Well I've survived my first week in the "real world" as some people have called it... I'm only teaching two lines in this prac and so far I've only delivered three classes, but I'm already feeling so much more comfortable!
I still have plenty of things to improve on though - such as:
1) watching my language!
2) preparing stronger lesson closes/conclusions
3) more assertive behaviour management
4) not assuming prior knowledge
5) improving my visual literacy knowledge
But on the whole I'm pretty pleased with how it's going so far - not a tear all week and not a single moment of wondering if this is really what I want to do... in fact, I had so much fun in the first and last sessions today that I can see myself enjoying my job a lot more than some people do! :-)
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
First Day on Prac
Well, I taught my very first lesson today. It was a year 9 class studying Shakespeare - one of the students' number one protests is that the language is too hard, so I started the lesson with a brief exercise in which the students were given insults taken from various Shakespearean plays and encouraged to take turns insulting each other with such pearlers as "Pray thee, stand farther from me" and "Thou dost infect mine eyes".
The exercise was good for breaking the ice and hopefully encouraging the students to see Shakespeare not as dry, boring, serious stuff but also to recognise the potential of his plays to be entertaining and humourous.
We're looking at Romeo and Juliet, so I started with a structured close reading of the Prologue, in which we counted the number of words related to "love" and the number of words related to "fighting" and compared our results. The numbers vary depending on how you define certain words, but something like 7-9 words related to fighting emerge, against only two related to love. So we discussed the implications of this for our expectations of the play. I likened the Prologue to the blurb on the back of a book, or the narrator/voiceover on a movie preview: that is, to highlight the themes and important events of the text. We covered the function of the Prologue in an illiterate society, and why the Prologue "ruins" the ending, and why audiences would still want to see the play even though the know how it ends. I explored this particular issue by asking why the students would want to go to a movie like "Pearl Harbour", "Titanic" or "300" when they already know how it will end - that it's essentially not the destination but the journey that they go for.
On a tangent I facilitated an exercise in 'translating' the Shakespearean language into a Twitter-esque style modern day interpretation. Since Twitter is blocked by the school we did the exercise on the board - the kids that contributed seemed to have a fair grasp on what was going on, but I had less than 50% of the class's attention for most of this exercise.
All in all, for my first lesson I think it went fairly well - I should have prepared more material as I started to run dry about 15 minutes before the end of the lesson, and I need to get more assertive when it comes to behaviour management, but for a first attempt I don't think I should judge myself TOO harshly.
The exercise was good for breaking the ice and hopefully encouraging the students to see Shakespeare not as dry, boring, serious stuff but also to recognise the potential of his plays to be entertaining and humourous.
We're looking at Romeo and Juliet, so I started with a structured close reading of the Prologue, in which we counted the number of words related to "love" and the number of words related to "fighting" and compared our results. The numbers vary depending on how you define certain words, but something like 7-9 words related to fighting emerge, against only two related to love. So we discussed the implications of this for our expectations of the play. I likened the Prologue to the blurb on the back of a book, or the narrator/voiceover on a movie preview: that is, to highlight the themes and important events of the text. We covered the function of the Prologue in an illiterate society, and why the Prologue "ruins" the ending, and why audiences would still want to see the play even though the know how it ends. I explored this particular issue by asking why the students would want to go to a movie like "Pearl Harbour", "Titanic" or "300" when they already know how it will end - that it's essentially not the destination but the journey that they go for.
On a tangent I facilitated an exercise in 'translating' the Shakespearean language into a Twitter-esque style modern day interpretation. Since Twitter is blocked by the school we did the exercise on the board - the kids that contributed seemed to have a fair grasp on what was going on, but I had less than 50% of the class's attention for most of this exercise.
All in all, for my first lesson I think it went fairly well - I should have prepared more material as I started to run dry about 15 minutes before the end of the lesson, and I need to get more assertive when it comes to behaviour management, but for a first attempt I don't think I should judge myself TOO harshly.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Research Summary 3: Interactive Whiteboards
Interactive whiteboards (IWBs) are an innovative solution to interactive lesson delivery. Encompassing a projector, touch-sensitive board and lesson creation software, the technology allows teachers to present concepts and ideas in a multitude of ways, from basic text and diagrams right through to videos, sound, animations, and online websites. These capabilities open up a myriad of options for creative teachers to enliven their delivery and engage their students with a novel and exciting technology.
As with any new technology, in the early stages of interactive whiteboard implementation there has been at once an explosion of interest and, simultaneously, a shortage of quantitative research. Qualitative studies abound on the uses of IWBs in the classroom, citing their ability to motivate and engage students (Haldane, 2007, p. 264) and their facility to encourage interactive learning episodes via the incorporation of multimedia resources (Higgins et al, 2007, p. 215). As yet there are fewer quantitative resources available on IWBs in the classroom, but the longer that IWBs are established in schools the more such studies will become available.
One such study was commissioned by interactive whiteboard provider Promethean Technologies in 2009. On behalf of Promethean, Robert Marzano conducted a study of the relationship between utilisation of the Promethean ActivClassroom package (including the IWB, software and learner response devices), and student achievement levels in over seventy US schools and across all grade levels. According to Promethean, student achievement was increased by an average of 17% in lessons delivered using the ActivClassroom (Marzano, 2009, p. v). This result was influenced by factors including the teacher's years of experience in teaching; the teacher's level of confidence with the technology and the length of time the teacher has been using the technology for; and the proportion of the lesson during which the IWB is utilised. (Marzano, 2009, p. v)
The extent to which the use of the ActivClassroom equipment improved student attainment differed across the year levels. Disappointingly, a minority of the subject groups actually recorded a decrease in results. Possible reasons for this negative growth were not articulated in the Marzano report, but may have included extenuating factors such as the loss or addition of individual students in the subject groups, teacher or student absences, environmental interruptions and so on. On the assumption that negative achievement is impossible - that is, that students cannot possibly exit a classroom having lost some of their subject knowledge - the negative achievement groups were excluded from the study's final results. (Marzano, 2009, 18) Their exclusion from the report's final findings has some effect on the average results in student attainments, however outside of this small number of negative achievement groups, the effect of the Promethean technologies in the study was overwhelmingly positive. Out of eighty-five classes studied, sixty-six reported increases in student achievement. Improvement in student achievement levels was reported in nine out of thirteen grade levels (K-12) (Marzano, 2009, pp. 22-23). This is an overwhelmingly positive result, and supports the anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of IWBs.
The otherwise largely anecdotal evidence from teachers and students who use IWBs has been enthusiastic. Many teachers report the effectiveness of Iutilising WBs in their classroom for engaging and motivating students and facilitating more interactive lessons, as well as enabling the utilisation of a range of sources and stimuli that were previously either impossible or difficult to integrate into lessons, such as internet resources and audiovisual content. Students in some classes are reported to be highly engaged, displaying animated reactions to activities taking place on the IWB, "faces set with concentration and anticipation, delight when an observing pupil had got it right... excited and animated gestures to offer an alternative suggestion if the pupil at the board was having difficulty" (Haldane, 2007, pp. 264-265). While these behaviours may indicate enthusiasm and entertainment more so than students' measurable achievement levels, if engagement is the first step in effective teaching, then the IWBs certainly appear to be helping teachers get there.
While quantitative reportage on IWBs and their relationship to student achievement is ongoing, early signs indicate their effectiveness in fostering a more interactive and positive learning environment. Whether this interactivity is primarily between the teacher and the board, students and the board, or between all three parties, is less well documented. It has been noted that the high level of interactivity possible could encourage a teacher-centred focus within some classrooms, in which the teacher to some extent resumes their "sage on the stage" role. Similarly, a relatively low utilisation of the IWBs' interactivity does not necessarily correlate to a low level of student-to-teacher, or student-to-student interactivity.
For all the studies, articles and reviews, it is important to note that the interactive whiteboard, however novel and useful, is just a tool. Without sound pedagogical and content knowledge on the part of the teacher, the IWB may in some instances even be detrimental to class achievement (for example, where class discussion veers off-topic or where the board's capabilities become the focus of the lesson rather than the conduit of stimuli and information). To ensure that IWBs are properly utilised to their highest capacity, the pedagogical approach of the teacher, and the effectiveness of their teaching, should remain the central focus on studies on their use of interactive whiteboards.
Sources:
Durham County Council, (2002) "The Changing Role of the Teacher in using the IWB", Eaton, V., Sunnybrow Public School, http://www.durhamlea.org.uk/resources/index.html?_Action=viewrecord&_Id=1112
Edna, (2009), www.edna.edu.au
Haldane, M., "Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 257-270
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., and Miller, D., "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225
Jewitt, C., Moss, G., and Cardini, A., "Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers' design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 303-317
Marzano, R.J., and Haystead, M. W., "Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement", Marzano Research Laboratory for Promethean, Ltd., March 2009, http://www.prometheanworld.com/server.php?show=nav.19203
Promethean Interactive Whiteboards, IWB and Classroom Technology, www.prometheanworld.com
As with any new technology, in the early stages of interactive whiteboard implementation there has been at once an explosion of interest and, simultaneously, a shortage of quantitative research. Qualitative studies abound on the uses of IWBs in the classroom, citing their ability to motivate and engage students (Haldane, 2007, p. 264) and their facility to encourage interactive learning episodes via the incorporation of multimedia resources (Higgins et al, 2007, p. 215). As yet there are fewer quantitative resources available on IWBs in the classroom, but the longer that IWBs are established in schools the more such studies will become available.
One such study was commissioned by interactive whiteboard provider Promethean Technologies in 2009. On behalf of Promethean, Robert Marzano conducted a study of the relationship between utilisation of the Promethean ActivClassroom package (including the IWB, software and learner response devices), and student achievement levels in over seventy US schools and across all grade levels. According to Promethean, student achievement was increased by an average of 17% in lessons delivered using the ActivClassroom (Marzano, 2009, p. v). This result was influenced by factors including the teacher's years of experience in teaching; the teacher's level of confidence with the technology and the length of time the teacher has been using the technology for; and the proportion of the lesson during which the IWB is utilised. (Marzano, 2009, p. v)
The extent to which the use of the ActivClassroom equipment improved student attainment differed across the year levels. Disappointingly, a minority of the subject groups actually recorded a decrease in results. Possible reasons for this negative growth were not articulated in the Marzano report, but may have included extenuating factors such as the loss or addition of individual students in the subject groups, teacher or student absences, environmental interruptions and so on. On the assumption that negative achievement is impossible - that is, that students cannot possibly exit a classroom having lost some of their subject knowledge - the negative achievement groups were excluded from the study's final results. (Marzano, 2009, 18) Their exclusion from the report's final findings has some effect on the average results in student attainments, however outside of this small number of negative achievement groups, the effect of the Promethean technologies in the study was overwhelmingly positive. Out of eighty-five classes studied, sixty-six reported increases in student achievement. Improvement in student achievement levels was reported in nine out of thirteen grade levels (K-12) (Marzano, 2009, pp. 22-23). This is an overwhelmingly positive result, and supports the anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of IWBs.
The otherwise largely anecdotal evidence from teachers and students who use IWBs has been enthusiastic. Many teachers report the effectiveness of Iutilising WBs in their classroom for engaging and motivating students and facilitating more interactive lessons, as well as enabling the utilisation of a range of sources and stimuli that were previously either impossible or difficult to integrate into lessons, such as internet resources and audiovisual content. Students in some classes are reported to be highly engaged, displaying animated reactions to activities taking place on the IWB, "faces set with concentration and anticipation, delight when an observing pupil had got it right... excited and animated gestures to offer an alternative suggestion if the pupil at the board was having difficulty" (Haldane, 2007, pp. 264-265). While these behaviours may indicate enthusiasm and entertainment more so than students' measurable achievement levels, if engagement is the first step in effective teaching, then the IWBs certainly appear to be helping teachers get there.
While quantitative reportage on IWBs and their relationship to student achievement is ongoing, early signs indicate their effectiveness in fostering a more interactive and positive learning environment. Whether this interactivity is primarily between the teacher and the board, students and the board, or between all three parties, is less well documented. It has been noted that the high level of interactivity possible could encourage a teacher-centred focus within some classrooms, in which the teacher to some extent resumes their "sage on the stage" role. Similarly, a relatively low utilisation of the IWBs' interactivity does not necessarily correlate to a low level of student-to-teacher, or student-to-student interactivity.
For all the studies, articles and reviews, it is important to note that the interactive whiteboard, however novel and useful, is just a tool. Without sound pedagogical and content knowledge on the part of the teacher, the IWB may in some instances even be detrimental to class achievement (for example, where class discussion veers off-topic or where the board's capabilities become the focus of the lesson rather than the conduit of stimuli and information). To ensure that IWBs are properly utilised to their highest capacity, the pedagogical approach of the teacher, and the effectiveness of their teaching, should remain the central focus on studies on their use of interactive whiteboards.
Sources:
Durham County Council, (2002) "The Changing Role of the Teacher in using the IWB", Eaton, V., Sunnybrow Public School, http://www.durhamlea.org.uk/resources/index.html?_Action=viewrecord&_Id=1112
Edna, (2009), www.edna.edu.au
Haldane, M., "Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 257-270
Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., and Miller, D., "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225
Jewitt, C., Moss, G., and Cardini, A., "Pace, interactivity and multimodality in teachers' design of texts for interactive whiteboards in the secondary school classroom", Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 303-317
Marzano, R.J., and Haystead, M. W., "Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement", Marzano Research Laboratory for Promethean, Ltd., March 2009, http://www.prometheanworld.com/server.php?show=nav.19203
Promethean Interactive Whiteboards, IWB and Classroom Technology, www.prometheanworld.com
Promethean ActivClassroom Study
Many thanks to Mark Sylvia of Logical Choice Technologies for kindly providing the report that today's journal entry is based on.
Mark has provided a fifty-four page report of a study of the relationship between teacher use of an IWB and student achievement, which reports an average increase in student achievement of 17% when their teacher employed the ActivClassroom in their instruction. The report suggests that this gain in achievement was the result of the following conditions:
• a teacher has 10 years or more of teaching experience
• a teacher has used the technology for two years or more
• a teacher uses the technology between 75 and 80 percent of the time in his or her classroom
• a teacher has high confidence in his or her ability to use the technology
(Marzano, 2009, v)
Promethean ActivClassroom is a product encompassing an interactive whiteboard, the accompanying lesson creation software, and "integrated learner response devices". The Marzano report is available from Promethean's website here.
Obviously some caution must be taken when analysing reports provided by a party with a vested interest (in this case, Promethean's sales volume). That said, the Marzano study appears to have created an optimum environment for testing the impact of the Promethean technologies. The same teachers taught the same unit to two separate classes: one, the treatment group, was taught with the aid of the Promethean technologies, while the second, the control group, was not. (Marzano, 2009, 2)
As noted above, an average of 17% increase in student achievement when utilising Promethean technologies was noted by the report. However, some groups in the study actually recorded a decrease in results - one year seven group reported a discouraging 30% drop in achievement levels. However this particular group gained four students during the course of the study, whose pretest results were not available. (Marzano, 2009, 16) Negative achievement groups such as this one were excluded from the final results, on the justification that students could not possibly exit a class having lost some of their subject knowledge. (Marzano, 2009, 18) Clearly their exclusion from the report's final findings has some effect on the results, however without knowing the mitigating factors (teacher ability/confidence with the technology, possible teacher or student absences, etc) it is difficult to understand the dramatic drop in achievement.
The small number of negative gains aside, the effect of the Promethean technologies on the treatment group classes was overwhelmingly positive. Out of eighty-five classes, sixty-six reported increases in student achievement. Some measure of improvement was reported in nine out of thirteen grade levels (K-12). Regardless of the amount of individual students' improvement in achievement, I would count this as a fairly decisive win for interactive whiteboard technologies.
Note: no examples of assessments of students were provided in the report, so we cannot analyse the achievement gains, for example whether they were testing for lower- or higher-order thinking.
Source:
Marzano, R.J., and Haystead, M. W., "Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement", Marzano Research Laboratory for Promethean, Ltd., March 2009, http://www.prometheanworld.com/server.php?show=nav.19203
Promethean Interactive Whiteboards, IWB and Classroom Technology, www.prometheanworld.com
Mark has provided a fifty-four page report of a study of the relationship between teacher use of an IWB and student achievement, which reports an average increase in student achievement of 17% when their teacher employed the ActivClassroom in their instruction. The report suggests that this gain in achievement was the result of the following conditions:
• a teacher has 10 years or more of teaching experience
• a teacher has used the technology for two years or more
• a teacher uses the technology between 75 and 80 percent of the time in his or her classroom
• a teacher has high confidence in his or her ability to use the technology
(Marzano, 2009, v)
Promethean ActivClassroom is a product encompassing an interactive whiteboard, the accompanying lesson creation software, and "integrated learner response devices". The Marzano report is available from Promethean's website here.
Obviously some caution must be taken when analysing reports provided by a party with a vested interest (in this case, Promethean's sales volume). That said, the Marzano study appears to have created an optimum environment for testing the impact of the Promethean technologies. The same teachers taught the same unit to two separate classes: one, the treatment group, was taught with the aid of the Promethean technologies, while the second, the control group, was not. (Marzano, 2009, 2)
As noted above, an average of 17% increase in student achievement when utilising Promethean technologies was noted by the report. However, some groups in the study actually recorded a decrease in results - one year seven group reported a discouraging 30% drop in achievement levels. However this particular group gained four students during the course of the study, whose pretest results were not available. (Marzano, 2009, 16) Negative achievement groups such as this one were excluded from the final results, on the justification that students could not possibly exit a class having lost some of their subject knowledge. (Marzano, 2009, 18) Clearly their exclusion from the report's final findings has some effect on the results, however without knowing the mitigating factors (teacher ability/confidence with the technology, possible teacher or student absences, etc) it is difficult to understand the dramatic drop in achievement.
The small number of negative gains aside, the effect of the Promethean technologies on the treatment group classes was overwhelmingly positive. Out of eighty-five classes, sixty-six reported increases in student achievement. Some measure of improvement was reported in nine out of thirteen grade levels (K-12). Regardless of the amount of individual students' improvement in achievement, I would count this as a fairly decisive win for interactive whiteboard technologies.
Note: no examples of assessments of students were provided in the report, so we cannot analyse the achievement gains, for example whether they were testing for lower- or higher-order thinking.
Source:
Marzano, R.J., and Haystead, M. W., "Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement", Marzano Research Laboratory for Promethean, Ltd., March 2009, http://www.prometheanworld.com/server.php?show=nav.19203
Promethean Interactive Whiteboards, IWB and Classroom Technology, www.prometheanworld.com
Friday, April 9, 2010
Art History students use IWB to rework The Birth of Venus
These students were discussing Venus' facial expression in "The Birth of Venus" and decided she looked like her hand should have been on her face... so they put it there!!
A great, very informal illustration of the powers of the IWB for facilitating those "what if?" questions.
A great, very informal illustration of the powers of the IWB for facilitating those "what if?" questions.
Research Journal 12: IWBs and student achievement
Interactive whiteboards are frequently presented as a miracle tool in terms of increasing student engagement. One of my concerns about interactive whiteboards, however, is that I wonder what the effect of the "novelty factor" is. That is, are students more engaged because the tool is new, cool, futuristic, exciting? And because the teacher is excited too? What will happen when the novelty factor wears off? Is the tool actually intrinsically motivating and engaging? I actually doubt it. Sure, they facilitate a more creative approach to teaching, which may engage students more, but if that's the case it's not really the board, it's the teacher, and how s/he uses the board.
Moss et al (2007, in Higgins et al, 2007), reporting a study of the Secondary Whiteboard Expansion scheme in London secondary schools, observed exactly this point: "that although the novelty of the technology was initially welcomed by pupils any increase in motivation appeared short-lived." (Higgins et al, p. 221)
"The key issue ... is that although the IWB may alter the way that learning takes place, and that the motivation of teachers and pupils ... this mayhave no significant or measurable impact on achievement." (Higgins et al, p. 221)
What I would say in defense of the IWBs and their relationship to student achievement is that if the lessons are more entertaining and engaging, and if the students begin to enjoy classes at least in part because of the use of the IWB, then this may have a positive influence on factors such as student motivation, attendance rates, a commensurate influence on truancy and dropout rates. All of these factors, in turn, demonstrably affect student achievement. So perhaps there is not a direct, measurable link between IWBs and student achievement yet - but there may be an indirect effect nonetheless.
Moss et al (2007, in Higgins et al, 2007), reporting a study of the Secondary Whiteboard Expansion scheme in London secondary schools, observed exactly this point: "that although the novelty of the technology was initially welcomed by pupils any increase in motivation appeared short-lived." (Higgins et al, p. 221)
"The key issue ... is that although the IWB may alter the way that learning takes place, and that the motivation of teachers and pupils ... this mayhave no significant or measurable impact on achievement." (Higgins et al, p. 221)
What I would say in defense of the IWBs and their relationship to student achievement is that if the lessons are more entertaining and engaging, and if the students begin to enjoy classes at least in part because of the use of the IWB, then this may have a positive influence on factors such as student motivation, attendance rates, a commensurate influence on truancy and dropout rates. All of these factors, in turn, demonstrably affect student achievement. So perhaps there is not a direct, measurable link between IWBs and student achievement yet - but there may be an indirect effect nonetheless.
"Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards": Research Journal 11
This article, as the introductory piece in a journal issue devoted to discussion of IWBs, explores some of the literature on interactive whiteboards and raises some interesting points.
One that sticks out to me is that "there is not a clear distinction made between the way in which the technical interactive affordances [of IWBs} ... and the way that these might intersect with the pedagogical interactive affordances (i.e. more effective interaction between teacher and learner or learners and learners that enhances the intended learning)." (Higgins et al, p. 219)
This is a very valid point that I think deserves unpacking. The technology may be highly interactive in nature, that is the user can manipulate the image by hand, but if it encourages a return to a didactic, 'sage on the stage' style of lesson delivery, then it actually reduces the interactivity of a given class.
Conversely, a teacher who under-utilises the interactivity of the screen may be facilitating a highly interactive class, that is one which involves a high level of interaction between teacher and students, or between students and students. The level of interactivity of the technology is not the important factor - that between the users is.
Source:
Higgins et al, "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", in Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225
One that sticks out to me is that "there is not a clear distinction made between the way in which the technical interactive affordances [of IWBs} ... and the way that these might intersect with the pedagogical interactive affordances (i.e. more effective interaction between teacher and learner or learners and learners that enhances the intended learning)." (Higgins et al, p. 219)
This is a very valid point that I think deserves unpacking. The technology may be highly interactive in nature, that is the user can manipulate the image by hand, but if it encourages a return to a didactic, 'sage on the stage' style of lesson delivery, then it actually reduces the interactivity of a given class.
Conversely, a teacher who under-utilises the interactivity of the screen may be facilitating a highly interactive class, that is one which involves a high level of interaction between teacher and students, or between students and students. The level of interactivity of the technology is not the important factor - that between the users is.
Source:
Higgins et al, "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", in Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225
"Good teaching remains good teaching with or without the technology"
(Higgins et al, "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", in Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225)
How do I feel about this statement?
It's certainly surprising to see it in a technology-focussed journal article.
Well, I suppose it's true, if "good teaching" is teaching that is engaging, that effectively stimulates or creates knowledge, that gets the student thinking and understanding the topic, and so on. But I don't really like saying it's true, if it insinuates that the technology is not necessary.
(Higgins et al, "Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards", in Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 213-225)
How do I feel about this statement?
It's certainly surprising to see it in a technology-focussed journal article.
Well, I suppose it's true, if "good teaching" is teaching that is engaging, that effectively stimulates or creates knowledge, that gets the student thinking and understanding the topic, and so on. But I don't really like saying it's true, if it insinuates that the technology is not necessary.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs)
Like most new teachers I am excited about the possibilities available to me through using interactive whiteboards in the classroom. My first exposure to an IWB has been at university, and the brief play I got to have in one lesson was enough to convince me of their potential for creating engaging, enjoyable and interesting lessons.
I do wonder about the educational outcomes for students and whether a link can be drawn between IWBs and higher-order thinking, however I realise that it is probably too early in the career of IWBs for there to be much in the way of quantitative research available on this link.
From an English teaching perspective I am still tracing out the connections in my brain in terms of how I can best utilise the IWB for my teaching. I think breaking the traditional whiteboard/projector mould of pedagogy is the toughest part - my visions of using an IWB tend not to break free of traditional methods of instruction, which could be carried out, to some extent, without an IWB. For example, grouping words on a board based on their grammatical properties; watching a video (which is really only using the IWB as a basic projector) and that sort of thing.
Despite these concerns I am excited to explore what interactive whiteboards have to offer and am sure, given their apparent popularity, that we'll be seeing them in the majority of Australian classrooms before very long at all.
Sources:
Durham County Council, (2002) "The Changing Role of the Teacher in using the IWB", Eaton, V., Sunnybrow Public School, http://www.durhamlea.org.uk/resources/index.html?_Action=viewrecord&_Id=1112
Edna, (2009), www.edna.edu.au
Image: Interactive Whiteboards Australia, www.interactivewhiteboards.com.au
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Thoughts on the National Curriculum
I'm just reading through some of ACARA's information on the National Curriculum and needed to get some thoughts out. Apologies for the dot point/stream of consciousness tone of this entry.
- in theory I support the teaching of what is becoming known as "language conventions" - that is, grammar, punctuation and spelling. The poor quality of punctuation in ACARA's own "Shape of the Australian Curriculum" document is proof of the need for more explicit teaching in this area.
- my concern surrounding this content area is the risk of it being taught so explicitly that we reduce it to dry, isolated, rote-learning style attention to grammar, rather than incorporating it implicitly in our teaching of other 'strands' such as literature. Eg. considering passages from literature from a grammatical sense - What tone or register does the author use? Why? Do they use a lot of adjectives or adverbs? Why? Do they use a lot of subordinate clauses? What effect do these have on the reader? And so on.
- I like that literary texts are defined for the purposes of the curriculum as "texts that are judged to have potential for enriching students' lives and expanding the scope of their experience" ("Shape of the Australian Curriculum: English", May 2009, ACARA, p. 8). It acknowledges that there's more to literature than the canon, however it guards against treating as literature some texts that are not complex or rewarding enough to merit the label, eg. advertisements and so on.
- I'm concerned by the insinuation (ibid, p. 9) that only later year students will explore historical genres and literary traditions. Does the emphasis on 'later year students' assume that earlier students cannot process historical literary works? Is this assumption correct? I can think of certain 'historical' literary works that I would consider could be employed in classrooms from earlier years - eg. Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland", etc.
- I'm also concerned that there seems to be very little discussion of assessment in the curriculum. That is, how much of the content is actively assessed; how much reporting is there in terms of ensuring that all teachers are adequately addressing the curriculum requirements; and how that reportage is used in teacher evaluation as well as student evaluation. That is, how will ACARA know/measure/assess how effective the National Curriculum is?
- "The content descriptions have been developed to ensure that learning is appropriately ordered and that unnecessary repetition is avoided. For this reason, once a concept or skill is introduced at one year level it is not reiterated, although it may be revisited and extended at a later year level." - While I understand the motivation behind this statement, that is avoiding repetition, I believe many concepts and skills require extension and revision from year to year - if they are not accounted for in subsequent years' curricula, how can we ensure that teachers will revisit or extend them?
- The identified 'cross-curricular perspectives' of Indigenous perspectives, Asia and Australia's Engagement, and Commitment to sustainable living are such a small collection of perspectives - where are the identified (Leftist) political perspectives, (heterosexual, patriarchal) gender perspectives, economic/fiscal perspectives, multicultural perspectives? The list goes on.
- in theory I support the teaching of what is becoming known as "language conventions" - that is, grammar, punctuation and spelling. The poor quality of punctuation in ACARA's own "Shape of the Australian Curriculum" document is proof of the need for more explicit teaching in this area.
- my concern surrounding this content area is the risk of it being taught so explicitly that we reduce it to dry, isolated, rote-learning style attention to grammar, rather than incorporating it implicitly in our teaching of other 'strands' such as literature. Eg. considering passages from literature from a grammatical sense - What tone or register does the author use? Why? Do they use a lot of adjectives or adverbs? Why? Do they use a lot of subordinate clauses? What effect do these have on the reader? And so on.
- I like that literary texts are defined for the purposes of the curriculum as "texts that are judged to have potential for enriching students' lives and expanding the scope of their experience" ("Shape of the Australian Curriculum: English", May 2009, ACARA, p. 8). It acknowledges that there's more to literature than the canon, however it guards against treating as literature some texts that are not complex or rewarding enough to merit the label, eg. advertisements and so on.
- I'm concerned by the insinuation (ibid, p. 9) that only later year students will explore historical genres and literary traditions. Does the emphasis on 'later year students' assume that earlier students cannot process historical literary works? Is this assumption correct? I can think of certain 'historical' literary works that I would consider could be employed in classrooms from earlier years - eg. Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland", etc.
- I'm also concerned that there seems to be very little discussion of assessment in the curriculum. That is, how much of the content is actively assessed; how much reporting is there in terms of ensuring that all teachers are adequately addressing the curriculum requirements; and how that reportage is used in teacher evaluation as well as student evaluation. That is, how will ACARA know/measure/assess how effective the National Curriculum is?
- "The content descriptions have been developed to ensure that learning is appropriately ordered and that unnecessary repetition is avoided. For this reason, once a concept or skill is introduced at one year level it is not reiterated, although it may be revisited and extended at a later year level." - While I understand the motivation behind this statement, that is avoiding repetition, I believe many concepts and skills require extension and revision from year to year - if they are not accounted for in subsequent years' curricula, how can we ensure that teachers will revisit or extend them?
- The identified 'cross-curricular perspectives' of Indigenous perspectives, Asia and Australia's Engagement, and Commitment to sustainable living are such a small collection of perspectives - where are the identified (Leftist) political perspectives, (heterosexual, patriarchal) gender perspectives, economic/fiscal perspectives, multicultural perspectives? The list goes on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)