I keep coming back to this talk by David Weston on Hattie’s work and why “it might be a little bit more complicated than it seems.” Definitely worth a watch.
Almost all the children in my classes play Clash of Clans, so I thought it would a good basis to try my first 3-Act lesson, as per Dan Meyer.
Anyway, looking forward to trying it with my Year 7s tomorrow.
Slides here: Clan Maths – Build Walls
Info Sheet here: Clash of Clans – Wall build – info sheet
Rough notes below
Act 1: The set-up
Act 2: The Wrestle
Act 3: The Reveal
Took a while to get there, what with train cancellations, but it was worth it.
Notes from what I saw:
There’s a talk of hers below which covers some similar things
Ken Brechin, Cramlington & CPD
Ray Healey on Creating and Extension Culture in Maths
Barbara Oakley on Learning how to Learn
Other notes online/slides from talks
I’ve had a very quick stab at hacking together a simple version of a game I used to play as a child.
Whoever is playing chooses their adjectives and then these are dropped randomly into a famous story.
I’ve grabbed the opening to Alice in Wonderland from Project Gutenberg as a first effort. Would love to hear some other possible suggestions.
You can download the game here.
I’ve been trying to tie together some of the various bits of research I’ve come across for and against ability grouping in maths. Below is what I’ve got so far, but would love any other pointers, for or against.
The last 30 years’ research suggests setting marginally improves high-achievers, but to the detriment of everyone else.
Sources are: DfES (2004) Making Mathematics Count (London: TSO), Askew, M. and Wiliam, D. (1995) Recent Research in Mathematics Education 5-16 (London: HMSO), Sukhnandan, L. (1998) Streaming, setting and grouping by ability: a review of the literature (Slough: NFER), Education Endowment Foundation, http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/ability-grouping/
This may be for various reasons but some relevant findings are:
Durham University, the Sutton Trust and CEM published an interesting report called “What Makes Great Teaching” in October 2014. It’s an overview of what research appears to be telling us at the moment.
While it would be wonderful to think there is a simple, step-by-step formula to a perfect lesson, I’m not at all convinced it exists. In fact, I tend to think any complicated scenarios (classrooms, trading floors, warzones etc) preclude those sorts of plans beyond the “Stay in touch, keep moving and head for the high ground” heuristics.
One of the sections that caught my eye, though, was a list of things that don’t work. That instantly appeals.
This is Dweck, Hattie and others.
“Praise for successful performance on an easy task can be interpreted by a student as evidence that the teacher has a low perception of his or her ability. As a consequence, it can actually lower rather than enhance self-confidence. Criticism following poor performance can, under some circumstances, be interpreted as an indication of the teacher’s high perception of the student’s ability.”
Research evidence broadly favours direct instruction (Kirschner et al, 2006).
if teachers want them to learn new ideas, knowledge or methods they need to teach them directly.
Evidence on the effects of grouping by ability, either by allocating students to different classes, or to within class groups, suggests that it makes very little difference to learning outcomes (Higgins et al, 2014). If anything,
[it] can result in teachers failing to make necessary accommodations for the range of different needs within a supposedly homogeneous ‘ability’ group, and over-doing their accommodations for different groups, going too fast with the high-ability groups and too slow with the low.
Highlighting feels good but is deceptive – it doesn’t really work. A range of studies have shown that testing yourself, trying to generate answers, and deliberately creating intervals between study to allow forgetting, are all more effective approaches. (My notes on some of these studies are here)
The effect of trying to boost morale before the content is near-zero. Poor motivation is actually a logical response to repeated failure. Start getting them to succeed and their motivation and confidence should increase.
Over 90% of teachers in several countries (including the UK) agreed with the claim that “Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (for example, visual, auditory or kinaesthetic)”. Sadly, the psychological evidence is clear that there are no benefits for learning from trying to present information to learners in their preferred learning style.
If you want students to remember something you have to get them to think about it. This might be achieved by being ‘active’ or ‘passive’.
Intuitively, I am wholeheartedly behind this sort of approach. Instinctively, too, I worry about the biases that come with collecting. A while ago, I was interested in collecting and the biases, problems and difficulties with that. Documentation is clearly prone to that.
To summarise, though it’s a little jarring as a quote, you can use the wonderful Culture of Collecting:
“… if the cultural criterion of the desirable excludes anything tainted by ‘shit’, if the definition of a collectible rests on an implied ritual of cleansing … and if we never touch anything that is not already in a sense ‘our own’, then all conventional collecting can really offer is kitsch.”
Often the display work you see published online, or the student portfolios is similarly kitsch. Student work can be work that is “cleansed” by teachers, so to speak. Displays, while often remarkably talented, are also often remarkably kitsch.
Where the documentary scores for me is that those involved clearly see who “owns” the documentation to be an issue. For older students, what is helpful is that they become the protagonist in their own documentation. That, for me, is the exciting part. And that is what stops it being kitsch.