Recently, I read an article online about how much decoration on classroom walls is useful. It has been a long-standing observation that the majority of learners, while they do notice things occasionally on the walls, don't really care too much whether or not they are decorated in what can colourfully be described as rainbow vomit (a term which was not coined by me, but by a former colleague of mine - also, that pun was completely intended).
I wouldn't say that I've been one for a classroom full of white, bare walls. No, I think every learning area does have to feel inviting and warm. But often, I feel like there is a lot of pressure to make things look good, just for the sake of them looking good and bright and shiny. Style over substance, in other words.
As someone who can easily get distracted, the main points in the article are very relevant to me. Too much visual stimulation (or auditory stimulation for that matter) can actually make it difficult for learners (or in my case, adults) to stay focused on the task at hand. The researches actually tested this theory and had two sets of children in two classrooms - one bare and one decorated. Their initial findings were that the children in the bare walls room retained more of the information given during the lesson. Obviously this needs to be replicated on a bigger scale, but it makes sense.
For what it's worth, I've taken a multitude of approaches when it comes to what's on the walls in my classroom (sadly, though, I don't have many pictures of these to share and those that I do have are hidden away in the maze that is my file structures on Google Drive and my external hard drive). I've had the big displays to get children interested. I've tried individual spaces on the wall for learners to display what they've wanted to display (which turned out to be a lot of work for me as many of those spaces were in inaccessible spots or too high). I've put up work in progress.
My personal opinion, based on my patented logical thinking and looking at the situation from many angles is that anything put on the walls has to have a purpose - and that purpose begins and ends with the learners who are in the environment. Everything put up has to be for them. Not for leadership, not for the parents, not for ERO.
I think walls should be always changing, with the learners taking ownership of the majority of things on them. Obviously there needs to be organizational things on them, but that shouldn't take up too much space. The environment should be clean and welcoming. One thing I'd like to add is plants, or other calming things. Leaner made art should be put up (though I would argue that if you have 25 or so copies of almost the exact same thing, it's not really art).
This has come at an interesting time when we're trying to decide collectively as a team what to put up in our Habitat. This has certainly given us something to think about.
Showing posts with label Articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Articles. Show all posts
Friday, March 17, 2017
Friday, March 3, 2017
In Defence of Play Based Learning
Recently a colleague at work shared this ARTICLE with our whole staff and asked for our thoughts. In an act of clear click-baiting curiously titled Why I Don't Like Play Based Learning, the article does not actually have anything against Play Based Learning, but rather against the "hijacking" of the term by some educators.
The problem, the author asserts, is that some educators are making their normal (i.e. boring) tasks more fun by adding games to things such as literacy or numeracy tumbles. This is not play based learning. Play based learning is literally a time or chance for learners to play and explore their world. One of the main things I want my learners to realize is that no matter what they do, they are learning something. I told this once to a class of mine and one boy made a smart-alec remark (admittedly, I see that as a positive), but I turned it back on him and said "You've just learned how I react to silly remarks. Next time, you'll probably stop and think before you do." His expression when I said that was priceless. The point I'm trying to make is that no matter what a human being is doing, they are learning something in the process.
In my opinion this disconnect between actual play based learning and what some educators call play based learning stems from educators wanting to do the "latest thing" but not actually understanding the why behind it or not being willing (or able) to let go of the structure that has been indoctrinated into them. As educators, we need to go deeper and understand why we do what we do - all of it.
I've had some interesting discussions around this idea lately and it has always been something I've thought about as it pertains to my practice. One of the few things I actually remember from my University days is a simple formula (which I may or may not have already shared on this blog):
This is very relevant when it comes to play based learning. If we allow learners to play, that reflection can actually be more powerful than any other direct acts of teaching that we could provide. Yes, they do need some direct acts of teaching, but it is my belief that play can motivate children to want to read. To want to write. To want to learn how to manipulate numbers. Obviously in reality we need to teach these things regardless of desire, but we can use the play to make learners desire.
For our part, I do believe my Oresome School does offer a great assortment of play based learning opportunities for our learners. The pictures throughout this blog show our morning provocations and our loose parts playground.
I think, as educators, we need to make sure that we ask ourselves why we're doing things and then actually make sure that we acting consistently with those reasons.
The problem, the author asserts, is that some educators are making their normal (i.e. boring) tasks more fun by adding games to things such as literacy or numeracy tumbles. This is not play based learning. Play based learning is literally a time or chance for learners to play and explore their world. One of the main things I want my learners to realize is that no matter what they do, they are learning something. I told this once to a class of mine and one boy made a smart-alec remark (admittedly, I see that as a positive), but I turned it back on him and said "You've just learned how I react to silly remarks. Next time, you'll probably stop and think before you do." His expression when I said that was priceless. The point I'm trying to make is that no matter what a human being is doing, they are learning something in the process.
In my opinion this disconnect between actual play based learning and what some educators call play based learning stems from educators wanting to do the "latest thing" but not actually understanding the why behind it or not being willing (or able) to let go of the structure that has been indoctrinated into them. As educators, we need to go deeper and understand why we do what we do - all of it.
I've had some interesting discussions around this idea lately and it has always been something I've thought about as it pertains to my practice. One of the few things I actually remember from my University days is a simple formula (which I may or may not have already shared on this blog):
FUN = ENTERTAINMENT
FUN + REFLECTION = EDUCATION
This is very relevant when it comes to play based learning. If we allow learners to play, that reflection can actually be more powerful than any other direct acts of teaching that we could provide. Yes, they do need some direct acts of teaching, but it is my belief that play can motivate children to want to read. To want to write. To want to learn how to manipulate numbers. Obviously in reality we need to teach these things regardless of desire, but we can use the play to make learners desire.
For our part, I do believe my Oresome School does offer a great assortment of play based learning opportunities for our learners. The pictures throughout this blog show our morning provocations and our loose parts playground.
I think, as educators, we need to make sure that we ask ourselves why we're doing things and then actually make sure that we acting consistently with those reasons.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Mixed-Ability Reading - The Final Frontier
Overview
Last year and this year, I've been experimented with no ability groups in both Writing and Mathematics. I've gone through ups and downs in this process. One thing that needs to be clear that having no ability groups does NOT mean that you don't differentiate. It just means that ALL tasks are accessible to ALL students and expectations are high for everyone. In my mind there is no acceptable target for meeting standards that is below 100%. In reality, you might not meet that, but that should absolutely be the goal. By teaching to levels, students don't always have the chance to make accelerated progress to catch up and the task can seem extremely daunting.
Earlier this year, I was involved in a Facebook conversation about mixed ability groups in Reading. I was getting a bit overwhelmed at the work I was putting in to try and make my reading program work, so I thought over the last holidays: Why not try something new? Can I mix ability groups in Reading and get better results? So I thought about what I had read and looked at some learning tools the school has in place currently and came up with a plan.
What it Looks Like Now
During week 1 of this term, I spent some time, developing a language of questions with my students. We talked about SOLO taxonomy as well as Bloom's Taxonomy (I am aware of the criticism against Bloom's but I still think it has some value). We worked through coming up with (or at least deciding on the level of) questions for our shared book.
At the end of the week, I picked 6 novels from the reading room and gave a brief introduction. Students choose their 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences for the books and I put them into groups based solely on their choices.
During week 2, students first read the book with their group. They then filled out a chart with questions based on SOLO. With me, we discussed what happened, the questions (and answers) they came up with and we used a SOLO map to describe one of the characters, using evidence to support our claims. Students also spent some time filming their reading, as well as a cloze activity. One of the days, I asked the students to come up with a create question (Bloom's - this is my main use of it) and they had to make, write or do something. Observing this was interesting. The students were all 'in' the book. They were interacting with it in ways that I couldn't structure.
Reasons for Change:
I don't think I'm an unreasonable or reckless person. As I wrote previously, I think we need to be careful of not focusing on doing the wrong thing right, but rather doing the right thing, even if it's not perfect. I have reasons for making these changes and they are not simply because it's easier (it's not, for the record), I want to cause trouble (trouble is a byproduct of trying to change and do the right thing) or I'm defiant (only to people who are being oppressive). Here are some of the main thinking points I had to guide me:
Student Choice
Over the course of my career, I've noticed that many students are disengaged, not only with reading and writing, but with school in general. Most of what we have students read are not necessarily things they find interesting. Yes, many of the school readers attempt to be interesting, but you can't force a student to want to read something. I think back to my days in school. When I HAD to read books, it was much harder than when I had a choice. I would read tons in my summer. University was a killer. All the readings, and though useful, they were not a choice, so I was not very motivated to read them - and I'd describe myself as an avid reader. I wanted to give my students more control over what they read. Though this choice is limited by the books we have, at least they got to choose something.
Quality of Texts
Most of the books we read with students are not books anyone would take out of a library. They are either short stores that aren't particularly well written or they are short information texts. I know most libraries have these kinds of books, but I don't think I've ever seen a child near them (I guess this is also part of student choice). I wanted to read good books with the students that they would not only enjoy, but that had some sort of structure to them.
Depth of Understanding
I really wanted to incorporate SOLO into my reading program. I think it is a great tool to get students thinking about what they're reading. Could I have used this in the way I previously did Reading? Certainly, but this way of running a reading program allows for more continued discussion and helps manage the mixed ability groupings.
Sense of Accomplishment, Growth Mindset
I want to give students the opportunity to do something that lots of other teachers would say they can't do. My question to them would be: why not? I'm there to support those readers whose levels might not be as high as the others (and for the record, a number is just that, a number, it does not tell nearly the whole story). If a student wants to try a difficult book, I want them to try it and not be phased. If they struggle, then that opens up the desire to improve. We have been fostering a growth mindset in our class lately and this is an extension of that. You can do it, don't listen to the naysayers.
Differentiated, but in a different way
Not differentiating learning wouldn't be good practice. No matter where you aimed your teaching, students would be getting bored because they either were being challenged too much or not enough. This way, students have different ways of challenging themselves with the same material. They support each other, but not in the way the "more able" students are tutoring the "less able" students. With fast readers developing questions (which helps their understanding and gives them responsibility) as well as creative tasks which they can do they get a challenge (Can you think like a teacher? Can you be creative in your questioning? Can you ask questions that you need to find out) while at the same time supporting the slower readers, who have a great set of student generated questions to help their understanding. With my guidance as well, students get a chance to answer those higher level questions and get answers that they may not have thought of. Plus, the oral language that can come out of these groups has proven in other subjects and areas to be quite rich.
Related Article and Videos
The following article from Mindshift, discusses some ideas of how to motivate students in reading and writing. It identifies some key ideas that should be addressed: Autonomy (choice), Relatedness (can they discuss this in a non high stakes way with peers and adults), Interest and Value (to goals, lives) and Competence. Competence is very important. If a student does not feel competent in something, it will be hard for them to enjoy it. How I am addressing that is with the SOLO maps as well as the questioning and differentiated support from me and their peers. The others seem to match up quite well with the other things I have explained above.
This video, while focused on Math, explains a lot of the reasons (backed up by research) for not ability grouping, which is relevant across all subjects. Note that this does not mean you do not differentiate, but you do so in a different way (by support, for example).
First Week Observations
I'm noticing students seem more excited (How do you quantify that? Being on task?) and are seen in tight-knit groups discussing the work. Several groups have jumped ahead (awesome!) to fill out the SOLO map without me and we were able to discuss this in more depth. One group I work with was very good at finding evidence within the book and some students who would have been classed as "low" were able to explain their answers coherently. Another student, when asked why he felt that one character was bossy was able to articulate that he just had a feeling. We discussed how we could find evidence for this, but I was impressed with how he articulated himself and wasn't worried that I would be upset with his answer. It was a good moment.
I also liked how I had shared the documents as a group rather than make a copy for each student. This took the emphasis off of individual responses (because, really, what's the point of all of them writing it down). The groups I worked with were very good at sharing these jobs.
The creative activities created what I would call chaos, but the good kind of chaos. Students were "in" the books, thinking about how the books related to their lives. They were being creative and making things. But most of all they were focused on what they were doing. Besides one student, every child knew what to do and was doing it.
Where to Next
Obviously I'm not perfect and neither is this reading program. As I've been getting things up and running, it has been hard to find time to focus on specific children (though I have managed to work with target students at times). I need to make sure that I am spending more time with target students to check their understanding. This could be as simple as them sitting beside me when we discuss the book, or just sitting down with them to listen to them read their pages. Time constraints, as always, are an issue. Perhaps dialling back the amount work to be done (e.g. cloze and filming) would be beneficial for students.
The noise is obviously an issue, which makes it hard for me to work with a group when it's too loud. Part of this could be solved by using our breakout room (sadly, not in existence until I move classrooms in a few weeks) for either my group sessions OR for the loud activities (our Makerspace/Lego).
I will need to read up a bit more on how to make this work, but at the moment, I think the most important criteria is being met: students are enjoying reading time and are actually reading during that time. From here on, it will be a series of tweaks (which, depending on time) may or may not be fully documented here.
Last year and this year, I've been experimented with no ability groups in both Writing and Mathematics. I've gone through ups and downs in this process. One thing that needs to be clear that having no ability groups does NOT mean that you don't differentiate. It just means that ALL tasks are accessible to ALL students and expectations are high for everyone. In my mind there is no acceptable target for meeting standards that is below 100%. In reality, you might not meet that, but that should absolutely be the goal. By teaching to levels, students don't always have the chance to make accelerated progress to catch up and the task can seem extremely daunting.
Earlier this year, I was involved in a Facebook conversation about mixed ability groups in Reading. I was getting a bit overwhelmed at the work I was putting in to try and make my reading program work, so I thought over the last holidays: Why not try something new? Can I mix ability groups in Reading and get better results? So I thought about what I had read and looked at some learning tools the school has in place currently and came up with a plan.
What it Looks Like Now
During week 1 of this term, I spent some time, developing a language of questions with my students. We talked about SOLO taxonomy as well as Bloom's Taxonomy (I am aware of the criticism against Bloom's but I still think it has some value). We worked through coming up with (or at least deciding on the level of) questions for our shared book.
At the end of the week, I picked 6 novels from the reading room and gave a brief introduction. Students choose their 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences for the books and I put them into groups based solely on their choices.
During week 2, students first read the book with their group. They then filled out a chart with questions based on SOLO. With me, we discussed what happened, the questions (and answers) they came up with and we used a SOLO map to describe one of the characters, using evidence to support our claims. Students also spent some time filming their reading, as well as a cloze activity. One of the days, I asked the students to come up with a create question (Bloom's - this is my main use of it) and they had to make, write or do something. Observing this was interesting. The students were all 'in' the book. They were interacting with it in ways that I couldn't structure.
Reasons for Change:
I don't think I'm an unreasonable or reckless person. As I wrote previously, I think we need to be careful of not focusing on doing the wrong thing right, but rather doing the right thing, even if it's not perfect. I have reasons for making these changes and they are not simply because it's easier (it's not, for the record), I want to cause trouble (trouble is a byproduct of trying to change and do the right thing) or I'm defiant (only to people who are being oppressive). Here are some of the main thinking points I had to guide me:
Student Choice
Over the course of my career, I've noticed that many students are disengaged, not only with reading and writing, but with school in general. Most of what we have students read are not necessarily things they find interesting. Yes, many of the school readers attempt to be interesting, but you can't force a student to want to read something. I think back to my days in school. When I HAD to read books, it was much harder than when I had a choice. I would read tons in my summer. University was a killer. All the readings, and though useful, they were not a choice, so I was not very motivated to read them - and I'd describe myself as an avid reader. I wanted to give my students more control over what they read. Though this choice is limited by the books we have, at least they got to choose something.
Quality of Texts
Most of the books we read with students are not books anyone would take out of a library. They are either short stores that aren't particularly well written or they are short information texts. I know most libraries have these kinds of books, but I don't think I've ever seen a child near them (I guess this is also part of student choice). I wanted to read good books with the students that they would not only enjoy, but that had some sort of structure to them.
Depth of Understanding
I really wanted to incorporate SOLO into my reading program. I think it is a great tool to get students thinking about what they're reading. Could I have used this in the way I previously did Reading? Certainly, but this way of running a reading program allows for more continued discussion and helps manage the mixed ability groupings.
Sense of Accomplishment, Growth Mindset
I want to give students the opportunity to do something that lots of other teachers would say they can't do. My question to them would be: why not? I'm there to support those readers whose levels might not be as high as the others (and for the record, a number is just that, a number, it does not tell nearly the whole story). If a student wants to try a difficult book, I want them to try it and not be phased. If they struggle, then that opens up the desire to improve. We have been fostering a growth mindset in our class lately and this is an extension of that. You can do it, don't listen to the naysayers.
Differentiated, but in a different way
Not differentiating learning wouldn't be good practice. No matter where you aimed your teaching, students would be getting bored because they either were being challenged too much or not enough. This way, students have different ways of challenging themselves with the same material. They support each other, but not in the way the "more able" students are tutoring the "less able" students. With fast readers developing questions (which helps their understanding and gives them responsibility) as well as creative tasks which they can do they get a challenge (Can you think like a teacher? Can you be creative in your questioning? Can you ask questions that you need to find out) while at the same time supporting the slower readers, who have a great set of student generated questions to help their understanding. With my guidance as well, students get a chance to answer those higher level questions and get answers that they may not have thought of. Plus, the oral language that can come out of these groups has proven in other subjects and areas to be quite rich.
Related Article and Videos
The following article from Mindshift, discusses some ideas of how to motivate students in reading and writing. It identifies some key ideas that should be addressed: Autonomy (choice), Relatedness (can they discuss this in a non high stakes way with peers and adults), Interest and Value (to goals, lives) and Competence. Competence is very important. If a student does not feel competent in something, it will be hard for them to enjoy it. How I am addressing that is with the SOLO maps as well as the questioning and differentiated support from me and their peers. The others seem to match up quite well with the other things I have explained above.
This video, while focused on Math, explains a lot of the reasons (backed up by research) for not ability grouping, which is relevant across all subjects. Note that this does not mean you do not differentiate, but you do so in a different way (by support, for example).
This second video, from John Hattie, goes on to explain that tracking has a 0 effect for teaching. He then explains an idea that I've had (and used as justification for not ability grouping): that students, particularly (but not limited to) in Mathematics, are not given the chance to change tracks (groups) because they are not given the content (or strategies) that 'higher' tracks receive. How could they possibly bridge the gap?
First Week Observations
I'm noticing students seem more excited (How do you quantify that? Being on task?) and are seen in tight-knit groups discussing the work. Several groups have jumped ahead (awesome!) to fill out the SOLO map without me and we were able to discuss this in more depth. One group I work with was very good at finding evidence within the book and some students who would have been classed as "low" were able to explain their answers coherently. Another student, when asked why he felt that one character was bossy was able to articulate that he just had a feeling. We discussed how we could find evidence for this, but I was impressed with how he articulated himself and wasn't worried that I would be upset with his answer. It was a good moment.
I also liked how I had shared the documents as a group rather than make a copy for each student. This took the emphasis off of individual responses (because, really, what's the point of all of them writing it down). The groups I worked with were very good at sharing these jobs.
The creative activities created what I would call chaos, but the good kind of chaos. Students were "in" the books, thinking about how the books related to their lives. They were being creative and making things. But most of all they were focused on what they were doing. Besides one student, every child knew what to do and was doing it.
Where to Next
Obviously I'm not perfect and neither is this reading program. As I've been getting things up and running, it has been hard to find time to focus on specific children (though I have managed to work with target students at times). I need to make sure that I am spending more time with target students to check their understanding. This could be as simple as them sitting beside me when we discuss the book, or just sitting down with them to listen to them read their pages. Time constraints, as always, are an issue. Perhaps dialling back the amount work to be done (e.g. cloze and filming) would be beneficial for students.
The noise is obviously an issue, which makes it hard for me to work with a group when it's too loud. Part of this could be solved by using our breakout room (sadly, not in existence until I move classrooms in a few weeks) for either my group sessions OR for the loud activities (our Makerspace/Lego).
I will need to read up a bit more on how to make this work, but at the moment, I think the most important criteria is being met: students are enjoying reading time and are actually reading during that time. From here on, it will be a series of tweaks (which, depending on time) may or may not be fully documented here.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Teachers: We can be Introverts as Well!
Most people who have known me for a while will probably think that I'm an extrovert. But that's not the truth. I'm definitely an introvert and exhibit all the signs that one would expect: shy in new situations, I don't like crowds (or small talk) and I enjoy (and need to) spend time by myself to recharge and decompress.
Every now and then, I see another article about introverted people and how others can understand us more. The one thing that has always stuck in my mind was that while extroverts get their energy from interactions with others, introverts spend a lot of energy when interacting with others. This is definitely something that happens with me. As a teacher, this can present a lot of challenges (I have 26 students who take LOADS of energy out of me on a daily basis).
I recently found this article, by John Spencer, Re-imagining School for Introverted Teachers. The articles shares several ways in which schools can support those of us who are introverts. I do find it hard when school leaders or managers ask me to go to the staff room. Often, my dislike for that trip is misunderstood. I need lots of time to recharge and spending time with adults in my 10 or 20 minutes of break. That recharge time makes me a better teacher.
My introvertedness also affects how I can best deal with students. There is tons of talk about finding the best way that students learn, but rarely do people talk about the best way for teachers to teach. We are all different and should be allowed to show our strengths in the classroom. I'm personally trying to find that balance between what's best for everyone (a lot of MLE/ILE spaces can help with this, though unfortunately, we are in a limited space for a few more weeks).
There are also a lot of issues around nervousness (I've been called a worry wart several times, but different principals) and a lot of times my motives are questioned. I often feel that I'm put on the spot and not allowed to explore things. This creates a lot of stress and makes it harder for me to be effective.
So what do I do with all this knowledge (that I'm not alone). Well, it gives me a way to start discussing the issues with leadership and to explain what works best for me. I'm hopeful that given this perspective, it might help others support me in a way that allows me to grow.
Every now and then, I see another article about introverted people and how others can understand us more. The one thing that has always stuck in my mind was that while extroverts get their energy from interactions with others, introverts spend a lot of energy when interacting with others. This is definitely something that happens with me. As a teacher, this can present a lot of challenges (I have 26 students who take LOADS of energy out of me on a daily basis).
I recently found this article, by John Spencer, Re-imagining School for Introverted Teachers. The articles shares several ways in which schools can support those of us who are introverts. I do find it hard when school leaders or managers ask me to go to the staff room. Often, my dislike for that trip is misunderstood. I need lots of time to recharge and spending time with adults in my 10 or 20 minutes of break. That recharge time makes me a better teacher.
My introvertedness also affects how I can best deal with students. There is tons of talk about finding the best way that students learn, but rarely do people talk about the best way for teachers to teach. We are all different and should be allowed to show our strengths in the classroom. I'm personally trying to find that balance between what's best for everyone (a lot of MLE/ILE spaces can help with this, though unfortunately, we are in a limited space for a few more weeks).
There are also a lot of issues around nervousness (I've been called a worry wart several times, but different principals) and a lot of times my motives are questioned. I often feel that I'm put on the spot and not allowed to explore things. This creates a lot of stress and makes it harder for me to be effective.
So what do I do with all this knowledge (that I'm not alone). Well, it gives me a way to start discussing the issues with leadership and to explain what works best for me. I'm hopeful that given this perspective, it might help others support me in a way that allows me to grow.
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Down With Homework!
I've recently read another online article that was shared on Facebook (why look for things when I get a million posts daily from that group?). This one also rang true to things I believe in, but is actually backed up by research. Yay for research!
I also had a great picture of this (think Bart Simpson) but it was not labelled for reuse on Google Image Search, so I didn't use it. Boo for lawsuits against teachers!
The article in question explains that 25 years of research by Harris Cooper suggests that homework has no positive effect on students at the primary level (though it does have a bit for Intermediate and more for High School).
The article talks of negative effects that homework can have on elementary aged children: creating a dislike of school, straining parental relationships, it takes time from sleeping, it takes time from kids being kids AND it does not necessarily help with responsibility (because children often have to be reminded to do it, which isn't teaching them responsibility).
That being said, several alternatives are suggested. Children should be reading as often as possible, but they should get to choose what they read (comic books, books on their favourite topic,etc). Chores are also a great way to teach responsibility. A third option would be visits to a museum, etc (or anything to expand their experiences). It is also important for parents to realize that students are constantly learning so even playing games can be discussed as what they learned (e.g. strategies to win at a game).
Though there are a lot of "experts" saying how much homework is necessary. I have several reasons for selecting this one as a more valid point of view:
1) 25 years of research is a lot
2) The statements given are not exactly in the extreme, nor are they specific (two things that things tend not to be)
3) It fits nicely in with my prior knowledge and passes the "common sense" test.
4) It offers up alternatives to accomplish the same goals that homework claims to.
I haven't given my students homework this year (except for sending home the homework books I had to at the beginning of the year) and do not plan on changing that (this article will be shared with the naysayers).
Also, I should point out that I shared the article with my students and we had quite the interesting discussion. Good times!
I also had a great picture of this (think Bart Simpson) but it was not labelled for reuse on Google Image Search, so I didn't use it. Boo for lawsuits against teachers!
The article in question explains that 25 years of research by Harris Cooper suggests that homework has no positive effect on students at the primary level (though it does have a bit for Intermediate and more for High School).
The article talks of negative effects that homework can have on elementary aged children: creating a dislike of school, straining parental relationships, it takes time from sleeping, it takes time from kids being kids AND it does not necessarily help with responsibility (because children often have to be reminded to do it, which isn't teaching them responsibility).
That being said, several alternatives are suggested. Children should be reading as often as possible, but they should get to choose what they read (comic books, books on their favourite topic,etc). Chores are also a great way to teach responsibility. A third option would be visits to a museum, etc (or anything to expand their experiences). It is also important for parents to realize that students are constantly learning so even playing games can be discussed as what they learned (e.g. strategies to win at a game).
Though there are a lot of "experts" saying how much homework is necessary. I have several reasons for selecting this one as a more valid point of view:
1) 25 years of research is a lot
2) The statements given are not exactly in the extreme, nor are they specific (two things that things tend not to be)
3) It fits nicely in with my prior knowledge and passes the "common sense" test.
4) It offers up alternatives to accomplish the same goals that homework claims to.
I haven't given my students homework this year (except for sending home the homework books I had to at the beginning of the year) and do not plan on changing that (this article will be shared with the naysayers).
Also, I should point out that I shared the article with my students and we had quite the interesting discussion. Good times!
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Doing the Right Thing Wrong or the Wrong Thing Right
Today, like everyday, I saw an interesting article shared on one of the many teaching Facebook groups I belong to. Usually, I just save it and say "I'll read that later" and never do (the life of a teacher). But today, after skimming the first paragraph, something caught my attention, so I read the whole thing. Amazing eh?
The article, HERE, discusses how as teachers, we often work extremely hard to get things right, yet we never ask ourselves if those things are the right thing to do. The author, Will Richardson, talks about another great mind, Russell Ackoff, who was able to explain that even if we do the wrong things and do them well, we're doing a worse job that if we do them poorly. He said that it's more important to do the right things wrong than to spend all our time trying to perfect the wrong things.
And why does he say we do the wrong things? Because it's easier. I'm not so sure about this part of the article/argument, but I'm fully in agreement about trying to do the right things even if it's not perfect. Perhaps we do the wrong things because that's what we've always done (TTWAD is a popular acronym I believe) and that's what we were told.
I don't like to be told what to do. Ask anyone who's tried to do so. I don't listen. I see a good idea, I roll with it. So this speaks quite true to me. Am I doing things perfectly? Heck no! Am I trying to do the right thing by my students? For sure! If I make mistakes along the way, it's better that they get pushed in the right direction poorly than I push them super hard in the wrong direction.
Here's hoping I can stay true to my word (after a long day of planning, I feel that I'm trying to do the right things - though no doubt I'm doing it wrong). And maybe if I get some free time, I'll watch the video in the article.
The article, HERE, discusses how as teachers, we often work extremely hard to get things right, yet we never ask ourselves if those things are the right thing to do. The author, Will Richardson, talks about another great mind, Russell Ackoff, who was able to explain that even if we do the wrong things and do them well, we're doing a worse job that if we do them poorly. He said that it's more important to do the right things wrong than to spend all our time trying to perfect the wrong things.
And why does he say we do the wrong things? Because it's easier. I'm not so sure about this part of the article/argument, but I'm fully in agreement about trying to do the right things even if it's not perfect. Perhaps we do the wrong things because that's what we've always done (TTWAD is a popular acronym I believe) and that's what we were told.
I don't like to be told what to do. Ask anyone who's tried to do so. I don't listen. I see a good idea, I roll with it. So this speaks quite true to me. Am I doing things perfectly? Heck no! Am I trying to do the right thing by my students? For sure! If I make mistakes along the way, it's better that they get pushed in the right direction poorly than I push them super hard in the wrong direction.
Here's hoping I can stay true to my word (after a long day of planning, I feel that I'm trying to do the right things - though no doubt I'm doing it wrong). And maybe if I get some free time, I'll watch the video in the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)