I attended the ‘Assessment Tomorrow’ conference a couple of weeks ago, and there were some interesting aspects of e assessment highlighted by speakers. Norman Emerson presented an update on the SQA NAR (National Assessment Resource), which is intended to be an online resource for practitioners to support the implementation of CfE. A lot of the materials are currently more geared for colleagues in schools, but there will be more developed materials soon to support other programmes such as NQs. His presentation is included in this entry.
There was an interesting and positive presentation given on the use of e portfolios as a mode of assessment by Maxine Garson from Highland Education Authority. Maxine is employed as a School Liaison Officer on Skills for Work programmes, and has been developing the use of e portfolios to overcome some of the geographical challenges associated with course delivery across the region, and has recently extended this to the practice of e verification.
Matt Wingfield’s presentation featured a briefing on a small pilot that is being carried out in partnership with SQA on the use of ‘Comparative Pairs’ as a way of assessing a range of diverse pieces of evidence and avoiding subjectivity. His organisation (TAG Developments) has devised an algorithm which can help assessors rank/grade a group of students’ work. With reference to the CfE’s emphasis on encouraging more and more diverse ways for learners to present work for assessment, Matt had some good ideas for consideration. There is a web address for more information about the pilot study in his presentation, included here.
There were other interesting and innovative ideas for the future such as the use of an electronic marking tool (Red Pen Tool), the use of mobile phone technology related to assessment of language learning, as well as many examples of online assessments from preschool up to upper secondary.
You can access the presentations in the S Drive -
S:/LandT/Public/Assessment tomorrow.
Jenni Moreland
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
FERA Conference, October, London
Feedback from FERA Conference, Friday 22nd October
Engaging 16-19 year-olds in Learning: Carrot or Stick?
Participation, Retention and Achievement
This was an interesting conference raising several issues that we could consider in relation to CfE, MCMC and learner engagement. Although the conference was primarily focused on provision in England and Wales, some of the issues were pertinent to Scotland, and there was also discussion relating to recent MCMC research findings in Scotland.
I’ve tried to summarise the main ideas presented, but can give further information to anyone interested.
1. Geoff Hayward, Director of Research at the Department of Education, University of Oxford and Director of the Nuffield 14-19 Review.
• More young people are being attracted into further education, and are staying in the system for longer. However, there is statistical evidence that young people are migrating from employment to education (those previously who would have been employed are now in education). This could be seen as structural youth unemployment, and the we need to consider whether we are really helping young people into the labour market.
• Too often young people leave education to go into low paid, temporary employment, or unemployment and come back to college to gain another qualification at the same level that they previously acquired.
• Arguably we are stockpiling qualifications , against other countries – qualifications that are not actually needed for the labour market. “Qualifications become increasingly self-referential inside an education system that fails to engage with the reality of the labour market, which surprisingly places little value on most vocational qualifications currently offered in FE colleges.”
• Do these qualifications actually make us more innovative, creative, raise the GDP – arguably no. Very weak evidence that qualifications leads to jobs, unless you need that qualification to register for a particular job.
• ‘In search of the elusive quarry’ – employability and generic skills, or the ‘Unbearable lightness of skills’. Attempting to define a skills set is a fool’s errand and a waste of money – over past 30 years there have been 5 policy changes trying to define skills needed, but skills need to contextualized and cannot successfully be taught in isolation.
• Argues for more school based vocational system similar to Austria’s.
• Stop putting up with qualification pathways that don’t lead anywhere.
• Help young people develop to be innovative and creative – develop businesses.
2. Gary Warke, Deputy Chief Executive of Hull College Group, one of the largest FE colleges in England. Outlined strategies used to engage and sustain young people in college.
• Offer discovery ½ days/full days for pupils at age 13/14, parents and school staff. Raises the awareness of college potential and helps develop partnership working with schools.
• Developing a range of apprenticeships with local employers.
• Provide alternative learning provisions using collaboration with school, college and other learning providers.
• Very clear pathways with qualifications: entry to degree.
• Constant curriculum review to make sure this reflects labour market opportunities.
• Guidance and support crucial. Contacts need to be made and sustained with schools early on. A great deal of pastoral care was given in guidance tutoring.
• Innovation in learning and teaching – have in place learning coaches for lecturers and learning mentors for young people.
• Core skill are integrated into all subjects.
• Developed a teaching award for those teaching young people – awarded by Edexel, as the it was recognised that additional knowledge and skills were needed.
• E-learning co-ordinator employed in each faculty to help embed technology in the curriculum and to keep staff up-to-date with innovations in technology.
3. Dr. Ian Finlay, Independent Researcher, Young people on the margins: in need of more choices and more chances in twenty-first century Scotland.
Dr Finlay was discussing his recently published paper (British Educational research Journal, October 2010). The aim of the study was to find out more about the lives of young people catagorised as NEET. The research team worked with 26 young people in small groups, and engaged with them using a variety of creative and artistic activities designed to help them construct accounts of their lives. Three significant issues emerged from their lives stories:
• The problematic nature of the discourse of NEET, and why Scotland had changed to MCMC;
• The challenges of school-exclusion policies and practices and;
• The myth of low aspirations. Young people have the same aspirations as other people but their expectations are lower.
• There needs to be more opportunities that are tailored to meet individual needs, and more choices in terms of the range of provision available – often in a non-formal or voluntary sector. “Youth workers and advisors in these sectors seem to be able to develop the kind of close, supportive relationships with young people that are difficult to develop in secondary schools because of the structures and numbers involved.”
• Argues for family size scale of provision – difficult to provide in schools and colleges.
I have the research paper if anyone is interested in reading it.
For further information contact me: Karen.lawson@scotcol.ac.uk
Engaging 16-19 year-olds in Learning: Carrot or Stick?
Participation, Retention and Achievement
This was an interesting conference raising several issues that we could consider in relation to CfE, MCMC and learner engagement. Although the conference was primarily focused on provision in England and Wales, some of the issues were pertinent to Scotland, and there was also discussion relating to recent MCMC research findings in Scotland.
I’ve tried to summarise the main ideas presented, but can give further information to anyone interested.
1. Geoff Hayward, Director of Research at the Department of Education, University of Oxford and Director of the Nuffield 14-19 Review.
• More young people are being attracted into further education, and are staying in the system for longer. However, there is statistical evidence that young people are migrating from employment to education (those previously who would have been employed are now in education). This could be seen as structural youth unemployment, and the we need to consider whether we are really helping young people into the labour market.
• Too often young people leave education to go into low paid, temporary employment, or unemployment and come back to college to gain another qualification at the same level that they previously acquired.
• Arguably we are stockpiling qualifications , against other countries – qualifications that are not actually needed for the labour market. “Qualifications become increasingly self-referential inside an education system that fails to engage with the reality of the labour market, which surprisingly places little value on most vocational qualifications currently offered in FE colleges.”
• Do these qualifications actually make us more innovative, creative, raise the GDP – arguably no. Very weak evidence that qualifications leads to jobs, unless you need that qualification to register for a particular job.
• ‘In search of the elusive quarry’ – employability and generic skills, or the ‘Unbearable lightness of skills’. Attempting to define a skills set is a fool’s errand and a waste of money – over past 30 years there have been 5 policy changes trying to define skills needed, but skills need to contextualized and cannot successfully be taught in isolation.
• Argues for more school based vocational system similar to Austria’s.
• Stop putting up with qualification pathways that don’t lead anywhere.
• Help young people develop to be innovative and creative – develop businesses.
2. Gary Warke, Deputy Chief Executive of Hull College Group, one of the largest FE colleges in England. Outlined strategies used to engage and sustain young people in college.
• Offer discovery ½ days/full days for pupils at age 13/14, parents and school staff. Raises the awareness of college potential and helps develop partnership working with schools.
• Developing a range of apprenticeships with local employers.
• Provide alternative learning provisions using collaboration with school, college and other learning providers.
• Very clear pathways with qualifications: entry to degree.
• Constant curriculum review to make sure this reflects labour market opportunities.
• Guidance and support crucial. Contacts need to be made and sustained with schools early on. A great deal of pastoral care was given in guidance tutoring.
• Innovation in learning and teaching – have in place learning coaches for lecturers and learning mentors for young people.
• Core skill are integrated into all subjects.
• Developed a teaching award for those teaching young people – awarded by Edexel, as the it was recognised that additional knowledge and skills were needed.
• E-learning co-ordinator employed in each faculty to help embed technology in the curriculum and to keep staff up-to-date with innovations in technology.
3. Dr. Ian Finlay, Independent Researcher, Young people on the margins: in need of more choices and more chances in twenty-first century Scotland.
Dr Finlay was discussing his recently published paper (British Educational research Journal, October 2010). The aim of the study was to find out more about the lives of young people catagorised as NEET. The research team worked with 26 young people in small groups, and engaged with them using a variety of creative and artistic activities designed to help them construct accounts of their lives. Three significant issues emerged from their lives stories:
• The problematic nature of the discourse of NEET, and why Scotland had changed to MCMC;
• The challenges of school-exclusion policies and practices and;
• The myth of low aspirations. Young people have the same aspirations as other people but their expectations are lower.
• There needs to be more opportunities that are tailored to meet individual needs, and more choices in terms of the range of provision available – often in a non-formal or voluntary sector. “Youth workers and advisors in these sectors seem to be able to develop the kind of close, supportive relationships with young people that are difficult to develop in secondary schools because of the structures and numbers involved.”
• Argues for family size scale of provision – difficult to provide in schools and colleges.
I have the research paper if anyone is interested in reading it.
For further information contact me: Karen.lawson@scotcol.ac.uk
Friday, October 1, 2010
EDDG meetings on the topic of Assessment
This week we had two well attended lunchtime meetings of our EDDG group. Assessment was chosen as our focus partly because the SCE Assessment Policy is currently undergoing review and also to lead us into the Curriculum for Excellence vision of creating an 'Assessment is for Learning' college.
As always, at these meetings the attendees shared examples of good practice such as:
Carole
As always, at these meetings the attendees shared examples of good practice such as:
- Starting a unit by setting a mock summative assessment and allowing the learners to find out how many gaps there are in their knowledge and privately discover how much they need to learn to be successful
- Using quiz type formative testing throughout the course which can be peppered with 'pub quiz' type questions which tend to lighten an otherwise stressful experience
- Using feedback stickys at the end of a lesson to let the lecturer know of gaps and successes in the learning
- Using Quizdom linked to a presentation -this is an electronic voting tool given to the learners that then allows the lecturer to monitor the understanding of their lesson
- Peer assessing and peer reviewing and the 'two stars and a wish' approach where students give feedback to one another about what they've done well and what they might do differently
- Regularly sharing in staff meetings what is happening in the classroom that seems to work well
- Involving students in decisions about how they want to be assessed
- Using regular informal testing at the end of a lesson. This appears to lead to the learners paying greater attention throughout the class
- Using Flip cameras to video group work
- Using D2L and various fora (Blogs, Wikis etc) to feedback to the learners. This creates a platform for further group discussions and collabarative learning
- Students developing assessments for one another can help them to look at a topic from a different perspective
These are some of the techniques that are being used across college and the value of each was discussed. It was agreed that it wasn't always easy to balance the academic content with useful formative assessment and strive to keep our learners engaged along the way.
Also discussed were the problems faced with plagiarism and academic dishonesty and how sanctions can and are being used. Some lecturers draw up a contract with their learners regarding plagiarism at the start of each course. This is explained to each student and they are asked to sign and agree to its content. This approach doesn't always work with individuals but it can be revisited if a student is thought to be contravening it.
It was put forward that students may plagiarise material because they have not been able to, or had the support to develop essay or report writing skills in their already packed curriculum. Help with accessing the correct materials, effectively reading these, taking appropriate notes then personalising and presenting their findings would be very useful especially to those going on to study at University but also as a skill to take through life.
As always the discussions could have continued longer but ended on how important good feedback is in the journey of a learner and what is helpful to allow progression.
Thanks to all who gave up their time to attend.
Carole
Sunday, September 26, 2010
FERRN Autumn Seminar
As no-one from college was available to attend the FERRN seminar I agreed to share some notes from the day.
As always, with FERRN events it was a great day, with a mixture of research, theory and practice. As a FERRN member, Stevenson staff can attend the seminar for free, and I would really encourage you to attend these events in the future.
The focus of this event was 'leaner engagement'. Although there have been plenty of events nationally and locally on leaner engagement, very little attention has been given to the theory and research - what does it all mean?
The first presentation was given by Cathy Walsh, Principal of Barking and Dagenham College. Cathy came over as someone who genuinely wanted to connect with staff and students, and believed in the importance of creating an innovative and creative culture within the college.
She discussed the problems of a 'command and control' approach to leadership in colleges, and the dangers in constantly restructuring. She focused on the importance of fostering excellence, working together, being positive role models and creating a college which was 'good enough for our own'. Often this can be a good bench-mark for evaluation. Is this service, resource, learning and teaching good enough for our own children, family or friends?
Cathy also discussed the current economic climate, and the importance of real work opportunities for students. She gave examples of how students have been involved in designing and promoting aspects of the college, and the ways that links with employers have been developed over the past few years. Of particular interest was the Enterprise Academy that is run by students , who tender for jobs within the college.
Cathy particularly emphasised the importance of the different roles within the college. She discussed the crucial role played by admission and support staff: the people who often make initial contact with learners. The key message being that we won't engage learners if we don't welcome them into the college and make them feel valued.
Similar to other advocates of learner engagement, Cathy was keen to stress that we need to go beyond representation, and really equip tutors, teachers, lecturers with the skills to help learners learn. She discussed the learner engagement team, the coaching system for staff, study support and the personalised learner support service as some of the initiatives which help develop learner confidence and skills. One of the key developments for tutors has been training in motivational dialogues: identifying goals and risks, exploring ambivalence, setting targets, and maintaining behavioural change.
When asked about managing change with staff, Cathy talked about the need to be open and transparent. She felt it was essential to be engage in dialogue with staff about the issues that were of concern, and to involve staff in creating solutions. She did admit that there were times when staff did not like what she had to say, but respected her honesty. She felt it was important for senior staff to be visible within the college, and ensured that during the induction period senior staff were around , visiting the canteen, talking to students and generally there to welcome students.
Cathy's presentation was followed by Anne Gillen, Research Manager at Adam Smith College, who gave some feedback on the research Holding Up The Mirror: behaviours that impede good tutor-student relations. This was the outcome of a study completed by five Scottish colleges, including Stevenson.
The research findings were really interesting and gave rise to quite a debate. I think we: Stevenson, Scotland's Colleges and FERRN need to give some consideration to how we can best use the information, but I've no doubt that both staff and students will be interested in each others' perceptions. I'll give out the completed findings at an EDDG meeting and also to Carole for further dissemination, but for now here's some to ponder:
Learner Perception of Tutor Behaviour - Irritating Behaviours
1. Talks too much/too long
2. Assumes we already know things we don't know
3. Treats students differently (has favourites/picks on individuals)
4. Is patronising or condescending
5. Doesn't give clear information about course/unit requirements
Tutor Perceptions of Learner Behaviour - Irritating Behaviours
1. Has poor or irregular attendance
2. Expects to gain unit without putting effort into developing skills/knowledge
3. Disrupts teaching (e.g. chatting/laughing)
4. Is rude or disrespectful towards me or fellow students
5. Comes unprepared to class (e.g. without pen/folder/kit)
The research also covered helpful behaviours, which we can focus on at a later date...
The morning was drawn to a close by Professor Terry Mayes, who was examining the theoretical underpinnings of learner engagement. He explored the difference between learner engagement (the willingness to enter into a joint enterprise) and learner empowerment (the capacity and skills to take advantage of engagement).
Professor Mayes critically examined different models of learning, seeing this as key to learner engagement. In particular he examined learning cycles (of which there are many), drawing attention to cognitive, associative and situative perspectives. Interestingly he discussed the painfulness of learning, and our tendency as teachers to forget what it is like to learn something new: the affect gap. He drew our attention to the work of Vygotsky, Wenger and Michelene Chi who is currently doing a lot of work around tutoring. Her findings will be of little to surprise to those working in FE: learners learn best from observing other learners learn; tutors need to scaffold learning; tutors need to go in at the right level ; need to develop communities of practice which encourage peer learning, peer tutoring and peer assessment.
As always, with FERRN events it was a great day, with a mixture of research, theory and practice. As a FERRN member, Stevenson staff can attend the seminar for free, and I would really encourage you to attend these events in the future.
The focus of this event was 'leaner engagement'. Although there have been plenty of events nationally and locally on leaner engagement, very little attention has been given to the theory and research - what does it all mean?
The first presentation was given by Cathy Walsh, Principal of Barking and Dagenham College. Cathy came over as someone who genuinely wanted to connect with staff and students, and believed in the importance of creating an innovative and creative culture within the college.
She discussed the problems of a 'command and control' approach to leadership in colleges, and the dangers in constantly restructuring. She focused on the importance of fostering excellence, working together, being positive role models and creating a college which was 'good enough for our own'. Often this can be a good bench-mark for evaluation. Is this service, resource, learning and teaching good enough for our own children, family or friends?
Cathy also discussed the current economic climate, and the importance of real work opportunities for students. She gave examples of how students have been involved in designing and promoting aspects of the college, and the ways that links with employers have been developed over the past few years. Of particular interest was the Enterprise Academy that is run by students , who tender for jobs within the college.
Cathy particularly emphasised the importance of the different roles within the college. She discussed the crucial role played by admission and support staff: the people who often make initial contact with learners. The key message being that we won't engage learners if we don't welcome them into the college and make them feel valued.
Similar to other advocates of learner engagement, Cathy was keen to stress that we need to go beyond representation, and really equip tutors, teachers, lecturers with the skills to help learners learn. She discussed the learner engagement team, the coaching system for staff, study support and the personalised learner support service as some of the initiatives which help develop learner confidence and skills. One of the key developments for tutors has been training in motivational dialogues: identifying goals and risks, exploring ambivalence, setting targets, and maintaining behavioural change.
When asked about managing change with staff, Cathy talked about the need to be open and transparent. She felt it was essential to be engage in dialogue with staff about the issues that were of concern, and to involve staff in creating solutions. She did admit that there were times when staff did not like what she had to say, but respected her honesty. She felt it was important for senior staff to be visible within the college, and ensured that during the induction period senior staff were around , visiting the canteen, talking to students and generally there to welcome students.
Cathy's presentation was followed by Anne Gillen, Research Manager at Adam Smith College, who gave some feedback on the research Holding Up The Mirror: behaviours that impede good tutor-student relations. This was the outcome of a study completed by five Scottish colleges, including Stevenson.
The research findings were really interesting and gave rise to quite a debate. I think we: Stevenson, Scotland's Colleges and FERRN need to give some consideration to how we can best use the information, but I've no doubt that both staff and students will be interested in each others' perceptions. I'll give out the completed findings at an EDDG meeting and also to Carole for further dissemination, but for now here's some to ponder:
Learner Perception of Tutor Behaviour - Irritating Behaviours
1. Talks too much/too long
2. Assumes we already know things we don't know
3. Treats students differently (has favourites/picks on individuals)
4. Is patronising or condescending
5. Doesn't give clear information about course/unit requirements
Tutor Perceptions of Learner Behaviour - Irritating Behaviours
1. Has poor or irregular attendance
2. Expects to gain unit without putting effort into developing skills/knowledge
3. Disrupts teaching (e.g. chatting/laughing)
4. Is rude or disrespectful towards me or fellow students
5. Comes unprepared to class (e.g. without pen/folder/kit)
The research also covered helpful behaviours, which we can focus on at a later date...
The morning was drawn to a close by Professor Terry Mayes, who was examining the theoretical underpinnings of learner engagement. He explored the difference between learner engagement (the willingness to enter into a joint enterprise) and learner empowerment (the capacity and skills to take advantage of engagement).
Professor Mayes critically examined different models of learning, seeing this as key to learner engagement. In particular he examined learning cycles (of which there are many), drawing attention to cognitive, associative and situative perspectives. Interestingly he discussed the painfulness of learning, and our tendency as teachers to forget what it is like to learn something new: the affect gap. He drew our attention to the work of Vygotsky, Wenger and Michelene Chi who is currently doing a lot of work around tutoring. Her findings will be of little to surprise to those working in FE: learners learn best from observing other learners learn; tutors need to scaffold learning; tutors need to go in at the right level ; need to develop communities of practice which encourage peer learning, peer tutoring and peer assessment.
Some strategies identified for promoting learner engagement included giving more control over the learning through project and resource based work and the use of discussion. Professor Mayes also discussed developing communities of practice, focusing on tasks, formative assessment and giving frequent feedback. He emphasised the personalisation of learning and teaching, through content being downplayed, except where the content has been created by learners. Again, I don't think there are any surprises here, but it's good to know this is in keeping with CfE and the topics we have discussed in previous EDDG meetings.
Further useful websites mentioned were http://www.reap.ac.uk/ and http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/
Please get in touch if you want to know more about the FERRN seminar and I look forward to seeing you at the next EDDG meeting.
Karen
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Science Festival
Hi Folks
Aileen Duffy from Scotland's Colleges recommended this festival: http://www.southwestconferences.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Science-and-pseudoscience-2010-flyer.pdf.
She went last year, with a couple of psychology students and said it was excellent. Perhaps a couple of students could go and give a presentation to the class, or groups of interested students. I think it's a good way we can broaden and deepen students' learning in a meaningful and interesting way.
Let me know what you think, and better still if anyone goes, write something for the blog.
Karen
Aileen Duffy from Scotland's Colleges recommended this festival: http://www.southwestconferences.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Science-and-pseudoscience-2010-flyer.pdf.
She went last year, with a couple of psychology students and said it was excellent. Perhaps a couple of students could go and give a presentation to the class, or groups of interested students. I think it's a good way we can broaden and deepen students' learning in a meaningful and interesting way.
Let me know what you think, and better still if anyone goes, write something for the blog.
Karen
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Don't miss the FERRN autumn seminar, 24 September 2010
Venue: WEST LOTHIAN COLLEGE, ALMONDVALE CRESCENT, LIVINGSTON, EH54 7EP
Theme: Learner engagement
Agenda
09:30 Coffee & Registration
09:50 Introduction & Welcome
10:00 Learner Engagement in Barking and Dagenham College: what we have learned
Cathy Walsh, Principal, Barking and Dagenham College
11:00 Coffee
11:15 Holding up the Mirror: behaviours that impede good tutor-student relationships.
Outcomes of a study involving five Scottish colleges
Anne Gillen, Research Manager, Adam Smith College
12:00 Lunch
12:50 Learner Engagement: theoretical underpinnings
Speaker to be confirmed
13:30 Workshop 1: sparqs presenter
This highly participative and reflective workshop will explore various definitions, outcomes and tools of student engagement in quality. It will allow participants to consider individual, college and sector-level practice in student engagement and identify potential research areas.
or
Workshop 2: Karen Lawson, Scotland’s Colleges
Anne Gillen, Adam Smith College
In this workshop, we will share some of the new approaches we have tried to help learners make their voices heard. We hope you will share yours too.
14:30 Workshops 1 and 2 will be repeated, giving delegates an opportunity to attend both.
15:30 Close
For more information or to register your
place please email: leahchristie@adamsmith.ac.uk
or phone 01592 223845
Theme: Learner engagement
Agenda
09:30 Coffee & Registration
09:50 Introduction & Welcome
10:00 Learner Engagement in Barking and Dagenham College: what we have learned
Cathy Walsh, Principal, Barking and Dagenham College
11:00 Coffee
11:15 Holding up the Mirror: behaviours that impede good tutor-student relationships.
Outcomes of a study involving five Scottish colleges
Anne Gillen, Research Manager, Adam Smith College
12:00 Lunch
12:50 Learner Engagement: theoretical underpinnings
Speaker to be confirmed
13:30 Workshop 1: sparqs presenter
This highly participative and reflective workshop will explore various definitions, outcomes and tools of student engagement in quality. It will allow participants to consider individual, college and sector-level practice in student engagement and identify potential research areas.
or
Workshop 2: Karen Lawson, Scotland’s Colleges
Anne Gillen, Adam Smith College
In this workshop, we will share some of the new approaches we have tried to help learners make their voices heard. We hope you will share yours too.
14:30 Workshops 1 and 2 will be repeated, giving delegates an opportunity to attend both.
15:30 Close
For more information or to register your
place please email: leahchristie@adamsmith.ac.uk
or phone 01592 223845
Friday, June 18, 2010
Project-based learning and unit integration
In the last edition of Illuminating Practice (Issue 06 – June 2010), Colin Thomson, a computing lecturer from the Creative Industries faculty, wrote a very interesting piece on the development work that he has been doing on a HN course to create a project-based learning experience for students which also integrates the content of two units.
Just to remind folk, the objectives of Colin’s development work with these units were:
- to make the combined units project-based
- to make the project very hands-on encourage skill of hand
- to encourage the students to do research
- to develop skills for analysing information and synthesising solutions
- to place the emphasis on the students learning rather than on the teaching
- to use real hardware rather than a virtual environment because real-world networks are made up from real computers not virtual computers.
- to make the units CfE ready.
What follows is a follow-up to that piece. In this post-script Colin outlines some of the tangible benefits of the approach while still making the crucial point that such developments require a significant commitment in terms of time and hard work.
There is also a link at the end of the piece to a phlog (which I had never even heard of when I came in this morning) which provides more thoughts (in audio) on this …
------------------------------------------
Post-script to article in Illuminating Practice on Microsoft and Unit-Integration by Colin Thomson.
The outcome of unit integration and a project–based approach was that retention and achievement were greatly improved.
It was the case that for a number of the students the approach I used came as a culture shock, but most of them agreed by the end of the course that it was a better way of doing things because they got the hands-on experience and a substantial amount of practice in problem solving and troubleshooting.
They also grudgingly admitted that making them responsible for learning rather than passively sitting at their desks expecting me to pour Information from a PowerPoint into their ears meant that in the end they learnt a lot more. One student in the group who did both units last year the traditional way, failed and repeated them this year, came and told me that he found the way we did it this year a big improvement.
There was a knock-on to the Graded Unit. Because of the experience the students gained from the two integrated units they took to the Graded Unit like ducks to water, which has led to a substantial increase in the overall quality of the Graded Unit this year. This I admit was something I hadn't expected but with the benefit of hindsight makes perfect sense.
Had it not been for the fact that the HNC Networking is being dropped my next step would have been to integrate yet another unit to create a three-module, five-credit Window networking unit that broke down completely the artificial barriers between the Windows networking modules.
The proof of the pud is in the results. We lost a lot of students in the first semester from the August starts due to issues to do with staff sickness and lack of suitable cover, now resolved, so that the haemorrhaging of students from that group stopped. We retained virtually all of the January starts. All of the students that we kept achieved the units. The results from the Graded Unit are also greatly improved and I think all of the students will pass that too. I have a few more to mark.
I regret that I won't have the chance to integrate all three units and to push the process even further forward.
I think that CfE is nothing new, just a return to the way I was taught 50 years ago. Nonetheless it is the way forward and I would recommend the integrated, learner-centred, hands-on approach to anyone with the stamina to take it on, but on the understanding that appropriate support from management was forthcoming.
The phlog that I recorded for Scotland's Colleges is now beginning to attract some interest. It will be interesting to see what comments that brings in.
As a final note don't forget it was Debbie Meharg who first gave me the idea. Had she not done so, it might never have happened
Click here to go to Colin's phlog.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Curriculum for Excellence - Building the Curriclum 3
I've used the site http://www.wordle.net/ to create the following word cloud from the Curriculum for Excellence document "Building the Curriculum 3: A framework for learning and teaching".
Friday, April 30, 2010
Review of EDDG discusson on Curriculum for Excellence
Thanks to everyone who made it yesterday for our discussion on the Curriculum for Excellence. It was great to see so many staff attending. There was also a healthy mix of staff areas/roles represented: Student Support; Student Guild; Quality; Curriculum Planning; HE articulation; Scotlands’ Colleges; and, of course, teaching staff from a variety of areas.
The discussion was focused on the values, purposes, and implementation issues associated with the Curriculum for Excellence.
Our discussion was framed by the ideas explored by Mark Priestley in the abridged version of his article which I circulated prior to the meeting (and can be read in the post below. Mark has since sent me a more extended version of that article which I have also circulated by email).
Mark is a former secondary school teacher and currently a lecturer at the University of Stirling. He has a particular interest and research experience in the area of curricular change.
Mark himself attended the discussion and provided an overview of what he regarded as some of the challenges (and indeed possible solutions) regarding the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE). After this, we opened up into a more general discussion in which we drew upon Mark’s expertise in this area.
In his overview Mark discussed his experiences and ideas about the evolution of the CfE. In essence, he argued that the founding principles and purposes of CfE are sound and should be embraced. However, he perceives that problems have arisen in the perception and implementation of CfE.
One of the positive potentials of the CfE is, according to Mark, that it repositions teachers as professionals with autonomy over what and how they teach.
However, the reality, all too often, is that educational institutes have reacted to the CfE on a cosmetic level in order to be compliant with the myriad of curricular documents and outcomes associated with CfE.
Mark identified three issues which he regards stunt the healthy development of the CfE in educational institutions:
1. The widespread focus and preoccupation on outcomes and levels runs against the grain of the CfE principles. CfE principles focus on the process, as much as the product, of learning.
2. The perception that CfE is more concerned with skills than content. Mark points out that this is not the case, but the perception itself is damaging and prohibits meaningful engagement with CfE.
3. The fact that CfE is fundamentally about teaching methodology. This relates to the first point about the process. CfE is about how we teach as much as what we teach. This is not often recognized.
In order to avoid a situation where institutions merely comply with the language of CfE, Mark argues that institutions should take the opportunity to take control and develop the curriculum that is right for their learners and the values of their institution. This, of course, takes a degree of bravery and creativity at various levels within organizations – not least at the executive levels.
So, in suggesting a way forward, Mark finished his overview by proposing that the following points be explored by institutions that wish to engage meaningfully with the CfE:
1. There is a need to go back to basics and start with the big picture. Fundamental questions about the purpose of education, roles of staff and the college need to be addressed.
2. Institutions need to ask questions about the kind of content they want in their curriculum and how that content will be taught.
3. Institutions also need to look at the cultural and structural barriers to change.
Mark was positive about existing practice in colleges which, in many ways, allows for the meaningful implementation of the CfE.
After Mark’s overview a more general discussion ensued. A number of points were made:
The role of assessment came up. There were questions and concerns about how we could/would change as an institution when a lot of what we do is so (summative) assessment focused. Teaching practices that are in tune with CfE are often distorted by summative assessment. There was some discussion about the degree of control we have (or don’t) with regarding to assessment arrangements. This related to points about the role and impact of external bodies such as the SQA and HMIe. A lot of what we do is defined by the requirements of external bodies such as these and, so, how they respond to and absorb the value and principles of CfE is crucial. There was some concern about how closely such bodies are aligned to the core values of CfE.
Points were also made about the changing role of the teacher – a point was raised that teachers, increasingly, it was felt by some, play a social role in their learners’ lives. Of course, it could be argued that one of the principles of the CfE is to make learners more autonomous and more resilient, thus, over time, negating the need for teachers to play this social role.
Finally, it was generally agreed that change needs to be supported and planned and the role of strong, consultative and creative leadership is crucial in this.
If anyone would like to make any comments coming out of this, please use the comment function below. If you’re not quite sure how to do that, but would still like to make a contribution just email me and I’ll pop it up for you on the blog.
This is, as I see it, not the end but the beginning of our discussions on Curriculum for Excellence and its impact on the College.
Yesterday's discussion provided us with the opportunity to, at least, start to imagine the kind of questions we should be asking.
[Click here for more information on Mark’s background and research interests.]
The discussion was focused on the values, purposes, and implementation issues associated with the Curriculum for Excellence.
Our discussion was framed by the ideas explored by Mark Priestley in the abridged version of his article which I circulated prior to the meeting (and can be read in the post below. Mark has since sent me a more extended version of that article which I have also circulated by email).
Mark is a former secondary school teacher and currently a lecturer at the University of Stirling. He has a particular interest and research experience in the area of curricular change.
Mark himself attended the discussion and provided an overview of what he regarded as some of the challenges (and indeed possible solutions) regarding the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE). After this, we opened up into a more general discussion in which we drew upon Mark’s expertise in this area.
In his overview Mark discussed his experiences and ideas about the evolution of the CfE. In essence, he argued that the founding principles and purposes of CfE are sound and should be embraced. However, he perceives that problems have arisen in the perception and implementation of CfE.
One of the positive potentials of the CfE is, according to Mark, that it repositions teachers as professionals with autonomy over what and how they teach.
However, the reality, all too often, is that educational institutes have reacted to the CfE on a cosmetic level in order to be compliant with the myriad of curricular documents and outcomes associated with CfE.
Mark identified three issues which he regards stunt the healthy development of the CfE in educational institutions:
1. The widespread focus and preoccupation on outcomes and levels runs against the grain of the CfE principles. CfE principles focus on the process, as much as the product, of learning.
2. The perception that CfE is more concerned with skills than content. Mark points out that this is not the case, but the perception itself is damaging and prohibits meaningful engagement with CfE.
3. The fact that CfE is fundamentally about teaching methodology. This relates to the first point about the process. CfE is about how we teach as much as what we teach. This is not often recognized.
In order to avoid a situation where institutions merely comply with the language of CfE, Mark argues that institutions should take the opportunity to take control and develop the curriculum that is right for their learners and the values of their institution. This, of course, takes a degree of bravery and creativity at various levels within organizations – not least at the executive levels.
So, in suggesting a way forward, Mark finished his overview by proposing that the following points be explored by institutions that wish to engage meaningfully with the CfE:
1. There is a need to go back to basics and start with the big picture. Fundamental questions about the purpose of education, roles of staff and the college need to be addressed.
2. Institutions need to ask questions about the kind of content they want in their curriculum and how that content will be taught.
3. Institutions also need to look at the cultural and structural barriers to change.
Mark was positive about existing practice in colleges which, in many ways, allows for the meaningful implementation of the CfE.
After Mark’s overview a more general discussion ensued. A number of points were made:
The role of assessment came up. There were questions and concerns about how we could/would change as an institution when a lot of what we do is so (summative) assessment focused. Teaching practices that are in tune with CfE are often distorted by summative assessment. There was some discussion about the degree of control we have (or don’t) with regarding to assessment arrangements. This related to points about the role and impact of external bodies such as the SQA and HMIe. A lot of what we do is defined by the requirements of external bodies such as these and, so, how they respond to and absorb the value and principles of CfE is crucial. There was some concern about how closely such bodies are aligned to the core values of CfE.
Points were also made about the changing role of the teacher – a point was raised that teachers, increasingly, it was felt by some, play a social role in their learners’ lives. Of course, it could be argued that one of the principles of the CfE is to make learners more autonomous and more resilient, thus, over time, negating the need for teachers to play this social role.
Finally, it was generally agreed that change needs to be supported and planned and the role of strong, consultative and creative leadership is crucial in this.
If anyone would like to make any comments coming out of this, please use the comment function below. If you’re not quite sure how to do that, but would still like to make a contribution just email me and I’ll pop it up for you on the blog.
This is, as I see it, not the end but the beginning of our discussions on Curriculum for Excellence and its impact on the College.
Yesterday's discussion provided us with the opportunity to, at least, start to imagine the kind of questions we should be asking.
[Click here for more information on Mark’s background and research interests.]
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Curriculum for Excellence – an opportunity to enhance practice?
(What follows is a summarised and adapted account of some of the issues raised in University of Stirling's Mark Priestley’s paper ‘Realist Social Theory and Curriculum Development’, presented at the Laboratory for Educational Theory, 26th January, 2010 , The Stirling Institute of Education)
Policies often represent opportunities to enhance practice, but more often they are forced into contexts where they do not easily fit; the result is a policy that does not work nor meet its original aspirations, becoming mutated as it translates into practice.
Curriculum for Excellence (CfE)
· May transform schools and colleges
· May disappear without a trace as its main concepts come into conflict with entrenched practices · Seamlessly assimilated into schools and colleges, with minor tweaks to existing practices and changes to terminology.
Anecdotal evidence suggest the latter scenario, as the standard approach to CfE is to audit existing practice against the new Outcomes and Experiences, making changes only where they are seen to conflict with the new guidance.
This is, thus, compliance with the new curriculum, rather than a serious engagement with its aspirational spirit.
An alternative view
CfE is a set of ideas or resources which come into contact with existing cultures and practices. It is inevitable that such ideas will mutate as they transmit through the education system and this should be seen as a potentially positive experience; teachers should be creatively mediating policy ideas as they work them to suit their immediate context. Change is brought about through the social interaction of individuals, who are influenced by the following:
· Their prior experiences, knowledge and motivations. The extent to which people can bring creative ideas into practice and share these with others.
· The opportunities and constraints provided by existing culture: the shared ideas, knowledge and values.
· The opportunities and constraints provided by social structures: the power relationships.
Developing capacity
· Empowered and engaged teachers and managers will respond to change creatively from a wide range of repertoires. Disempowered and/or uninformed individuals will respond narrowly, often to avoid risk.
· Cultural and structural barriers to change need to be indentified and addressed. Catalysts to change may be identified and enhanced.
Key ingredients
· Effective leadership
· Access to physical and cognitive resources, including good professional development
· Teacher autonomy and creativity and relationships based upon trust
· Processes for engagement
Key questions we should be asking
· What is the nature of the change initiative?
· What is meant by the four capacities?
· What are we trying to achieve in the light of this change initiative?
· What is the purpose of education?
· What are the values that are integral to colleges?
The Four capacities
· What should a [young] person leaving college be like?
· What skills and attributes should they possess: information literacy, decision-making capacities, the ability to think critically and creatively?
Biesta (2008) identifies 3 broad, overlapping purposes of education: qualification; socialisation; and subjectification (individual growth). In placing an emphasis on qualifications (HMIE, quality frameworks) have we lost sight of the other purposes of education? Should we be focussing more on the latter two dimensions?
Engaging methodologically with the new curriculum
Two dimensions: knowledge and pedagogy.
· What types of knowledge do [young] people need to meet the goals set out in the four capacities?
· What methods are best suited to achieve the four capacities?
· What sort of activities might foster decision-making capacity required of an active citizen?
· How might formative assessment be utilised to develop the sorts of meta-cognitive capacities required for successful learning ?
· How might dialogical learning promote a deep-seated understanding of relevant concepts and content?
Change
· What might impede change?
· What are the barriers to change?
· What are the factors which might facilitate change?
Culture: what existing notions of practice exist in this area, and how these complement and conflict with CfE
Structure: what relationships and systems exist internally and externally that may influence the enactment of new ideas ?
Agency: What new skills are required to engage with the change ? Which individuals are well placed to play major roles in engaging with the change?
Building Capacity
Once teachers are clear about the purposes of CfE and once the terrain for change has been mapped, we need to consider ‘what needs to be done to facilitate engagement with the innovation?'
· Timetabling arrangements
· Setting up work parties
· Designating key staff to take forward initiatives
· Allocating resources
· Providing additional CPD
· Creating networks and other spaces for dialogue
· Altering physical spaces (bringing together previously separate depts.)
At this stage attention should be given to accountability and the Outcomes and Experiences, but these should remain as slaves rather than masters of the main purposes of the change – not the drivers of change. Just doing nothing, or falling back on ‘best practice’ notions, prevents meaningful engagement with change.
Policies often represent opportunities to enhance practice, but more often they are forced into contexts where they do not easily fit; the result is a policy that does not work nor meet its original aspirations, becoming mutated as it translates into practice.
Curriculum for Excellence (CfE)
· May transform schools and colleges
· May disappear without a trace as its main concepts come into conflict with entrenched practices · Seamlessly assimilated into schools and colleges, with minor tweaks to existing practices and changes to terminology.
Anecdotal evidence suggest the latter scenario, as the standard approach to CfE is to audit existing practice against the new Outcomes and Experiences, making changes only where they are seen to conflict with the new guidance.
This is, thus, compliance with the new curriculum, rather than a serious engagement with its aspirational spirit.
An alternative view
CfE is a set of ideas or resources which come into contact with existing cultures and practices. It is inevitable that such ideas will mutate as they transmit through the education system and this should be seen as a potentially positive experience; teachers should be creatively mediating policy ideas as they work them to suit their immediate context. Change is brought about through the social interaction of individuals, who are influenced by the following:
· Their prior experiences, knowledge and motivations. The extent to which people can bring creative ideas into practice and share these with others.
· The opportunities and constraints provided by existing culture: the shared ideas, knowledge and values.
· The opportunities and constraints provided by social structures: the power relationships.
Developing capacity
· Empowered and engaged teachers and managers will respond to change creatively from a wide range of repertoires. Disempowered and/or uninformed individuals will respond narrowly, often to avoid risk.
· Cultural and structural barriers to change need to be indentified and addressed. Catalysts to change may be identified and enhanced.
Key ingredients
· Effective leadership
· Access to physical and cognitive resources, including good professional development
· Teacher autonomy and creativity and relationships based upon trust
· Processes for engagement
Key questions we should be asking
· What is the nature of the change initiative?
· What is meant by the four capacities?
· What are we trying to achieve in the light of this change initiative?
· What is the purpose of education?
· What are the values that are integral to colleges?
The Four capacities
· What should a [young] person leaving college be like?
· What skills and attributes should they possess: information literacy, decision-making capacities, the ability to think critically and creatively?
Biesta (2008) identifies 3 broad, overlapping purposes of education: qualification; socialisation; and subjectification (individual growth). In placing an emphasis on qualifications (HMIE, quality frameworks) have we lost sight of the other purposes of education? Should we be focussing more on the latter two dimensions?
Engaging methodologically with the new curriculum
Two dimensions: knowledge and pedagogy.
· What types of knowledge do [young] people need to meet the goals set out in the four capacities?
· What methods are best suited to achieve the four capacities?
· What sort of activities might foster decision-making capacity required of an active citizen?
· How might formative assessment be utilised to develop the sorts of meta-cognitive capacities required for successful learning ?
· How might dialogical learning promote a deep-seated understanding of relevant concepts and content?
Change
· What might impede change?
· What are the barriers to change?
· What are the factors which might facilitate change?
Culture: what existing notions of practice exist in this area, and how these complement and conflict with CfE
Structure: what relationships and systems exist internally and externally that may influence the enactment of new ideas ?
Agency: What new skills are required to engage with the change ? Which individuals are well placed to play major roles in engaging with the change?
Building Capacity
Once teachers are clear about the purposes of CfE and once the terrain for change has been mapped, we need to consider ‘what needs to be done to facilitate engagement with the innovation?'
· Timetabling arrangements
· Setting up work parties
· Designating key staff to take forward initiatives
· Allocating resources
· Providing additional CPD
· Creating networks and other spaces for dialogue
· Altering physical spaces (bringing together previously separate depts.)
At this stage attention should be given to accountability and the Outcomes and Experiences, but these should remain as slaves rather than masters of the main purposes of the change – not the drivers of change. Just doing nothing, or falling back on ‘best practice’ notions, prevents meaningful engagement with change.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
All you ever wanted to know...
There was plenty of lively debate and discussion at the last two meetings of EDDG. Thanks to everyone who came and contributed, keeping the conversations within the context of ‘professional dialogue’ and avoiding personalisation. It’s often difficult, when we feel passionate about a subject, to keep it professional, and that is why it’s important to relate our discussions to research and evidence based practice. Professional learning embraces conflict and uses that conflict to examine the perceptions and values that underpin our practice, regardless of our role within the college.
Frank Coffield’s article http://eddg.blogspot.com/2010/02/all-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about.html provided a valuable stimulus in relation to a number of issues. The first issue concerned the role of educational leaders in keeping teaching and learning as the organising principle of the college. This quickly led to a debate around whether senior managers should do some teaching, and more importantly staff’s perception about the role of senior managers. There were varying views on the role of senior managers, with some participants feeling that managers can get out of touch with the realities of preparation, class room management and assessment.
However, there was also some valuable input from other participants about the lobbying aspects of the senior managers’ roles and the conversations that occur between Boards, Principals and other senior managers as to the role of the Funding Council and the need for governments to review how funding is allocated to colleges. This debate was useful for locating the discussion of barriers to effective teaching i.e. too much marking, within the wider policy context.
Perhaps one of the main points that came out of this discussion was the importance of perception and the need to communicate more openly re. roles and responsibilities. Within an institution like a college it is easy to get trapped by the vertical and hortizontal structural barriers, and lose an understanding of different perceptions and rationales. All agreed at both meetings that there should be more opportunities to share understandings, open debate and be creative in creating diverse solutions that keep learning and teaching as the main focus of college life.
The meetings also focussed on Frank Coffield’s conclusion that teachers should openly discuss their teaching methods with students. While participants agreed that in general they shared learning objectives or learning intentions with students, there was very mixed experience of sharing teaching methods with students. While this may be done at the start of the academic session with a new group, it would appear that generally teachers don’t really discuss the methods they are going to use and the rationale for those methods with students. Arguably this lack of engagement makes it hard for students to evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching, as perceptions of what is actually going on in the class may differ.
Unsurprisingly the other area of great debate and tension was around assessment and giving feedback. Coffield concurs, with the experience of the group that students value well structured feedback that validates their efforts and aids their progression. Some shared situations, where as learners they had been given poor feedback, which ignored their emotions as learners.
We examined how well we prepare students for learning, and how we take into account their feelings about being a learner.
Some ideas to take forward:
· New learning skills unit of materials and exercises that will support lecturers and tutors in helping developing learning literacy and a sense of responsibility for their own learning. Jerry O’Neill has already begun work on this and is keen for anyone to contribute.
· More participatory cross faculty and cross college events focussing on issues relating to learning and teaching.
· Staff development events that remind us what it is like to be a learner, including the process of being assessed and receiving feedback.
Frank Coffield’s article http://eddg.blogspot.com/2010/02/all-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about.html provided a valuable stimulus in relation to a number of issues. The first issue concerned the role of educational leaders in keeping teaching and learning as the organising principle of the college. This quickly led to a debate around whether senior managers should do some teaching, and more importantly staff’s perception about the role of senior managers. There were varying views on the role of senior managers, with some participants feeling that managers can get out of touch with the realities of preparation, class room management and assessment.
However, there was also some valuable input from other participants about the lobbying aspects of the senior managers’ roles and the conversations that occur between Boards, Principals and other senior managers as to the role of the Funding Council and the need for governments to review how funding is allocated to colleges. This debate was useful for locating the discussion of barriers to effective teaching i.e. too much marking, within the wider policy context.
Perhaps one of the main points that came out of this discussion was the importance of perception and the need to communicate more openly re. roles and responsibilities. Within an institution like a college it is easy to get trapped by the vertical and hortizontal structural barriers, and lose an understanding of different perceptions and rationales. All agreed at both meetings that there should be more opportunities to share understandings, open debate and be creative in creating diverse solutions that keep learning and teaching as the main focus of college life.
The meetings also focussed on Frank Coffield’s conclusion that teachers should openly discuss their teaching methods with students. While participants agreed that in general they shared learning objectives or learning intentions with students, there was very mixed experience of sharing teaching methods with students. While this may be done at the start of the academic session with a new group, it would appear that generally teachers don’t really discuss the methods they are going to use and the rationale for those methods with students. Arguably this lack of engagement makes it hard for students to evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching, as perceptions of what is actually going on in the class may differ.
Unsurprisingly the other area of great debate and tension was around assessment and giving feedback. Coffield concurs, with the experience of the group that students value well structured feedback that validates their efforts and aids their progression. Some shared situations, where as learners they had been given poor feedback, which ignored their emotions as learners.
We examined how well we prepare students for learning, and how we take into account their feelings about being a learner.
Some ideas to take forward:
· New learning skills unit of materials and exercises that will support lecturers and tutors in helping developing learning literacy and a sense of responsibility for their own learning. Jerry O’Neill has already begun work on this and is keen for anyone to contribute.
· More participatory cross faculty and cross college events focussing on issues relating to learning and teaching.
· Staff development events that remind us what it is like to be a learner, including the process of being assessed and receiving feedback.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
All you ever wanted to know about learning and teaching
Just a reminder that there are two EDDG meetings next week: Monday, 1st March, 1.15-2.15 in room 810 and Wednesday 3rd March 12.30-1.30, also in room 810. There will be coffee/tea and biscuits, but please feel free to bring your lunch.
This EDDG meeting will focus on Frank Coffield’s excellent booklet ‘All you ever wanted to know about learning and teaching: but were too cool to ask.’
Some of the issues we could discuss include his conclusions that:
· Senior manager teams (SMTs) firstly have to become educational leaders who are knowledgeable about teaching and learning. Learning should not be another topic for senior management to tackle but the central organising principle of the college.
· Senior managers should teach regularly to emphasise the overriding importance of teaching and learning, and be reminded of the need for time for preparation, reflection and assessment.
· The percentage of the budget should not be spent on staff generally, but on staff who teach.
· If we want to educate our students and not just teach them to pass exams, then they need to be able to exercise critical intelligence. We could provide them with a model of such behaviour by consulting them about their learning experiences, reflecting on their views and then acting appropriately to respond to their constructive criticisms.
· Institute a review of all administrative procedures with the aim of cutting back bureaucracy as much as possible to release more time for learning and teaching.
· Tutors/lecturers should discuss their teaching methods openly with students, and begin a dialogue about their learning and how it could be improved.
Please come along and share your views about any of the above or any issues raised by the Coffield article. There are still copies of the article available in the staff resource base (218) or in the staff room on the 1st floor.
This EDDG meeting will focus on Frank Coffield’s excellent booklet ‘All you ever wanted to know about learning and teaching: but were too cool to ask.’
Some of the issues we could discuss include his conclusions that:
· Senior manager teams (SMTs) firstly have to become educational leaders who are knowledgeable about teaching and learning. Learning should not be another topic for senior management to tackle but the central organising principle of the college.
· Senior managers should teach regularly to emphasise the overriding importance of teaching and learning, and be reminded of the need for time for preparation, reflection and assessment.
· The percentage of the budget should not be spent on staff generally, but on staff who teach.
· If we want to educate our students and not just teach them to pass exams, then they need to be able to exercise critical intelligence. We could provide them with a model of such behaviour by consulting them about their learning experiences, reflecting on their views and then acting appropriately to respond to their constructive criticisms.
· Institute a review of all administrative procedures with the aim of cutting back bureaucracy as much as possible to release more time for learning and teaching.
· Tutors/lecturers should discuss their teaching methods openly with students, and begin a dialogue about their learning and how it could be improved.
Please come along and share your views about any of the above or any issues raised by the Coffield article. There are still copies of the article available in the staff resource base (218) or in the staff room on the 1st floor.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Diet and learning: food for thought ...
Last week I sent out an email about some thoughts and concerns I have about our roles and responsibility in terms of the health and well-being of our learners. I received several responses to that email.
What follows is a copy of my original email and, below that, a copy of the responses (this is the interesting bit). I've added a few links for further reading below the staff comments.
I've kept the comments anonymous. If you'd like to add to the discussion, please use the click on "comment" at the end of this post and have your say (if you are not sure how to leave a comment on the blog, get in touch with me and I'll show you in person):
---------------------------------------------------------------
Text of email sent to teaching staff: 05 Feb 2010
Hi
The other morning my students settled down to tackle a demanding practice reading assessment.
Before they started (at around 10 am) I asked them to jot down on the top of their scripts what they had eaten since they got up. This is a list of what they ate and drank:
· Can of Iron Bru and packet of pickled onion
· Glass of milk, orange, banana
· One piece of toast, banana lucozade, and bottle of water
· Cup of coffee, muesli, 2 bits of chewing gum, can of Iron Bru and 2 ½ cigarettes (smoked, not eaten)
· Half packet of skittles, half packet of Mexican Chilli crisps, half can of Iron Bru
· Toast, ham sandwich, Iron Bru, not chocolate
· Galaxy bar, Dairy Milk
· Bran Flakes, banana, toast
· 2 pieces of dry toast, glass of blackcurrant juice, cheese and onion crisps
· Mini Ritz Crackers, half can of coke, chewy vitamin C’s
· Grapes, Crème Egg,
· Crème Egg, can of coke
· English Muffins, cookies, Easter Egg, Crème Egg, milk, coke
· Bran Flakes with sultanas, coffee
We’ve all heard the sometimes slightly sanctimonious, but nonetheless sound, arguments and evidence which links a healthy diet to more effective learning. Schools have addressed this issue. The Curriculum for Excellence, rightly, sees “Health and Well Being” as a core component of the learning experience of tomorrow’s students. And if that's not enough, Jamie Oliver shouts at us from the telly that "good food = good learning is bleedin' obvious - in'it".
So how do we, at Stevenson, measure up to these developments in education?
What is interesting, and possibly disturbing, about my student’s list is that most of the junk food was bought in vending machines at the college. Many students arrive here in the morning without breakfast and rush to get something to eat before class. Is this something we need to address?
Jerry
--------------
Jerry O’Neill
Teacher Fellow
ps. There is a touch of hypocrisy creeping in here … although I had porridge for breakfast, I wrote this whilst munching on some chocolate sweets which someone had kindly deposited near my desk … but then hypocrisy always tastes good.
----------------------------------------------------
Responses from staff to email:
...........................................................
And here's more for you to digest ....
Edinburgh University research on teenagers and breakfast
http://www.mind.org.uk/foodandmood/food_and_mood-the_mind_guide
http://www.dascot.org/depression/treatment/food.php
What follows is a copy of my original email and, below that, a copy of the responses (this is the interesting bit). I've added a few links for further reading below the staff comments.
I've kept the comments anonymous. If you'd like to add to the discussion, please use the click on "comment" at the end of this post and have your say (if you are not sure how to leave a comment on the blog, get in touch with me and I'll show you in person):
---------------------------------------------------------------
Text of email sent to teaching staff: 05 Feb 2010
Hi
The other morning my students settled down to tackle a demanding practice reading assessment.
Before they started (at around 10 am) I asked them to jot down on the top of their scripts what they had eaten since they got up. This is a list of what they ate and drank:
· Can of Iron Bru and packet of pickled onion
· Glass of milk, orange, banana
· One piece of toast, banana lucozade, and bottle of water
· Cup of coffee, muesli, 2 bits of chewing gum, can of Iron Bru and 2 ½ cigarettes (smoked, not eaten)
· Half packet of skittles, half packet of Mexican Chilli crisps, half can of Iron Bru
· Toast, ham sandwich, Iron Bru, not chocolate
· Galaxy bar, Dairy Milk
· Bran Flakes, banana, toast
· 2 pieces of dry toast, glass of blackcurrant juice, cheese and onion crisps
· Mini Ritz Crackers, half can of coke, chewy vitamin C’s
· Grapes, Crème Egg,
· Crème Egg, can of coke
· English Muffins, cookies, Easter Egg, Crème Egg, milk, coke
· Bran Flakes with sultanas, coffee
We’ve all heard the sometimes slightly sanctimonious, but nonetheless sound, arguments and evidence which links a healthy diet to more effective learning. Schools have addressed this issue. The Curriculum for Excellence, rightly, sees “Health and Well Being” as a core component of the learning experience of tomorrow’s students. And if that's not enough, Jamie Oliver shouts at us from the telly that "good food = good learning is bleedin' obvious - in'it".
So how do we, at Stevenson, measure up to these developments in education?
What is interesting, and possibly disturbing, about my student’s list is that most of the junk food was bought in vending machines at the college. Many students arrive here in the morning without breakfast and rush to get something to eat before class. Is this something we need to address?
Jerry
--------------
Jerry O’Neill
Teacher Fellow
ps. There is a touch of hypocrisy creeping in here … although I had porridge for breakfast, I wrote this whilst munching on some chocolate sweets which someone had kindly deposited near my desk … but then hypocrisy always tastes good.
----------------------------------------------------
Responses from staff to email:
...........................................................
Absolutely , Jerry. I’m on the catering committee… And am happy to take this up with them. Not sure if the vending machines belong to them though or if they are a college piece of kit. I’ll try to find out.
...........................................................
I think so. All day breakfasts should be cheaper.
...........................................................
I think it is up to them -they are all adults
...........................................................
No surprise to me – l have asked similar questions to my students in the past.
I would also add we should make fresh drinking water much more readily available . When BS was based at Napier we had water coolers outside classrooms
...........................................................
Thanks for this – really interesting for me as both health professional and tutor.
Given that you collected this information prior to an assessment – is there any pattern or correlation in results?
Whilst a great deal of junk food was consumed it might have provided a good sugar rush for the brain in some cases – would be interesting to see if there were any links.
You’re right of course hypocrisy does indeed taste good, but not as good as the bag or crisps I’ve just scoffed.
...........................................................
Damn it Jerry ... you are so bloody mellifluous
...........................................................
definitely think so plus same problem with how many hours sleep they have had although that is in their hands.
...........................................................
Very interesting reading.
[We] are piloting a course called Fit for Life .... where we try to make our students aware of the benefits of healthy eating to promote physical AND mental well being. Not sure we are winning though!
...........................................................
We’ll be wiping their a***s next……………………………
...........................................................
… Aramark COULD turn off the vending machines until morning break and serve healthy breakfasts until then BUT where would that leave their profits?
...........................................................
Yes we should address this
My ultimate goal is to have an hour of Physical activity timetabled for all student and staff
Don’t want to list all the benefits in terms of: cross college communication, role models, health benefits, community involvement/feeling, …
...........................................................
Just had a packet of cheese and onion McCoys and a chocolate Twirl myself – now feel slightly dirty
...........................................................
This is something I have felt concerned about for ages. Isn't it an abrogation of the College's duty of care towards the school students and young people we teach, that we sell rubbish to them when they are in the College buildings? Shouldn't we be setting an example (not a dig at you Gerry. You eat your chocolate) by making sure only nutritious and cheap food is available?
Fizzy sweet drinks make people more thirsty, send them on the way to type 2 diabetes, as well as obesity. They compromise their immune systems and are highly addictive to boot. We don't sell heroin on grounds that people like it, it makes a profit and people can make up their own minds what they put into their bodies. Shouldn't we at least not provide this stuff. People would be free to bring it into the College (not heroin), but we shouldn't be selling it.
Your list makes frightening reading. ... [A]n ex teacher at Stevenson, died recently. It was mentioned at her funeral that she took matters into her own hands and used to organise a breakfast club for her art students. It helped them concentrate and ensured one good meal in their day. Pressures of work make that unrealistic for today's lecturers but could the College not run something?
...........................................................
I do healthy living with ACE students and share your views - if you want to start a campaign for healthy food in the college count me in!
...........................................................
When I was teaching in Canada, one of the English teachers organised a breakfast club (which she attended) for her class. Canteen were up for it, and many students got a decent start to their day. I think everyone was to be in by 8.30am. She may even have got funding for this (in the good old days.)
...........................................................
I agree. We ... talked about this last year, Most of our NC students don’t eat a decent breakfast which most definitely has a bearing on their performance in class. They seem to depend on bottles of energy drinks top get them through the day. This no doubt has an effect on classroom behaviour and therefore retention.
If we could initially support the younger students in this way, educating them on diet, then it would over a period of time filter through the entire student population, maybe even to some of the staff!
Sadly our canteen is a commercial enterprise, I think It would be difficult for them to see this our way and clear out the crap from their shelves.
...........................................................
Yes, but how did each do in the assessment?
...........................................................
We used to run a breakfast club for our young CPC group – funding was from ESF pot which, of course, ran out. We tried to keep it going but it was too expensive.
...........................................................
I cannot understand why the college allows such rubbish to be sold. Ban the fizzy drinks and crisps for a start. I was at a meeting in the college some time ago with representatives from local schools and was asked what arrangements the college made for those school kids who had to take Ritalin over the course of the day … We know that all this crap that they eat and drink contributes to concentration and behaviour problems (not to mention health difficulties) so why do the college allow it in the door? Well we know why ………………………
...........................................................
... This has been a worry for me with my INT 2 class for some time. I have printed out the list you sent and am going to think about how I use it. I have TALKED to them about the importance of breakfast blah blah, but am at a loss about how to change things which are so personal and ingrained and unquestioned and comforting… a tough nut to crack.
I had muesli and am feeling smug. Though I had a lovely square of chocolate to help me to get to bed last night.
...........................................................
Interesting Jerry – I think I’ll conduct a similar survey prior to an assessment on Friday.
If we are going to take it forward re vending machines and healthy eating perhaps a college wide survey of classes on a given day would be interesting – I wonder if students eat differently prior to exams/assessments?
...........................................................
... there was one laddie here recently who bought four bottles of lucozade each morning, a fiver at todays prices and that sustained him all day!
...........................................................
I don't think it's our job to be telling students what they should be eating. They all look healthy to me.
...........................................................
Do you know how much does a banana cost in the refectory?
45p, almost as much as a chocolate bar. No wonder that students prefer to buy chocolate bars than fruit in College.
End of staff comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And here's more for you to digest ....
Edinburgh University research on teenagers and breakfast
http://www.mind.org.uk/foodandmood/food_and_mood-the_mind_guide
http://www.dascot.org/depression/treatment/food.php
Monday, February 8, 2010
young people's perception and experiences of college.
Today I attended a SFC event on more choices, more chances at the City Chambers. This was an excellent event that give an opportunity to disseminate and discuss the current research findings on young people's perception and experiences of college.
The presentation from the event is available to download from this link.
What was interesting about this, was that the young people had carried out the research, after undergoing training and support. The research had been carried out by 35 researchers with 45 focus groups covering a wide range of programmes.
The research findings focused on 3 main areas: attraction, recruitment and retainment.
Attraction: the main attraction to college was the perception that it wasn't like school. It was felt to be less strict , you could have a laugh, make news friends, and get to do something you wanted to do. 83% of young people felt that college was better than they expected it to be.
However, the generic information that was available, via websites, careers offices etc. wasn't particularly good or helpful. 82% of young people felt that there should be more information about colleges available at school, particularly around range of courses, course content and financial support.
The main reasons that young people went to college was to get a job and a qualification, but there were a significant number who just didn't have anything else do do.
Suggested actions: colleges should be actively promoted through schools. This could be through 'college week' events, students from colleges going into to talk about college life, 'inspiring lecturers' going into schools, tasters on a range of subjects in college and in school. They also felt that a self-assessment questionnaire focusing on career choices would be really helpful prior to a careers or college course interview.
It was also recognised that many young people drop out of school early on, and need to be visited so that college options can be discussed. A personalised approach was seen a crucial for encouraging and motivating many young people.
Interestingly there was some discussion around colleges combining to create a 'make something of your life campaign'. There was a strong feeling that colleges should be promoting themselves collectively rather than investing heavily in individual marketing sections. Could savings be made this way ?
Recruitment: it was felt that many young people did not make informed choices about college courses. They had a very limited understanding, often applied late and therefore didn't actually get to do the course they wanted.
Barriers for young people included being lazy/couldn't be bothered, money problems, distance to travel, lack of confidence, looking after children, and a lack of motivation. It was recognised that some young people did not want to engage, and had got caught in a lifestyle dominated by TV, computer games and unmotivated friends. However, it was also recognised that maturity can come over time, and boredom, parental influence and friends can have a positive effect. For some people, having children was an incentive to get an education and a job.
There were particular difficulties around money, with an emphasis on not knowing what financial support you were entitled to, administrative problems, and a feeling that you would be better off receiving benefits.
For those who were interviewed early on , potential barriers were picked up quickly
and young people felt supported.
Recruitment could be improved by: knowing the options, more support throughout the application process, ensuring transport is not a barrier, better induction, opportunities to meet classmates and lecturers.
There should be more bridging opportunities between school and college (stepping stones) with some pre-course sessions, perhaps during the summer holidays, and pre-course team-building . It was also recognised that relationships needed to be built with the variety of agencies who support young people.
Retention: 40% of students considered dropping out due to boredom, no work to do, too easy, too repetitive, didn't enjoy the subject, the format didn't meet their expectations, financial difficulties, personal problems and they couldn't make friends.
One of the main reason young people stayed was their relationship with 'good' lecturers: enthusiastic, passionate, friendly, fun, could explain things in a different way, good at listening, didn't talk down to you, obviously loved their job. Young people felt involved in classes where there was practical work, banter, and where a variety of teaching methods were used, including group work and individual work. They didn't like being given the answers, work that wasn't challenging and lectures.
Another reason for staying was related to building and maintaining friendships. Positive group dynamics and friendship groups helped young people feel secure, while not being able to make friends, or falling out with people led to dropping out.
93% of young people felt that they knew where to go to get help, though it was recognised that support was given by a variety of formal and informal networks. The most important aspect of the support, was that the person should be approachable and easy to talk to.
To improve retention the young people identified the importance of using a self-assessment questionnaire at the beginning of the course, to identify any barriers to learning. This would enable support to be put in early on, while regular review meetings would give individual attention to the young person's progress. The use of peer support was regarded as crucial in improving retention.
Many issues were raised by this research, with some interesting and thought provoking suggestions being made by young people. Should there be a probationary period for lecturers new to teaching in colleges ? Should young people be involved in the recruitment of lecturers ? What kind of support do lecturers need to work effectively with young people ? What kind of CPD do lecturing staff need ?
The current thinking around the senior phase of Curriculum for Excellence suggests that we need to we need to take a holistic approach to teaching young people. Look out for Jerry's blog entry relating to Health and Well-being and 'food for thought' , coming soon.
The presentation from the event is available to download from this link.
What was interesting about this, was that the young people had carried out the research, after undergoing training and support. The research had been carried out by 35 researchers with 45 focus groups covering a wide range of programmes.
The research findings focused on 3 main areas: attraction, recruitment and retainment.
Attraction: the main attraction to college was the perception that it wasn't like school. It was felt to be less strict , you could have a laugh, make news friends, and get to do something you wanted to do. 83% of young people felt that college was better than they expected it to be.
However, the generic information that was available, via websites, careers offices etc. wasn't particularly good or helpful. 82% of young people felt that there should be more information about colleges available at school, particularly around range of courses, course content and financial support.
The main reasons that young people went to college was to get a job and a qualification, but there were a significant number who just didn't have anything else do do.
Suggested actions: colleges should be actively promoted through schools. This could be through 'college week' events, students from colleges going into to talk about college life, 'inspiring lecturers' going into schools, tasters on a range of subjects in college and in school. They also felt that a self-assessment questionnaire focusing on career choices would be really helpful prior to a careers or college course interview.
It was also recognised that many young people drop out of school early on, and need to be visited so that college options can be discussed. A personalised approach was seen a crucial for encouraging and motivating many young people.
Interestingly there was some discussion around colleges combining to create a 'make something of your life campaign'. There was a strong feeling that colleges should be promoting themselves collectively rather than investing heavily in individual marketing sections. Could savings be made this way ?
Recruitment: it was felt that many young people did not make informed choices about college courses. They had a very limited understanding, often applied late and therefore didn't actually get to do the course they wanted.
Barriers for young people included being lazy/couldn't be bothered, money problems, distance to travel, lack of confidence, looking after children, and a lack of motivation. It was recognised that some young people did not want to engage, and had got caught in a lifestyle dominated by TV, computer games and unmotivated friends. However, it was also recognised that maturity can come over time, and boredom, parental influence and friends can have a positive effect. For some people, having children was an incentive to get an education and a job.
There were particular difficulties around money, with an emphasis on not knowing what financial support you were entitled to, administrative problems, and a feeling that you would be better off receiving benefits.
For those who were interviewed early on , potential barriers were picked up quickly
and young people felt supported.
Recruitment could be improved by: knowing the options, more support throughout the application process, ensuring transport is not a barrier, better induction, opportunities to meet classmates and lecturers.
There should be more bridging opportunities between school and college (stepping stones) with some pre-course sessions, perhaps during the summer holidays, and pre-course team-building . It was also recognised that relationships needed to be built with the variety of agencies who support young people.
Retention: 40% of students considered dropping out due to boredom, no work to do, too easy, too repetitive, didn't enjoy the subject, the format didn't meet their expectations, financial difficulties, personal problems and they couldn't make friends.
One of the main reason young people stayed was their relationship with 'good' lecturers: enthusiastic, passionate, friendly, fun, could explain things in a different way, good at listening, didn't talk down to you, obviously loved their job. Young people felt involved in classes where there was practical work, banter, and where a variety of teaching methods were used, including group work and individual work. They didn't like being given the answers, work that wasn't challenging and lectures.
Another reason for staying was related to building and maintaining friendships. Positive group dynamics and friendship groups helped young people feel secure, while not being able to make friends, or falling out with people led to dropping out.
93% of young people felt that they knew where to go to get help, though it was recognised that support was given by a variety of formal and informal networks. The most important aspect of the support, was that the person should be approachable and easy to talk to.
To improve retention the young people identified the importance of using a self-assessment questionnaire at the beginning of the course, to identify any barriers to learning. This would enable support to be put in early on, while regular review meetings would give individual attention to the young person's progress. The use of peer support was regarded as crucial in improving retention.
Many issues were raised by this research, with some interesting and thought provoking suggestions being made by young people. Should there be a probationary period for lecturers new to teaching in colleges ? Should young people be involved in the recruitment of lecturers ? What kind of support do lecturers need to work effectively with young people ? What kind of CPD do lecturing staff need ?
The current thinking around the senior phase of Curriculum for Excellence suggests that we need to we need to take a holistic approach to teaching young people. Look out for Jerry's blog entry relating to Health and Well-being and 'food for thought' , coming soon.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
All You ever wanted to know about learning and teaching but were too cool to ask.
Hi all
The next EDDG meetings will take place Monday 1st March, 1.15-2.15, and Wednesday 3rd March, 12.30-1.30. Both meetings will be in room 810.
The discussion will focus on Frank Coffield’s recent booklet ‘All you ever wanted to know about learning and teaching, but were too cool to ask’. In this booklet he offers students some of the latest thinking on learning to help them become better learners, while the learners offer some practical and constructive recommendations to improve teaching. This is a follow-up to his last publication ‘Just supposing teaching and learning were to become the first priority’, which we discussed at EDDG in September 2008.
This recent booklet is in 2 parts. In the first part he talks directly to students about learning and teaching, while in the second part he draws from students’ experiences to offer some insights and advice. He also outlines, in summary form, what he thinks governments, Senior Management Teams (SMT’s) and lecturers could do to ensure that teaching and learning remain a first priority. A copy of these summaries will be posted on the wall of the staff room and the resource base in 218.
For the purposes of the EDDG discussion, it may be as well to focus on the second part of the booklet which focuses on the role of teachers, tutors and senior managers.
The next EDDG meetings will take place Monday 1st March, 1.15-2.15, and Wednesday 3rd March, 12.30-1.30. Both meetings will be in room 810.
The discussion will focus on Frank Coffield’s recent booklet ‘All you ever wanted to know about learning and teaching, but were too cool to ask’. In this booklet he offers students some of the latest thinking on learning to help them become better learners, while the learners offer some practical and constructive recommendations to improve teaching. This is a follow-up to his last publication ‘Just supposing teaching and learning were to become the first priority’, which we discussed at EDDG in September 2008.
This recent booklet is in 2 parts. In the first part he talks directly to students about learning and teaching, while in the second part he draws from students’ experiences to offer some insights and advice. He also outlines, in summary form, what he thinks governments, Senior Management Teams (SMT’s) and lecturers could do to ensure that teaching and learning remain a first priority. A copy of these summaries will be posted on the wall of the staff room and the resource base in 218.
For the purposes of the EDDG discussion, it may be as well to focus on the second part of the booklet which focuses on the role of teachers, tutors and senior managers.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Review of EDDG meeting on classroom technology
We had two interesting discussions on technology and colleagues shared their views and experiences. Everyone agreed that there has been an exponential growth in educational technology and that this made it hard to keep ahead of. There was also a general consensus that no one technology 'model' suited all teaching situations and this was best decided by each lecturer who could make the best choice depending on their subject and student group.
The concerns discussed centred around what to do when technology lets you down; finding time and space to develop and familiarise oneself with new technologies; and a lack of college support and strategies. With regards to the latter it was felt that a robust and clear College strategy and vision was required in order to drive technology forward. The VLE seems to be working well in certain sections and not used at all in others, people seemed keen to find out how it was being used by others in order to contextualise it for themselves.
Probably the most heartening aspect of the two discussions were that feedback indicates that in no way did our students see technology as a replacement for lecturers but rather to enhance and support the learning and teaching. So I think the message has to be that NO - the lecturer is not dead yet!
For help with many of our existing college technologies and some web 2.0 tools we would urge you to have a look at the workshops and drop-ins organised for the next staff development day on Wednesday 17th February, or contact any of the Teacher Fellows - Karen Lawson, Jerry O'Neill or Carole Paterson. Alternatively drop into the staff resource room beside the Library where you can usually find one or more of us.
The concerns discussed centred around what to do when technology lets you down; finding time and space to develop and familiarise oneself with new technologies; and a lack of college support and strategies. With regards to the latter it was felt that a robust and clear College strategy and vision was required in order to drive technology forward. The VLE seems to be working well in certain sections and not used at all in others, people seemed keen to find out how it was being used by others in order to contextualise it for themselves.
Probably the most heartening aspect of the two discussions were that feedback indicates that in no way did our students see technology as a replacement for lecturers but rather to enhance and support the learning and teaching. So I think the message has to be that NO - the lecturer is not dead yet!
For help with many of our existing college technologies and some web 2.0 tools we would urge you to have a look at the workshops and drop-ins organised for the next staff development day on Wednesday 17th February, or contact any of the Teacher Fellows - Karen Lawson, Jerry O'Neill or Carole Paterson. Alternatively drop into the staff resource room beside the Library where you can usually find one or more of us.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Lecturer is Dead; long live Web 2.0 and the VLE!
Hi and a Happy New Year to all.
The next meetings of the Educational Development Discussion Group (EDDG) will be taking place on Friday 15th January at 1.00pm and on Wednesday 20th January at 12.15pm. Both meetings will be held in the Enterprise Centre in Suite 3 (Friday) and Suite 4 (Wednesday).
Just a reminder that EDDG is an open forum for staff to meet and discuss issues associated with the practice and research of learning and teaching.
For our next meetings we have chosen the theme of:
‘The Lecturer is dead; long live WEB 2.0 and the VLE!’
Educational technology tools are being invented on what seems like a daily basis and will probably be developed even faster in the future. However…..
· Can we learn how to use them all effectively?
· Do we want to?
· Are our students desperate for these new technologies to be used in class?
· Is training to use these various tools the answer?
· Is the technology to entertain our students or to enhance learning and teaching?
· Are we frightened of looking stupid in front of our students?
Research carried out by BECTA in England seems to suggest that there is strong evidence linking the use of technology to improvements in learning and outcomes for learning. Educational establishments that are opting for a systematic, premeditated approach to the use of technology supporting the learning are achieving better outcomes. Other findings suggest that students don’t want lecturers replaced by technology and that young people are not as highly skilled in the use of technology as we expect them to be. You may want to have a look at the publication that I have attached below from BECTA – ‘Evidence on the impact of technology on learning and educational outcomes’. Although it was based upon research carried out mainly within secondary schools it still has interest and meaning for FE.
I hope we can look forward to lively discussions based around this topic and tea and coffee will be available. If you are aware of any other articles that would be of interest please e mail them to me in advance or you could post them to our EDDG blog @ http://mail.stevenson.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://eddg.blogspot.com/
Finally I’ll leave you with this quote:
‘The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are undistinguishable from it.’
Weiser, M. (1991): The Computer for the 21st Century
Click on the following to access the BECTA report on Evidence on the impact of technology on learning and educational outcomes
BECTA is a UK-wide organisation with responsibility for supporting the effective use of technology in learning. Click here to find out more about them.
The next meetings of the Educational Development Discussion Group (EDDG) will be taking place on Friday 15th January at 1.00pm and on Wednesday 20th January at 12.15pm. Both meetings will be held in the Enterprise Centre in Suite 3 (Friday) and Suite 4 (Wednesday).
Just a reminder that EDDG is an open forum for staff to meet and discuss issues associated with the practice and research of learning and teaching.
For our next meetings we have chosen the theme of:
‘The Lecturer is dead; long live WEB 2.0 and the VLE!’
Educational technology tools are being invented on what seems like a daily basis and will probably be developed even faster in the future. However…..
· Can we learn how to use them all effectively?
· Do we want to?
· Are our students desperate for these new technologies to be used in class?
· Is training to use these various tools the answer?
· Is the technology to entertain our students or to enhance learning and teaching?
· Are we frightened of looking stupid in front of our students?
Research carried out by BECTA in England seems to suggest that there is strong evidence linking the use of technology to improvements in learning and outcomes for learning. Educational establishments that are opting for a systematic, premeditated approach to the use of technology supporting the learning are achieving better outcomes. Other findings suggest that students don’t want lecturers replaced by technology and that young people are not as highly skilled in the use of technology as we expect them to be. You may want to have a look at the publication that I have attached below from BECTA – ‘Evidence on the impact of technology on learning and educational outcomes’. Although it was based upon research carried out mainly within secondary schools it still has interest and meaning for FE.
I hope we can look forward to lively discussions based around this topic and tea and coffee will be available. If you are aware of any other articles that would be of interest please e mail them to me in advance or you could post them to our EDDG blog @ http://mail.stevenson.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://eddg.blogspot.com/
Finally I’ll leave you with this quote:
‘The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are undistinguishable from it.’
Weiser, M. (1991): The Computer for the 21st Century
Click on the following to access the BECTA report on Evidence on the impact of technology on learning and educational outcomes
BECTA is a UK-wide organisation with responsibility for supporting the effective use of technology in learning. Click here to find out more about them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
