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.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
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.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Review of EDDG discussions on HMIe
We had two frank and interesting discussions this week on our recent HMIe experience.
We started the discussions by acknowledging some of the broader points made in Norman Lucas’s piece which highlighted concerns about the distorting influence of external inspections in further education (see EDDG blog post “HMIe: How was it for you?” 17 Nov 2009)
At Monday’s meeting Fiona Gunn gave a brief overview of the feedback from the HMIe. Their general message was that there are no major concerns and that we are doing good work. However, they did not feel that there was anything particularly innovative in what they witnessed in terms of learning and teaching.
On Thursday Jordi Pitarch-Marquino came along to talk about his experiences of being observed. He said that, as a languages lecturer, he was quite used to being observed, so the experience wasn’t too daunting. The inspector stayed with him for about an hour and they had an extensive discussion afterwards. Jordi found the inspector to be courteous and genuinely interested in his teaching.
However, one of the points that came out of the discussion was that Jordi’s experience was not by any means consistent across all observations: some people had no “professional dialogue” after the observation; in other observations the inspector didn’t stay quite so long; and, finally, the post-lesson “profession dialogue”, for others, focussed less on learning and teaching and more on the college culture.
I put quotation marks around “professional dialogue” as some lecturers felt that it was more like an interview than a dialogue.
The discussions highlighted some concerns about the validity and usefulness of the process and, in some instances, the lack of credibility in some of the HMIe team. The point was made that it is important for the inspectors to have current knowledge of the subject area and teaching in order for our teaching staff to enter into a meaningful dialogue.
One or two people suggested that the subject-specific reviews (the subject aspect reviews as they’re called) have more credibility with college staff. However, it is also important that the inspectors involved with that process are seen to have relevant and up-to-date skills and experience in the subject area.
Some people felt that there was a sense of the review being more of a “lighter touch”. In fact, there was some concern that the inspectors didn’t give the staff that they met at various meetings the opportunity to talk about examples of innovative developments and effective teaching methods in their area. On a related point there was a comment made that the inspection lacked rigour.
However, some people felt that the inspectors that they talked to were approachable and willing to listen.
Quite a number of people talked about HMIe inspectors asking frank questions about the culture, governance and leadership of the college. These discussions, it was reported, were frank and open. There was some concern that the content of these discussions were diluted in the initial oral feedback from the inspectors. It was pointed out that some staff made some brave comments to the HMIe at various meetings on this issue. The point was made that staff would have little trust or respect of the inspection process, and of HMIe in particular, if such comments were ignored or lost in ambiguous language of any future report.
It was noted that HMIe seemed to be interested in the role that individual staff play in the development of college-wide strategies, policies and resources. In a sense, this was something very positive to come out of the experience – there is a recognition that the direction of the college needs to be defined by staff and learners through meaningful and continuing processes of engagement.
Linked to that, the inspectors also, it seems, brought up the subject of communication systems within the college. They were interested in how, and how well, we communicate with each other.
There was some discussion about the distorting function of inspections. Most people felt that unannounced HMIe visits would be a good thing. It would be interesting to know what the feeling of all staff is on this. Unannounced visits might offset some of the distortion that, it was suggested, can go on in the weeks and months up to a HMIe inspection. This point tied in well with some of comments made by Lucas in his article.
There was also some chat about who reviews the HMIe and it was claimed that the HMIe have recently stepped back from a process where they had invited tenders to review their own effectiveness.
To conclude, there was a general feeling, by many, that the process was a bit of a “non-event”. There was some disquiet with a snapshot process which evaluates and makes broad judgements and statements on our teaching and the college as a whole.
So, what did we learn? Well, one answer was that we learned a little bit more about how the HMIe inspection process itself. But how does that help our learners or enhance our teaching? I suppose it helps us prepare for future HMIe inspections.
On a more positive note, I think another thing we learned was that HMIe are, rightly, interested in learner and staff engagement in the culture and governance of the college.
But maybe that most important thing we learned, or need to learn, is that we should trust our own professional judgement about what we do. We are probably the most critical of judges of our own practice.
We started the discussions by acknowledging some of the broader points made in Norman Lucas’s piece which highlighted concerns about the distorting influence of external inspections in further education (see EDDG blog post “HMIe: How was it for you?” 17 Nov 2009)
At Monday’s meeting Fiona Gunn gave a brief overview of the feedback from the HMIe. Their general message was that there are no major concerns and that we are doing good work. However, they did not feel that there was anything particularly innovative in what they witnessed in terms of learning and teaching.
On Thursday Jordi Pitarch-Marquino came along to talk about his experiences of being observed. He said that, as a languages lecturer, he was quite used to being observed, so the experience wasn’t too daunting. The inspector stayed with him for about an hour and they had an extensive discussion afterwards. Jordi found the inspector to be courteous and genuinely interested in his teaching.
However, one of the points that came out of the discussion was that Jordi’s experience was not by any means consistent across all observations: some people had no “professional dialogue” after the observation; in other observations the inspector didn’t stay quite so long; and, finally, the post-lesson “profession dialogue”, for others, focussed less on learning and teaching and more on the college culture.
I put quotation marks around “professional dialogue” as some lecturers felt that it was more like an interview than a dialogue.
The discussions highlighted some concerns about the validity and usefulness of the process and, in some instances, the lack of credibility in some of the HMIe team. The point was made that it is important for the inspectors to have current knowledge of the subject area and teaching in order for our teaching staff to enter into a meaningful dialogue.
One or two people suggested that the subject-specific reviews (the subject aspect reviews as they’re called) have more credibility with college staff. However, it is also important that the inspectors involved with that process are seen to have relevant and up-to-date skills and experience in the subject area.
Some people felt that there was a sense of the review being more of a “lighter touch”. In fact, there was some concern that the inspectors didn’t give the staff that they met at various meetings the opportunity to talk about examples of innovative developments and effective teaching methods in their area. On a related point there was a comment made that the inspection lacked rigour.
However, some people felt that the inspectors that they talked to were approachable and willing to listen.
Quite a number of people talked about HMIe inspectors asking frank questions about the culture, governance and leadership of the college. These discussions, it was reported, were frank and open. There was some concern that the content of these discussions were diluted in the initial oral feedback from the inspectors. It was pointed out that some staff made some brave comments to the HMIe at various meetings on this issue. The point was made that staff would have little trust or respect of the inspection process, and of HMIe in particular, if such comments were ignored or lost in ambiguous language of any future report.
It was noted that HMIe seemed to be interested in the role that individual staff play in the development of college-wide strategies, policies and resources. In a sense, this was something very positive to come out of the experience – there is a recognition that the direction of the college needs to be defined by staff and learners through meaningful and continuing processes of engagement.
Linked to that, the inspectors also, it seems, brought up the subject of communication systems within the college. They were interested in how, and how well, we communicate with each other.
There was some discussion about the distorting function of inspections. Most people felt that unannounced HMIe visits would be a good thing. It would be interesting to know what the feeling of all staff is on this. Unannounced visits might offset some of the distortion that, it was suggested, can go on in the weeks and months up to a HMIe inspection. This point tied in well with some of comments made by Lucas in his article.
There was also some chat about who reviews the HMIe and it was claimed that the HMIe have recently stepped back from a process where they had invited tenders to review their own effectiveness.
To conclude, there was a general feeling, by many, that the process was a bit of a “non-event”. There was some disquiet with a snapshot process which evaluates and makes broad judgements and statements on our teaching and the college as a whole.
So, what did we learn? Well, one answer was that we learned a little bit more about how the HMIe inspection process itself. But how does that help our learners or enhance our teaching? I suppose it helps us prepare for future HMIe inspections.
On a more positive note, I think another thing we learned was that HMIe are, rightly, interested in learner and staff engagement in the culture and governance of the college.
But maybe that most important thing we learned, or need to learn, is that we should trust our own professional judgement about what we do. We are probably the most critical of judges of our own practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
