected to move the discussion onwards themselves.
So, yeah, I tried that.
In one hour, the class had only spent three Stewart Vouchers, and the third of those was used because they had three minutes left in the lesson and figured they might as well use it up.
The rest of the time, slowly and tentatively, but respectfully and articulately, they debated the issues raised in Aitchison's book, and, by concensus, developed their own (accurate) working definitions of Descriptivism, Prescriptivism and Standards Debate, as well as saying some really interesting things in general.
Everyone spoke at least once - no-one's reading their own thought/question, so they can't feel so embarrassed.
Everyone was responded to at least once.
Everyone got their point of view heard. It wasn't in their voice - their classmates read from anonymous papers - but everyone had asked a question or expressed an opinion.
At the end, a student who I ususally spend all day grumbling at for text messaging instead of working said, "We should do that again, Stewart. That was good." and willingly engaged me in a conversation about how we could adapt the task to make it even more useful in future.
It's good when stuff works like that. I feel good that I took the chance on doing this lesson.
1) Students recieve chapter of dry, dull textbook (actually really cool, interesting textbook, but there's no accounting for tastes).
2) I instruct them to read in pairs and discuss what the chapter tells them about today's key terms (In this instance - The Standards Debate; Descriptivism; Prescriptivism)
2a) Today's Key Terms are, in this instance, never explicitly defined in the extract given, meaning they students actually have to understand and synthesise the info they have got to get anywhere (I slung in this curve-ball because they're A2 students who need some stretching).
3) At the end of the task, each student takes a piece of paper and writes, anonymously -
- one question they have about what they've just read;
- one opinion they've formed about the issues they've read about
- one thing they'd need to find out more about to understand the ideas even better.
4) After they come back from their dinner break, everyone sits around in a circle, with no desks (I'm currently really into getting rid of the desks unless they're really needed). On each chair is someone's anonymous piece of paper.
5) Going round the circle, each student reads out one of the three items on their piece of paper to the rest of the group and responds to it. Ie, they answer or critique the question; they agree or disagree with the opinion, and explain why; or they discuss what they know about the field someone wants to know more about.
6) When a student reads out from a paper, any other student may respond by agreeing, disagreeing or building on what has been said, or by taking the discussion off in a tangential but related direction.
7) If there is eerie, tumbleweed silence after someone has read out an item, the class can decide whether they need to spend a "Stewart Voucher" - a free pass which means I have to chip in and "give them the answers" in a didactic style.
There are only six "Stewart Vouchers," so the class cannot expect me to have the last word (or any word) on too much of the discussion.
Decisions to spend a Stewart Voucher must be unanimous amongst the group. Anyone who vetos the spending of a Stewart Voucher will be expected to move the discussion onwards themselves.
So, yeah, I tried that.
In one hour, the class had only spent three Stewart Vouchers, and the third of those was used because they had three minutes left in the lesson and figured they might as well use it up.
The rest of the time, slowly and tentatively, but respectfully and articulately, they debated the issues raised in Aitchison's book, and, by concensus, developed their own (accurate) working definitions of Descriptivism, Prescriptivism and Standards Debate, as well as saying some really interesting things in general.
Everyone spoke at least once - no-one's reading their own thought/question, so they can't feel so embarrassed.
Everyone was responded to at least once.
Everyone got their point of view heard. It wasn't in their voice - their classmates read from anonymous papers - but everyone had asked a question or expressed an opinion.
At the end, a student who I ususally spend all day grumbling at for text messaging instead of working said, "We should do that again, Stewart. That was good." and willingly engaged me in a conversation about how we could adapt the task to make it even more useful in future.
It's good when stuff works like that. I feel good that I took the chance on doing this lesson.
Monday, 9 January 2012
Deadlines & Priorities
Struck me the other day that when someone tells me something is really important and needs doing as a matter of priority, then says it needs doing "by Friday," or "by the end of the week," what they're in fact communicating to me is "No-one will chase you up to see if you've done this until after the weekend at the earliest," and by extention, "It's nowhere near as important as we're making it out to be. Have a nice weekend."
If at all possible, in future I shall look to avoid setting deadlines for Fridays, lest students develop the same ideas about work for my subject.
If at all possible, in future I shall look to avoid setting deadlines for Fridays, lest students develop the same ideas about work for my subject.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)