I have been thinking about whether teachers knowing more about research into science education will make a significant difference to what we do in the classroom. It's not straightforward.
Recently I bought "Enhancing Learning with Effective Practical Science 11-16" edited by Ian Abrahams and Michael Reiss. It's new, and even has 2017 as the publication date. I am familiar with the work of Prof Ian Abrahams in the area of practical work in science and wasn't surprised to read the first chapter which talks about how practical work doesn't have the all the effects on learning that most science teachers would suppose it should.
The second chapter talks about the 'hands on, minds on' approach that Reiss and Abrahams advocate. They offered training to teachers to help them improve their teaching approaches. The training didn't have a great deal of impact in primary schools as they found that in primary science this is done quite well already. However, the training was of very variable impact in secondary schools. For one school it had a fantastic impact because of the personnel, time, support and buy in from the department and school management. This example got me thinking again about the impact of CPD on teaching.
In 2014 I heard from Prof Shirley Simon on the conditions that teachers need for CPD to be effective. It was a real eye opener for me. It wasn't anything I didn't already know, but I suppose sometimes information comes along in such a way that it is at the right time and the right message to have an impact. I knew from a project I did back in 2011with the Science Learning Centre that one day of training isn't enough to change practice and I experienced it myself. Online training over the course of a few months made me make a change because I knew I was going to be asked about it. Doing the AfL MOOC wth Futurelearn made me change what I did for a while, but it took discipline to do what the course was asking, the prolonged nature of the course was a real help.
Do we take time to let changes to our practice embed? There is a lot of talk in education about practices being 'embedded', but what does this really mean? Is it enough to know what research says or to hear about a pedagogical approach? Does knowing about something help to make it happen in the classroom? I don't think so.
As a profession we are becoming more research aware and while I think this is a valuable and important step, it isn't going to have a swift and deep impact on the way we teach. Mainly because it is hard to change what we do in the classroom.
This is something for the College of Teaching to consider. It's something for any organisation that is involved in CPD to consider. How do we convert knowing into doing?
Prof Simon said we need, time for change, relevant resources, activities and strategies to implement in the classroom, critical reflection, collaboration between colleagues and 'professional learning' should be focused on outcomes.
Even action research, which starts to address these five areas isn't a strong model. What happens after a year when the teacher has worked on a project. If it is part of your performance management and you claim there has been no impact? Or what about if there is an impact, do the whole department implement it?
I am aware of my limitations and I know that I find it difficult to implement even great ideas I hear about at one day training courses in my classroom. I wonder how difficult others will find things. Especially if they are contradictory or in conflict with school and departmental processes.
We certainly need a different atmosphere around how to change practice if we do what things in teaching to change in any way.
Showing posts with label CPD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPD. Show all posts
Wednesday, 28 December 2016
Saturday, 11 July 2015
ASE Professional Learning Conference 2015
Back in January Joanna Conn, chair of NAIGS (which is the advisor and consultant subgroup of the ASE) suggested that anyone with an interest in teacher CPD should attend the NAIGs/ATSE (science ITT tutors group of ASE) conference in the summer. The date was set for after I finished my term, and I do organise conferences and have an interest in teacher CPD as part of what I do in my own department, on twitter and where my career might go, so I thought that I would go.
The first session was by Prof Shirley Simon, entitled 'CPD, what does it really mean?' This was definitely my favourite talk of the two days and the one I took the most away from. Prof Simon was obviously an expert, her talk was pitched very well for me though. It was understandable, yet also thought-provoking. (I was very glad she delayed her holiday a few hours to give us her time).
She said that moving from 'surviving in the classroom' to 'teaching for learning' (I love this phrase) was a life time's work. I have to agree. Even now, 11 years in there are occasions where my lessons are about getting through the hour and hoping the students have a positive experience, rather than knowing what I am going to do will be valuable and result in progress. I suppose the positive I take away from that is that I do know the difference. I always get the impression others are planned and perfect all the time, but I have a way to go until I am organised enough to be brilliantly prepared for every single lesson I teach.
Prof Simon said that for valuable PD it was important to learn from outcomes, that collaborative learning was important as well as critical reflection, and teachers need time to change. To support teachers in this they need relevant classroom activities, accessible strategies and the opportunity to reflect.
At the time I was struck. I should know these things, I do know them. I suppose it is just the right time in my career to hear them? I am thinking about moving to senior leadership, but more on the curriculum, procedural side (time tables, exams, policies, that sort of thing), but on hearing this I decided that despite my lesson than perfect performance in the classroom perhaps I would have something to give a teaching and learning role.
Is what we do in schools transformational to the way that teachers develop their teaching? I don't think it is. When I consider the way that CPD has been delivered in schools I have worked in over the past 11 years of my career I feel that it is far from being transformational and collaborative.
Prof Simon went on to describe some of the projects she is involved in, listening to the way that she works with teachers, schools and other organisations was very interesting. It made me hope that one day I can work more closely with a university researcher to improve my practice. Her analysis of why the work she was doing had more impact on some teachers than others was interesting too, again going back to reflection and collaboration.
Next was a session by Paul Clark who examines international qualifications for Edexcel. He went through examples of exam questions that require students to have done the practical. I am more confident that students who have done the practical work and learned from it and about it, will have a greater advantage than those who haven't in the new qualifications. It also made me acutely aware we need to discuss practical skill development with Year 9 students when we start in September. I would also advise any reader to have a look at the examiner reports of international qualifications.
I wrote the following questions at the end of the session.
Jo and Caro (Chair's of NAIGs and ATSE) did a great job of putting together a strong conference that helped me to reflect on my role in helping the rest of the department (and myself) continue to improve. I am beyond the point now where I need to be told what I should be doing in the classroom. I am at the point where I need help to ensure that I implement it. My continued engagement with the people of ASE and the conversations it allows me to have with people who support and challenge me.
If you are a head of faculty and are research engaged, then I do suggest you look to try and attend the professional learning conference and engage with ASE.
The first session was by Prof Shirley Simon, entitled 'CPD, what does it really mean?' This was definitely my favourite talk of the two days and the one I took the most away from. Prof Simon was obviously an expert, her talk was pitched very well for me though. It was understandable, yet also thought-provoking. (I was very glad she delayed her holiday a few hours to give us her time).
She said that moving from 'surviving in the classroom' to 'teaching for learning' (I love this phrase) was a life time's work. I have to agree. Even now, 11 years in there are occasions where my lessons are about getting through the hour and hoping the students have a positive experience, rather than knowing what I am going to do will be valuable and result in progress. I suppose the positive I take away from that is that I do know the difference. I always get the impression others are planned and perfect all the time, but I have a way to go until I am organised enough to be brilliantly prepared for every single lesson I teach.
Prof Simon said that for valuable PD it was important to learn from outcomes, that collaborative learning was important as well as critical reflection, and teachers need time to change. To support teachers in this they need relevant classroom activities, accessible strategies and the opportunity to reflect.
At the time I was struck. I should know these things, I do know them. I suppose it is just the right time in my career to hear them? I am thinking about moving to senior leadership, but more on the curriculum, procedural side (time tables, exams, policies, that sort of thing), but on hearing this I decided that despite my lesson than perfect performance in the classroom perhaps I would have something to give a teaching and learning role.
Is what we do in schools transformational to the way that teachers develop their teaching? I don't think it is. When I consider the way that CPD has been delivered in schools I have worked in over the past 11 years of my career I feel that it is far from being transformational and collaborative.
Prof Simon went on to describe some of the projects she is involved in, listening to the way that she works with teachers, schools and other organisations was very interesting. It made me hope that one day I can work more closely with a university researcher to improve my practice. Her analysis of why the work she was doing had more impact on some teachers than others was interesting too, again going back to reflection and collaboration.
Next was a session by Paul Clark who examines international qualifications for Edexcel. He went through examples of exam questions that require students to have done the practical. I am more confident that students who have done the practical work and learned from it and about it, will have a greater advantage than those who haven't in the new qualifications. It also made me acutely aware we need to discuss practical skill development with Year 9 students when we start in September. I would also advise any reader to have a look at the examiner reports of international qualifications.
I wrote the following questions at the end of the session.
- can students apply their theory in context?
- do students know how to use pieces of equipment appropriately?
- do students understand practical concepts or are they learning them by rote?
- just because a student has an A, do we assume they have a good grasp of all topics?
The next session I went to was excellent. It did assume more knowledge of how to deliver good practical work than I really have, so the conversation went slightly too quickly for me to make good notes in places. Prof Paul Black and Prof Jonathan Osborne both spoke about the importance of practical work.
One set of statistics that I wrote down, and I hopefully remember the context correctly was also about the importance of practical work in increasing understanding. Prof Paul Black said that in a study involving three groups of students one group was given a list of equipment during their learning, another pictures of the equipment and the third group was given the actual pieces of equipment. In the assessment of the work those that were given the list 15% got top grades and 72% got the bottom grades, the group that got the pictures 32% got top grades and 54% got the bottom grades, and as you can guess those that were able to use the equipment 48% got top grades and 33% got the bottom grades. That sold the importance of practical work for me.
Jonathan Osborne spoke about the obsession there is about practical work, and that it is only a small piece of what we do in science education. He talked about the importance of the practical coming from what we do before and after it. He refuted that practical work itself was motivational, but that the motivation came from answering a question. His talk was compelling and makes me need to go back to the work of Abraham and Millar on good practical work. Jonathan Osborne's article in SSR is also worth a read if you are an ASE member or know one.
The final session of the day was from Tony Sherborne. I love hearing from Tony, everything he does is so considered and rooted in theory. He talked about a mastery curriculum as he is working with AQA to develop this idea at key stage 3. He talked about assessing students before teaching the topic so we know who needs extending and who needs intervention and we can do something about it. He talked about ensuring that students get the support they need. This is something that has been going around my mind for some weeks now (after doing the future learn AfL MOOC) but I don't really have a practical way that I can accomplish it - yet. Some of the advisors in the room were slightly more sceptical than I. I saw mastery statements, that helped breakdown the key stage 3 curriculum into steps that we can use to help students achieve this mastery then move onto excellence.
In the evening we had a great conference dinner. The social aspect really helping to make the conference something special. It was time for reflection and to meet people that I only know virtually. It was also great to be able to talk to Liz Coppard and Stuart Naylor about the day and get that opportunity to reflect. Stuart is a real joy to speak to, everything he talks about is backed up with examples and rooted in his vast understanding of classroom practice. He asks challenging questions in very non-challenging ways. Through my interactions with him I have learned a lot over the past few years. I also have to mention Liz Lawrence, Andrea Mappleback, Briony (PriSciGeeks), Chris Harrison and Pete Robinson, who were brilliant company too.
The second day started with a presentation by Sir Andrew Carter of the Carter review. A very charismatic man, with a lot of positive things to say. However, I do believe after that presentation that he is not the person to be able to sort out the recruitment crisis in education and that power hungry heads should not have to have been given power over ITT routes in order to make schools pay better attention to the quality of teachers on entry to the profession. The whole thing made me worry about teachers.
I then went to a session by OCR about the new practical endorsement. OCR are officially my new favourite exam board. I took away that I really need to get my head around the practical endorsement, lab books, teaching and recording. But that there is a lot of work being done by exam boards - especially OCR, so we are not alone. More importantly we can be positive about practical.
If you get the opportunity to hear Brain Cartwright speak then take it. I know others who have been invited for biscuits at ofsted feel that there are good people in the organisation and I feel that Brain is one of them.
He outlined what inspectors do when they come to a primary or secondary school to look at science and why they might do that. (The data from the school shows there is something going on in science that is different from the rest of the school). And that he is looking for evidence that the students are being taught the national curriculum, including working scientifically. He does this by looking at the work the students produce, visiting lessons and by talking to students. He also looks that schools are following the best health and safety advice. A lot of new schools are not part of CLEAPSS and as a result do not always get it right. Ask yourself, have you read maintaining curiosity and have you read the purpose of study section of the national curriculum documents? This is what ofsted are looking at. Brian's presentation was hopeful. The issue over grading lessons was wiped from my mind, he didn't mention about looking for progress in the lessons he visits, he talked more about looking for evidence of the type of experiences the students have and the the outcomes for the students, including them speaking confidently, being proud of their work and enjoying science.
After an amazing lunch. I heard Alan Edminston talk about the update that is being given to the CASE materials. He told us that CASE is very popular still and that a few years ago a very small charity was set up to try and update the resources. The charity have now been given money from EEF to work on let's think secondary science. I was very alarmed and interested to see the comparison (and apologies if you are not familiar with CASE as this will make little sense) between the results from the volume/density CASE test II from the students in the 1970s and the students involved in the new study. The results show a drop in the cognitive ability of our modern students. Alan's hypothesis for this was that young people don't explore the world in the same way anymore. However, we await the outcomes of the trail, which are due in the winter of 2016.
The final session was on the SAILS project. It's about assessing inquiry learning in science. I remember sitting through the presentations by both science teachers involved and hearing their enthusiasm and wondering if that was really coming from working as part of a project that forced them to reflect and collaborate (bringing me back to Prof Simon's initial talk). The open endedness of the inquiry that the teachers had allowed the students was inspiring though. Every teacher should be working with a researcher on something, it would help all of us to continually improve.
As the session was being lead by Dr Christine Harrison I suspected that there would be an element of participation. She asked us to come up with questions that we might ask the students at each part of an investigation. I was absolutely thrilled (and tongue tied) when Prof Paul Black complimented one of the questions I came up with! The reflection on what questions I can ask during scientific inquiry was very useful. How much time is spent telling the children what to do rather than eliciting their ideas about why they have done what they have done. Something to consider for the future.
Then I grabbed a taxi back to London and had some food and great conversation with Andrea Mapplebeck. So useful to be able to talk to others about CPD. I know that Science learning centres have evidence that two people from the same school going on a course has a greater impact on return than just one, so being able to talk to another colleague and friend about the experience of the conference was very valuable.
Jo and Caro (Chair's of NAIGs and ATSE) did a great job of putting together a strong conference that helped me to reflect on my role in helping the rest of the department (and myself) continue to improve. I am beyond the point now where I need to be told what I should be doing in the classroom. I am at the point where I need help to ensure that I implement it. My continued engagement with the people of ASE and the conversations it allows me to have with people who support and challenge me.
If you are a head of faculty and are research engaged, then I do suggest you look to try and attend the professional learning conference and engage with ASE.
Sunday, 23 November 2014
Conferences on a Saturday
On Saturday 15th November the ASE West committee (I am the chair) ran their half-day science conference at Bath Spa University.
An excellent conference, if I do say so myself. I am proud that we held it on a Saturday and I proud that we were able to make it free to members and only £10 to everyone else.
Around the same time OldAndrew was having an outburst about Wellington College moving their Festival of Education wholly into the week. I can see both sides of the argument. https://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/when-should-education-events-be-held/
From Wellington College's point of view I know that it is easier to get speakers and attendance is higher during the week. Despite what Andrew and others might feel there are a lot of teachers out there who will not give up their own time for conferences and other CPD. A lot. The ASE conference is not well as attended when it falls in the holidays from time to time, for example.
However, we need events to be held on Saturdays and in holidays.
If you are restricted in the CPD you can have access to at school then you need another avenue. I have certainly been in this situation. SLT favourites able to go to courses and feedback at Thursday evening sessions you have the 'option' to attend. In house CPD thought to be all you need, because it is important to stick to the ethos of the academy, which is sufficient apparently. I don't want my CPD to be restricted by an agenda that I am not consulted on.
I don't really have the answer though. If the motivation is to reach more people and therefore earn more money then the needs of those teachers who want to search for their own CPD in their own time, with their own money, are not a priority.
To teachers: if you are reading this and thinking "I won't be allowed to go, it is during a school day", ASK. Ask and you might be surprised. I have been and continue to be. I have been able to go to the ASE conference for the last three years and I am going again this year. But if I had not asked then no one was going to offer.
To conference organisers: please do consider those of us who are coming to your event independent of our school What we gain will be fed back into the system and the fact that we came at the weekend probably makes it more valuable to us. If you can afford it please think about your potential audience, their budget, location and time.
To Andrew: sorry, I won't be signing your petition Wellington College have a point if their intention is to have more visitors.
An excellent conference, if I do say so myself. I am proud that we held it on a Saturday and I proud that we were able to make it free to members and only £10 to everyone else.
Around the same time OldAndrew was having an outburst about Wellington College moving their Festival of Education wholly into the week. I can see both sides of the argument. https://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/when-should-education-events-be-held/
From Wellington College's point of view I know that it is easier to get speakers and attendance is higher during the week. Despite what Andrew and others might feel there are a lot of teachers out there who will not give up their own time for conferences and other CPD. A lot. The ASE conference is not well as attended when it falls in the holidays from time to time, for example.
However, we need events to be held on Saturdays and in holidays.
If you are restricted in the CPD you can have access to at school then you need another avenue. I have certainly been in this situation. SLT favourites able to go to courses and feedback at Thursday evening sessions you have the 'option' to attend. In house CPD thought to be all you need, because it is important to stick to the ethos of the academy, which is sufficient apparently. I don't want my CPD to be restricted by an agenda that I am not consulted on.
I don't really have the answer though. If the motivation is to reach more people and therefore earn more money then the needs of those teachers who want to search for their own CPD in their own time, with their own money, are not a priority.
To teachers: if you are reading this and thinking "I won't be allowed to go, it is during a school day", ASK. Ask and you might be surprised. I have been and continue to be. I have been able to go to the ASE conference for the last three years and I am going again this year. But if I had not asked then no one was going to offer.
To conference organisers: please do consider those of us who are coming to your event independent of our school What we gain will be fed back into the system and the fact that we came at the weekend probably makes it more valuable to us. If you can afford it please think about your potential audience, their budget, location and time.
To Andrew: sorry, I won't be signing your petition Wellington College have a point if their intention is to have more visitors.
Monday, 23 June 2014
Festival of Education
I was persuaded by @Arakwai to come to the Festival of Education. I have enjoyed the science festival and sessions in the Bristol festival of ideas, so I was keen to go along.
The first session I went to was Andrew Andonis. There was no description of what he was going to talk about in the programme, but I decided I wanted to hear what he had to say about himself anyway. I wasn't disappointed.
I was impressed that Andrew Adonis seemed to speak clearly without notes. I think this is the way that Labour politicians approach speeches these days? Both myself and my OH are teachers and we discuss the state of education under the Tories a lot. He works with students who are 'hard to reach' and is concerned by the pressure on them to go to university as the only route. So when Andrew Adonis talked about the improvement in number and access to apprenticeships as being the next step Labour would have taken I nearly punched the air in agreement.
I also agree with Lord Andonis about teacher training. Separating teacher training from universities isn't going to make the profession more respected or professional.
Due to the number of questions the session over ran and I didn't go to anything in the next slot. Instead I went into the Pearson tent. Interesting, they are using research to influence their products. I was told that the literacy in exploring science: working scientifically was tested in a RCT. I was interested in this, because I feel that as a head of department the resources in the scheme of work have the opportunity to influence the teaching within the department, rather like UpD8 SEGUE has had a massive influence on me. I await to see what Pearson produce.
After a hot chocolate, which was the biggest disappointment of the day (get a Barista Machine Wellington College), we went to a panel discussion about maths. Panel discussions are, for me, what make festivals tick and I found this one disappointing. I did discover that if we improve the maths level of the lowest achievers then we can massively increase GDP. 11% of our young people don't reach PISA's level 1.
Then (fortuitously) a speaker didn't turn up so went to lunch early to avoid the queues. The Paul Rankin burger was lush. Then Arakwai (not her real name) saw via twitter that there was an impromptu panel debate about research and research leads and involving Tom Bennet. So we strode off towards the spiritual room. The session raised more questions about how to turn teaching into a research lead profession. Questions that even the introduction of research leads into schools don't currently answer, but hope to in the future. I can't speak for the wider education community, but it was clear from the room that there is an appetite for teachers to be more involved with research. I was interested in the project Harvard are running to try and make links between teachers/schools and research, but (I might be wrong here, there wasn't much description of the project) it sounded like Harvard were linking with specific schools, what about the rest? How do these small scale projects scale up to a national picture? I was itching to ask a question, but people far more interesting and intellectual than I had their hands up, so I let them speak.
After that I dragged Arakwai to see David Starkey, Keith Vass, Claire Fox and Katie Hopkins in a panel debate. I didn't like Katie Hopkins when she was on The Apprentice and that opinion has not improved. This debate allowed her the opportunity to be extremely vile and make David Starkey sound like the voice of reason. I found some of the opinions of Claire Fox rather unpleasant too. I hope the panel were booked for their entertainment value rather than their expertise? This isn't something I am used to: When attending the science festival I haven't experienced a debate where the panelists attack each other and make statements with so little evidence or experience to back them up. "I don't want my daughter to sit next to someone naughty" and "we shouldn't educate the bottom 20% intellectually" are not the best informed statements I have heard. If Katie Hopkins has a problem with the education of her children then she should speak to the school, not take education on in the national media.
Second to last we went to another panel debate on whether students should get a say in what they learn. The debate meandered all over the place. I did get the impression the lady from BBC learning didn't know much about education in the classroom as she spouted the corporate lines. Johnny Ball was an interesting addition to the panel, obviously passionate about education. Most interesting was the student from Wellington where students do have some say in what they learn. Not being restricted by doing GCSEs must help an awful lot when it comes to making a creative curriculum that will inspire your students. I was envious for a moment, but then nervous as the straight jacket to GCSEs at least gives me a benchmark.
Final I went to see Richard Dawkins. Everything can be linked to evolution apparently. I think the speech Alice Roberts did to the ASE about humans and education was much better than what Richard Dawkins had to say. But it was good to hear him talk about the scientific method during the questions at the end. He was much calmer than I was when asked silly questions.
I enjoyed being able to go to so many sessions, however I found that 40 minutes wasn't enough. I am used to at least an hour, and often sessions had only just got going when we had to stop.
The idea of an education festival is a good one. I enjoyed being able to listen to debates that were high above my normal pay grade. I like being able to talk about education without feeling guilty that I am not putting something I have heard about into practice on Monday morning. But most if all it was great to be in an beautiful environment, with people who care about education talking and sharing with passion.
I can't wait for the next one.
The first session I went to was Andrew Andonis. There was no description of what he was going to talk about in the programme, but I decided I wanted to hear what he had to say about himself anyway. I wasn't disappointed.
I was impressed that Andrew Adonis seemed to speak clearly without notes. I think this is the way that Labour politicians approach speeches these days? Both myself and my OH are teachers and we discuss the state of education under the Tories a lot. He works with students who are 'hard to reach' and is concerned by the pressure on them to go to university as the only route. So when Andrew Adonis talked about the improvement in number and access to apprenticeships as being the next step Labour would have taken I nearly punched the air in agreement.
I also agree with Lord Andonis about teacher training. Separating teacher training from universities isn't going to make the profession more respected or professional.
Due to the number of questions the session over ran and I didn't go to anything in the next slot. Instead I went into the Pearson tent. Interesting, they are using research to influence their products. I was told that the literacy in exploring science: working scientifically was tested in a RCT. I was interested in this, because I feel that as a head of department the resources in the scheme of work have the opportunity to influence the teaching within the department, rather like UpD8 SEGUE has had a massive influence on me. I await to see what Pearson produce.
After a hot chocolate, which was the biggest disappointment of the day (get a Barista Machine Wellington College), we went to a panel discussion about maths. Panel discussions are, for me, what make festivals tick and I found this one disappointing. I did discover that if we improve the maths level of the lowest achievers then we can massively increase GDP. 11% of our young people don't reach PISA's level 1.
Then (fortuitously) a speaker didn't turn up so went to lunch early to avoid the queues. The Paul Rankin burger was lush. Then Arakwai (not her real name) saw via twitter that there was an impromptu panel debate about research and research leads and involving Tom Bennet. So we strode off towards the spiritual room. The session raised more questions about how to turn teaching into a research lead profession. Questions that even the introduction of research leads into schools don't currently answer, but hope to in the future. I can't speak for the wider education community, but it was clear from the room that there is an appetite for teachers to be more involved with research. I was interested in the project Harvard are running to try and make links between teachers/schools and research, but (I might be wrong here, there wasn't much description of the project) it sounded like Harvard were linking with specific schools, what about the rest? How do these small scale projects scale up to a national picture? I was itching to ask a question, but people far more interesting and intellectual than I had their hands up, so I let them speak.
After that I dragged Arakwai to see David Starkey, Keith Vass, Claire Fox and Katie Hopkins in a panel debate. I didn't like Katie Hopkins when she was on The Apprentice and that opinion has not improved. This debate allowed her the opportunity to be extremely vile and make David Starkey sound like the voice of reason. I found some of the opinions of Claire Fox rather unpleasant too. I hope the panel were booked for their entertainment value rather than their expertise? This isn't something I am used to: When attending the science festival I haven't experienced a debate where the panelists attack each other and make statements with so little evidence or experience to back them up. "I don't want my daughter to sit next to someone naughty" and "we shouldn't educate the bottom 20% intellectually" are not the best informed statements I have heard. If Katie Hopkins has a problem with the education of her children then she should speak to the school, not take education on in the national media.
Second to last we went to another panel debate on whether students should get a say in what they learn. The debate meandered all over the place. I did get the impression the lady from BBC learning didn't know much about education in the classroom as she spouted the corporate lines. Johnny Ball was an interesting addition to the panel, obviously passionate about education. Most interesting was the student from Wellington where students do have some say in what they learn. Not being restricted by doing GCSEs must help an awful lot when it comes to making a creative curriculum that will inspire your students. I was envious for a moment, but then nervous as the straight jacket to GCSEs at least gives me a benchmark.
Final I went to see Richard Dawkins. Everything can be linked to evolution apparently. I think the speech Alice Roberts did to the ASE about humans and education was much better than what Richard Dawkins had to say. But it was good to hear him talk about the scientific method during the questions at the end. He was much calmer than I was when asked silly questions.
I enjoyed being able to go to so many sessions, however I found that 40 minutes wasn't enough. I am used to at least an hour, and often sessions had only just got going when we had to stop.
The idea of an education festival is a good one. I enjoyed being able to listen to debates that were high above my normal pay grade. I like being able to talk about education without feeling guilty that I am not putting something I have heard about into practice on Monday morning. But most if all it was great to be in an beautiful environment, with people who care about education talking and sharing with passion.
I can't wait for the next one.
Sunday, 22 June 2014
Pedagoo SouthWest 2014
It has been a week and a day since I went to Pedagoo South West and it has given me time to reflect on what I saw, heard and thought about during the event.
The welcome from Bristol Grammar School was great and the main hall is an amazing room to spend time in. The tea and biscuits was very welcome. Emma Payne did a great job collecting the prizes for the raffle, very impressive.
I enjoyed Rachel Jones' key note speech. https://www.haikudeck.com/pedagoosouthwest-education-presentation-Fo3Rg5Fse7 I enjoyed the comment about twitter and dichotomies, oh how I hate straw men when they get thrown about in arguments. I also agree with Rachel that there is no right way to teach.
To me her presentation may have consisted in a series of what might be described as sound bites, but they summed up the positivity that we can feel as teachers when we want to. It was important for me to start the day by thinking about the bigger picture and realising the importance and solidarity that teachers can feel.Rachel's passion was a great way to start the day!
The video made by Rachel and her students was a real high point of the day:
For a while now I have been thinking that I must force myself to go to CPD and INSET sessions that I aren't in areas that I am currently interested in. Why? Because I often don't learn anything as I will have already investigated, and CPD can end up as a disappointment.
So with this in mind I went to Paula Worth's session about teaching a knowledge-rich curriculum. I went partly because of the knowledge vs skills debate on twitter. That debate actually leaves me cold as it often involves the word dichotomy. I have tried to keep myself out of this debate. However, it was interesting that Paula seemed to say it was a real issue in History. It made it more real.
I was very impressed by the activities she outlined in the ways that she scaffolds students using their knowledge in a skill based activity such as a debate. Facts to outline the points they were making were important. The session certainly made me wonder if I can think of more creative activities for students to learn from. I am glad I went.
After that I went to Robert Massey's session about gifted and talented students. This is another area that I don't have a great deal of interest in. Years of hearing about G&T, but not ever working at a school that had this area sorted has turned me off it as a concept. I actually found it very interesting to be able to drill down into what another independent school does. I hadn't made the connection between 'scholarships' and 'G&T', and I felt a little silly when the penny dropped.
It was certainly a session that made me think about what we do at school and what we do in our department. I need to take more responsibility to ensure that I am confident I know who our scholars are and consider how best to interact with them.
I like the idea of teaching to the top. It can be difficult to do this when SLT (not my current managers, they are reasonable) expect to see specific G&T resources.
After a short break and a cup of tea I stayed in the hall to hear Nick Dennis speak about multipliers. I realised that I hadn't been subject to a leadership talk for a while, and it is always useful to reflect on this area of being a teacher, middle leader and future senior leader. Currently my focus is science education and I have lost my passion for school leadership as a topic.
Nick first talked about diminishers:
The rescuer is an interesting title. I have worked with SLT who really enjoy having this role! I did enjoy all the descriptions of people as they did make me think about real situations and were personas that I could relate to.
He put together all the little pieces about marking and feedback from around the web, and it was really great to have it all sewn together. My favourite piece of the day was the handout from Chris with 12 ideas for marking and feedback.
I came out of the session feeling that Chew Valley School must be a great place to work.
The day ended with a talk from David Didau, it was a shame that we struggled to see his presentation because he stood between the projector and the screen.
The welcome from Bristol Grammar School was great and the main hall is an amazing room to spend time in. The tea and biscuits was very welcome. Emma Payne did a great job collecting the prizes for the raffle, very impressive.
I enjoyed Rachel Jones' key note speech. https://www.haikudeck.com/pedagoosouthwest-education-presentation-Fo3Rg5Fse7 I enjoyed the comment about twitter and dichotomies, oh how I hate straw men when they get thrown about in arguments. I also agree with Rachel that there is no right way to teach.
To me her presentation may have consisted in a series of what might be described as sound bites, but they summed up the positivity that we can feel as teachers when we want to. It was important for me to start the day by thinking about the bigger picture and realising the importance and solidarity that teachers can feel.Rachel's passion was a great way to start the day!
The video made by Rachel and her students was a real high point of the day:
For a while now I have been thinking that I must force myself to go to CPD and INSET sessions that I aren't in areas that I am currently interested in. Why? Because I often don't learn anything as I will have already investigated, and CPD can end up as a disappointment.
So with this in mind I went to Paula Worth's session about teaching a knowledge-rich curriculum. I went partly because of the knowledge vs skills debate on twitter. That debate actually leaves me cold as it often involves the word dichotomy. I have tried to keep myself out of this debate. However, it was interesting that Paula seemed to say it was a real issue in History. It made it more real.
I was very impressed by the activities she outlined in the ways that she scaffolds students using their knowledge in a skill based activity such as a debate. Facts to outline the points they were making were important. The session certainly made me wonder if I can think of more creative activities for students to learn from. I am glad I went.
After that I went to Robert Massey's session about gifted and talented students. This is another area that I don't have a great deal of interest in. Years of hearing about G&T, but not ever working at a school that had this area sorted has turned me off it as a concept. I actually found it very interesting to be able to drill down into what another independent school does. I hadn't made the connection between 'scholarships' and 'G&T', and I felt a little silly when the penny dropped.
It was certainly a session that made me think about what we do at school and what we do in our department. I need to take more responsibility to ensure that I am confident I know who our scholars are and consider how best to interact with them.
I like the idea of teaching to the top. It can be difficult to do this when SLT (not my current managers, they are reasonable) expect to see specific G&T resources.
After a short break and a cup of tea I stayed in the hall to hear Nick Dennis speak about multipliers. I realised that I hadn't been subject to a leadership talk for a while, and it is always useful to reflect on this area of being a teacher, middle leader and future senior leader. Currently my focus is science education and I have lost my passion for school leadership as a topic.
Nick first talked about diminishers:
And made a comment that I know I have to take more notice of. I have encountered it from managers, but I am still guilty of being 'always on' myself. Taking on too much and trying to implement it all can be as damaging to leadership and those who are being led.
Nick talked about giving someone within the group, but not in the highest leadership position the casting vote. I can see how this might be useful. But I do wonder if people realise they are having a leadership game played on them and resist? I would!
The rescuer is an interesting title. I have worked with SLT who really enjoy having this role! I did enjoy all the descriptions of people as they did make me think about real situations and were personas that I could relate to.
It is always useful to reflect on leadership in education and how our actions induce behaviour in others, and on the team we want to lead. I certainly don't feel like a multiplier at the moment.
The last session was by Chris Hildrew. "Closing the Gap" marking. He said himself that he had borrowed from others across the web, and did acknowledge them in his talk.
I went this talk because marking and planning for marking is something that I know I can be better at.
http://chrishildrew.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/closing-the-gap-marking-twilight-cpd/ This link takes you to Chris's presentation.
I came out of the session feeling that Chew Valley School must be a great place to work.
The day ended with a talk from David Didau, it was a shame that we struggled to see his presentation because he stood between the projector and the screen.
David was talking about his premise 'what if we are all wrong'? http://www.learningspy.co.uk/myths/wrong-pedagoolondon14-presentation/
Great afternoon.
Saturday, 12 April 2014
Teachit and their Video Training Day
I have just arrived home after a wonderful training day organised by Teachit. It ticked all the boxes, great venue, nice food, engaged audience and knowledgeable presenters.
In my future list of what makes a good CPD session I need to add 'timely'. Just the previous evening I was discussing flipped learning and getting a lot of encouragement. (See below).
Prior to that I was being encouraged to use Aurama too.
All of this is in preparation for the students at my school having to bring iPads to all their lessons as of September. I want to use this opportunity and I want to ensure that the parents don't feel they have wasted their money. So today's conference came at just the right time.
The day started as every truly great CPD session should with coffee and pastries!
We went into Joe Dale's session at 10.15 and were then organised into our subject groups. We were asked to get into groups of two or three. Joe wanted us in groups of this size because he wanted to ensure all participants had the opportunity to take part.
We started by using popplet to create a storyboard of the film we were to make. I like this app, and it was a good idea to use it as the boxes (popples) are the right sort of dimensions to make you think about a screen. We decided on biology sampling techniques because we were in clifton and had access to the outside and bushes! We then searched the internet for images of things we didn't have because we didn't know to bring equipment, like an image of pooters.
Story boarding took about 20 minutes.
I really liked the idea of storyboarding. I think I would have done it with a class anyway, even without the experience of this session. I have been advised to by my OH. But I appreciated the chance to see how much detail you would want in a story board - not that much - and how it helps your thinking. I would be keen to make students stick to their story board when doing it with them.
I also thought that he story boarding section of the activity would be great for giving students the opportunity to think before doing an experiment, and possibly help develop the skill of writing methods that we need to build before controlled assessments.
After that we went to film the bits we needed for the short video. We did feel a little silly, but Louisa who I worked with was a great sport and she was prepared to be filmed. I also took a few photos to be used in the film too.
Other groups found they took too much footage and at one point I took footage on my iPhone and then thought 'how will I get it onto the iPad?' I know there are ways, but it did seem much more straight forward to just use the one i-device for everything.
Once everyone had returned Joe gave us a quick tour of iMovie. It does seem pretty intuitive. From the point of view of teaching the students I think it will be more about showing them the possible outcomes and letting them workout how they could do it using the menus on the iPad.
The editing was straight forward because we had a clear idea of the outcome from the storyboarding. The room was very noisy, so we left to find a quiet spot to do the voice overs. The editing took a bit longer and the session ended up overrunning slightly. But we didn't mind. One group grabbed coffee and returned to complete their movie.
I can see that offering prizes for 'the best' video might not be productive as it could induce the students to be stressed and change their plan. I would want the video that gets across the message in a straightforward way. I will certainly consider modelling some good and bad examples before letting classes lose on making their own videos.
We also discussed the audience for the videos. (Feedforwardonline might be an answer to that?)
This is the video. If you are reading this and the link is gone - sorry, I may have to clear my youtube account out in the future.
After the coffee break I went into a session lead by James Rolfe, Head of Science at Judgemeadow School. This is when I was completely sold on the practicalities of making videos for use by students.
James showed us example video clips he made of demonstrations and explained how spending five minutes taking a quick video of himself demonstrating an experiment had paid dividends in terms of engagement, learning and behaviour. He found that student paid attention to the video, that they all could see, and that they took on board the advice and instructions in the clips.
Sometimes he would ask a student to video him explaining in class too. Making the taking of videos fairly painless and quick.
I think that I would get nervous and stumble over my words, but I imagine that after making a few videos I would get used it. I also get a bit paranoid over my accent. "Why aye, champion man" in the middle of a video would mean I would have to leave the students to watch unsupervised as I stand in the corridor and wait for it to be over! However, I am encouraged to give it a try the next time I do a class practical. (Year 9!)
James also showed us videos made by the students. No faces meant they could be shared with the world. The school has the iPods that the students use, and they have a science department dropbox account attached, so the videos can be uploaded from each device allowing the teacher to view them all. I can see how the videos that students make could help to spot misconceptions.
Having been to a lot of literacy sessions about encouraging students to talk before writing I can see how videoing an explanation of the work that they are doing will really help the students to get their idea straight before having to commit their ideas to paper.
Before the end of the session we had a go at making a one-shot video clip ourselves. That is the clip at the top of this blog post. I can certainly see myself doing that more often.
After lunch we went into a Q&A session, and then we discussed the resources that people might want to make that could be uploaded to teachit. Interestingly a lot of the discussion in the groups I was in (and I think in others) was about how a lot of the engagement achieved by using videos is from them being of staff in the school of those watching. This is something I want to consider as I make and use videos in class.
I am ver excited now by the prospect of the students having and using iPads in lessons. This is a CPD session that will have a big impact on the way that I teach. Thank you to Teachit, Joe and James.
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Teachers and Research
I remember reading something by Lucie Golton about the reason behind her teaching toolkit booklet. She scoured the books looking for the magic bullet and ended up compiling a long list for her own pedagogy strategy booklet. (Unfortunately I can't find a link to it at the moment).
I also spent may career looking for the magic bullet. I like concept cartoons, I love key word card sorts, I like using true/false worksheets and my favourite way to help students learn is by getting them to draw graphs. I have taught CASE, I have taught the Upd8 segue course (http://www.upd8.org.uk/wikid-tick.php), I have taught bonkers courses designed to fit into the timetable more than based on sound pedagogy. I came into teaching during the time of the strategies. I have read books, I have taken advice from ASTs, I have used ideas shared by fellow teachers and I have worked with consultants. In all that time I haven't been able to work out if I am doing the right thing.
Now it seems that we have been doing the wrong things as a profession. If the whole profession has been doing the wrong things then I must have be too.
To solve this teachers need to interact directly with the research.
1. Really?
2. How?
I went to Tim Oates session at the ASE conference about the future of internal assessment in science. I got the gist, don't get me wrong, but as Robin Millar was nodding to the things Tim Oates was saying I was pulling faces in a desperate attempt to understand. The language Tim Oates was using was completely foreign to me, it was specialist.
I can appreciate the need for specific specialist language in education research. I am a scientist, I use specialist terms all the time, and I spend a good proportion of my time trying to get my students to use the language precisely too. The difference seems to me that in educational research there is no common language, like in science.
If I am to interact with research first hand then do I need to learn specialist terminology?
I went to Michael Reiss's session the year before and he said that Piaget style curricula were very effective at promoting learning. (Or something like that, but I did understand what he was saying!) I said this on another teacher's blog in a comment and was shot down because we shouldn't listen to anything we are told, we have to find out for ourselves as respected education researchers can't be trusted.
Do I have to interact directly with the research? Is it enough to interact with the researchers? After reading "Teacher Proof", maybe not is the answer. Someone has to look at the original research because there are some people out there not doing a very god job at carrying out their research and there are others who are simply fibbing as it suits them. Confirmation bias is a big issue in education it seems.
I am going to be honest here, I don't trust other teachers to carry out research (sorry as if you are reading this you are likely to be a teacher). I have seen data for masters projects (and action inquiries) made up. I have seen a school sell ideas to other schools saying it made a difference when there was no causal relationship between the two and months later that school scrapped the curriculum. It makes sense for schools and teachers to be positive about the changes they make. Why make them if they are not going to make a difference to their students?
I am not the only one who felt this. At the ASE January conference I went to a session host by Wellcome and the SLC that was a debate. One of the questions was about research. On our table the SLC employee was determined that the action research she supports through the SLC was valid, I was on the opposite side of that. Another group also mentioned their dubious feelings about research carried out by teachers, although perhaps not so negatively as me!
Perhaps unscrupulous research is just something we have to cope with?
Or perhaps it is enough to interact with the researchers?
I am fortunate in my position to get journals through the post. School Science Review, Physics Education and Science in School. I am fortunate that my head teacher will allow me to attend ASE conferences. I know some excellent university based educators and researchers. They are very generous with their time. They are happy to share what they know.
I have said this before, Stella Paes said at the ASE summer conference that the UK has world leading expertise in science education. (Granted she may have been talking about assessment of science education as that is what she needs to know about).
Is interacting with researchers through journals and conferences how I should interact with research? What if they are wrong? During my PGCE we were encouraged to look at VAK, it was presented as if it was a good way to differentiate. Should I be put off by this? Trust no one? Or do I have to interact with the research directly? Back to square one.
I do know that there is appetite within the profession to work out what works in the classroom. There are a number of issues with it. Expecting to find something new that will be the magic bullet . Finding the balance between private organisations who have an interest in selling CPD related to research is another. Implementing the pedagogy as the research intended isn't always easy, either.
However, as a profession we have to know that what we are doing and how we are doing it is the best way to get across ideas to young people. Without research and analysis we'll never know. Teaching and research are linked. What that link should look like in practice? Well, it probably needs to be researched.
I also spent may career looking for the magic bullet. I like concept cartoons, I love key word card sorts, I like using true/false worksheets and my favourite way to help students learn is by getting them to draw graphs. I have taught CASE, I have taught the Upd8 segue course (http://www.upd8.org.uk/wikid-tick.php), I have taught bonkers courses designed to fit into the timetable more than based on sound pedagogy. I came into teaching during the time of the strategies. I have read books, I have taken advice from ASTs, I have used ideas shared by fellow teachers and I have worked with consultants. In all that time I haven't been able to work out if I am doing the right thing.
Now it seems that we have been doing the wrong things as a profession. If the whole profession has been doing the wrong things then I must have be too.
To solve this teachers need to interact directly with the research.
1. Really?
2. How?
I went to Tim Oates session at the ASE conference about the future of internal assessment in science. I got the gist, don't get me wrong, but as Robin Millar was nodding to the things Tim Oates was saying I was pulling faces in a desperate attempt to understand. The language Tim Oates was using was completely foreign to me, it was specialist.
I can appreciate the need for specific specialist language in education research. I am a scientist, I use specialist terms all the time, and I spend a good proportion of my time trying to get my students to use the language precisely too. The difference seems to me that in educational research there is no common language, like in science.
If I am to interact with research first hand then do I need to learn specialist terminology?
I went to Michael Reiss's session the year before and he said that Piaget style curricula were very effective at promoting learning. (Or something like that, but I did understand what he was saying!) I said this on another teacher's blog in a comment and was shot down because we shouldn't listen to anything we are told, we have to find out for ourselves as respected education researchers can't be trusted.
Do I have to interact directly with the research? Is it enough to interact with the researchers? After reading "Teacher Proof", maybe not is the answer. Someone has to look at the original research because there are some people out there not doing a very god job at carrying out their research and there are others who are simply fibbing as it suits them. Confirmation bias is a big issue in education it seems.
I am going to be honest here, I don't trust other teachers to carry out research (sorry as if you are reading this you are likely to be a teacher). I have seen data for masters projects (and action inquiries) made up. I have seen a school sell ideas to other schools saying it made a difference when there was no causal relationship between the two and months later that school scrapped the curriculum. It makes sense for schools and teachers to be positive about the changes they make. Why make them if they are not going to make a difference to their students?
I am not the only one who felt this. At the ASE January conference I went to a session host by Wellcome and the SLC that was a debate. One of the questions was about research. On our table the SLC employee was determined that the action research she supports through the SLC was valid, I was on the opposite side of that. Another group also mentioned their dubious feelings about research carried out by teachers, although perhaps not so negatively as me!
Perhaps unscrupulous research is just something we have to cope with?
Or perhaps it is enough to interact with the researchers?
I am fortunate in my position to get journals through the post. School Science Review, Physics Education and Science in School. I am fortunate that my head teacher will allow me to attend ASE conferences. I know some excellent university based educators and researchers. They are very generous with their time. They are happy to share what they know.
I have said this before, Stella Paes said at the ASE summer conference that the UK has world leading expertise in science education. (Granted she may have been talking about assessment of science education as that is what she needs to know about).
Is interacting with researchers through journals and conferences how I should interact with research? What if they are wrong? During my PGCE we were encouraged to look at VAK, it was presented as if it was a good way to differentiate. Should I be put off by this? Trust no one? Or do I have to interact with the research directly? Back to square one.
I do know that there is appetite within the profession to work out what works in the classroom. There are a number of issues with it. Expecting to find something new that will be the magic bullet . Finding the balance between private organisations who have an interest in selling CPD related to research is another. Implementing the pedagogy as the research intended isn't always easy, either.
However, as a profession we have to know that what we are doing and how we are doing it is the best way to get across ideas to young people. Without research and analysis we'll never know. Teaching and research are linked. What that link should look like in practice? Well, it probably needs to be researched.
Sunday, 6 April 2014
Research Ed - what I found out
I didn't take many notes yesterday. It is quite hard to take notes and listen, however I will try and recap what I remember and therefore what I take away with me.
John Henry Catholic College looks like a really nice building. Modern, nice corridor spaces and not vast as some West Midlands schools are (the one I worked in was 1400 and only 11-16). The head Jennifer McGuirk welcomed us and I was quietly impressed with what she had to say about the journey of the school. Tom Bennet then made us laugh and implied there was more to come in the Research Ed agenda before sending us off for the day.
I went to see Daisy Christodoulou talk about the "key principles teachers should apply in the classroom". I get the impression memory was a key point in a few talks given during the day (it was certainly in two of the ones I went to) and it took up a good portion of the talk Daisy gave. She started by talking about big data and saying something along the lines of looking at data isn't enough without understanding the underlying theory, and without the theory it is hard to translate into practice. As an avid reader of Glen Gilcrist's blog I would agree that correlation does not mean causation.
Daisy went on to talk about AfL as an example of something that has struggled to show the impact that research would indicate. She said that there was problems with both the research and implementation. As someone who has been to a session run by Chris Harrison and Sally Howard on AfL I know that she is not the only one who is concerned about the implementation of AfL.
Then Daisy talked about E.D Hirsch and his principles for good understanding. There were 7 of them. She then did an exercise with us to prove that having our knowledge in our long term memory made things easier to remember.
I did write down her principles for teaching:
1. Avoid working memory overload
2. Promote long term memory storage
3. Practice to achieve mastery (fluency)
I went in expecting to find out something I didn't know. Although the language was more theoretical than I am used to. I was relieved that I agree with a lot of what Daisy had to say. Not teaching too many new things at once and practising them isn't new to me.
For the next session I want to the DfE talk about "research priorities: what are the key gaps and questions in education". There was some positivity at the start of the session that the DfE wanted to engage with their own research questions. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/research-priorities-for-education-and-childrens-services The details are here on line.
He talked about the inability of CPD to breakdown the current (ineffective?) practices of teachers and replace it with new associations. We don't unlearn the things we do.
David told us the worst ways of transforming practice through CPD are the ways that we use: whole staff lectures, individual day courses and printed guidance.
He asked why is it that the profession most associated with learning is the worst at engaging with it? I still don't understand that.
David then went on to talk about things that do work. Things like lesson study, collaboration with other colleagues, coaching, carefully scripted teacher actions, forms of action research and masters level study. He showed two slides with a list of theoretical principles for good CPD, like evaluating it, it being sustained, aspirational, lead by good leaders, challenging.
David ended with this slide. "Start with the end in mind". Something I hear a lot in education!
John Henry Catholic College looks like a really nice building. Modern, nice corridor spaces and not vast as some West Midlands schools are (the one I worked in was 1400 and only 11-16). The head Jennifer McGuirk welcomed us and I was quietly impressed with what she had to say about the journey of the school. Tom Bennet then made us laugh and implied there was more to come in the Research Ed agenda before sending us off for the day.
I went to see Daisy Christodoulou talk about the "key principles teachers should apply in the classroom". I get the impression memory was a key point in a few talks given during the day (it was certainly in two of the ones I went to) and it took up a good portion of the talk Daisy gave. She started by talking about big data and saying something along the lines of looking at data isn't enough without understanding the underlying theory, and without the theory it is hard to translate into practice. As an avid reader of Glen Gilcrist's blog I would agree that correlation does not mean causation.
Daisy went on to talk about AfL as an example of something that has struggled to show the impact that research would indicate. She said that there was problems with both the research and implementation. As someone who has been to a session run by Chris Harrison and Sally Howard on AfL I know that she is not the only one who is concerned about the implementation of AfL.
Then Daisy talked about E.D Hirsch and his principles for good understanding. There were 7 of them. She then did an exercise with us to prove that having our knowledge in our long term memory made things easier to remember.
I did write down her principles for teaching:
1. Avoid working memory overload
2. Promote long term memory storage
3. Practice to achieve mastery (fluency)
I went in expecting to find out something I didn't know. Although the language was more theoretical than I am used to. I was relieved that I agree with a lot of what Daisy had to say. Not teaching too many new things at once and practising them isn't new to me.
For the next session I want to the DfE talk about "research priorities: what are the key gaps and questions in education". There was some positivity at the start of the session that the DfE wanted to engage with their own research questions. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/research-priorities-for-education-and-childrens-services The details are here on line.
We were asked to look at a selection of the research questions and make our own comments about them on post-it notes onto the flip chart boards. I really felt that I couldn't add a lot. In some ways because I feel that the things I could contribute are obvious and I don't have a great deal of expertise to add in a lot of the areas. However, this didn't stop me putting a few post-its onto the boards.
I think that it is important that the DfE use research to help them with policy decisions. However, at the end during a Q&A session concerns were raised about the bias of any research carried out by the DfE. Are the questions being asked genuinely the right ones or are they too politically motivated? However, the DfE are asking for feedback on this and seem to want to engage with teachers. In a way they have to come to terms with this shift as they have scrapped many of the quangos that ran education and LAs are becoming a thing of the past. However, this session didn't do anything to persuade me that the DfE are doing anything other than scrabbling around in the dark taking advice from the wrong place.
I stayed in the theatre for the next presentation by Louise Stubberfield from Wellcome. I has seen her earlier in the day and wondered why I recognised her, when she was from Wellcome I realised that I will have seen her at the ASE conference.
She talked about the work Wellcome had been doing with the science learning centres to help with the teaching of primary science. I know that Wellcome put a lot of money into science education and it was heartening to see that this project had been carried out robustly. It was interesting to hear that those schools not allowed access to the science learning centres courses in order to be the 'control' group were then given access the year after the research programme. I have heard people who talk about RTCs say that it is unfair to restrict schools and their students access to things that might help improve education, but this seems to be a fair compromise to me.
I was also interested in the comments Louise made about museums and the research they do into the impact of what they do. They measure impact by the number of visitors and not necessarily by the influence it has on the people who visit.
In January I went to a session at the ASE conference with drinks paid for by Wellcome and also hosted by Science Learning Centres. I can see that Wellcome are interacting with the profession (although not always practising teachers). What was interesting in the ASE session about research was that only three of the attendees were practising teachers.
I have heard it before, but Louise stated during the talk that those schools who Wellcome have worked with and have not sidelined science to focus on english and maths have had improvements in all three subjects.
Then it was lunch.
After lunch I went to David Weston's session about "why most dissemination is useless and how we can fix it". I was assaulted again by slides about memory for the first part of the talk. I am not entirely sure why.
I have to agree with David's assessment of the impact of CPD. I have worked with the science learning centres on a CPD model (when I say 'worked with', I mean I was a 'guinea pig for'). During that time we talked about what made CPD effective and the traditional model of go on a course, come back and share the slides in a meeting isn't it.
He talked about the inability of CPD to breakdown the current (ineffective?) practices of teachers and replace it with new associations. We don't unlearn the things we do.
David told us the worst ways of transforming practice through CPD are the ways that we use: whole staff lectures, individual day courses and printed guidance.
He asked why is it that the profession most associated with learning is the worst at engaging with it? I still don't understand that.
David then went on to talk about things that do work. Things like lesson study, collaboration with other colleagues, coaching, carefully scripted teacher actions, forms of action research and masters level study. He showed two slides with a list of theoretical principles for good CPD, like evaluating it, it being sustained, aspirational, lead by good leaders, challenging.
David ended with this slide. "Start with the end in mind". Something I hear a lot in education!
Session six was the hardest for me to choose because nothing struck me. I am glad that I went to Joe Hallgarten's session: "if you can't stand the research get out of the classroom?" RSA and BERA are about to publish 10 principles for a 'research-rich, self-improving education systems' and Joe went through the process that lead to these.
The principles are split into teaching and learning, teachers' practice, school leadership, system-level and research production.
This session, above all others was of interest to me because I think it got to the crux of the purpose of ResearchEd. Teachers should be engaging with research and researchers should be engaging with teachers. But I do believe there are barrier to this: money, time, expertise, research literacy, bias and the famous SLT mangle.
I intend to blog again about the issues that spring to mind on the back of this session by Joe, and where I see own practice with respect to research, how I have interacted with it and how I want to interact with it.
The last session was presented by Michael Slavinsky and Alex Weatherall and started with us all getting a sweet. So far so good. They picked up one of the touch paper questions set by Laura McInerny at the first Research Ed conference. The list is below.
I wish that I had taken a photograph of the axes that Alex and Michael showed to highlight the way they distinguished between difficulty and complexity. It was interesting that they didn't consider the two as the same. On going into the session I has hoped that I would find out something that would help me to understand how we would structure a curriculum with increasing difficulty, but the work these two are doing is more centred on complexity.
In order to map complexity Alex plans to create concept maps for all the topics in the curriculum, and this would help teaching and help map complexity. http://www.teachmyconcept.net I am interested to see how this goes, happy to help but I am aware of the demands on my time.
I very much enjoyed the day. Joe's session gave me most to think about and I have come away feeling that the profession can work with researchers more effectively. And that there is a great deal of desire to do that from researchers too.
Saturday, 5 April 2014
Research and Education - from the point of view of a slightly rubbish teacher
Thanks to Mary Whitehouse I was able to go to the first Research Ed conference in September, and due to some encouragement from @Arakwai I have just come back from the regional event in Birmingham.
As a classroom teacher I haven't been able to take anything from the conferences that I can use in the classroom. So why go? And why go a second time if I didn't think that the first time was relevant to me?
I am curious about the link between research and education. To me there seems to be lot of information out there for teachers to use to help them teach better/differently, but is any of it any good? There are a lot of books by teachers, for teachers, but are any of them based on evidence or just anecdote? Does it matter?
After Brain Gym (which I never did in my own classroom) and Learning Styles (which I was always sceptical of) I am never entirely sure if I can trust anything that comes my way. I wonder to myself what good research looks like and how I can find it. I wonder if through the research Ed conferences I might come across teaching methods that will help me and my students.
On top of being sceptical about research, I also find it unapproachable. "Direct Instruction" is the latest twitter/blogger buzz phrase. Those that use it seem to know what it means, I am not so sure I do. "Progressive Education", "Constructivist", "Meta-Cognition", etc etc. I saw Tim Oates talk about assessment at the ASE conference, I understood very little of what he said, only those used to the academic talk of assessment were able to follow him. As a scientists I understand the necessity of using technical language that describes exactly what you mean, however the in-context interpretation of the uninitiated could lead to misinterpretation.
I was interested in the session by Joe Hallgarten, who was looking at the relationship between teachers and research. Some of the guiding principles for resarch-rich, self-improvng education systems he showed us were that teaching should be informed by the latest research and teachers should be research literate. I agree with all of this, but how do I get 'research literate'? I can't understand the language, I don't know where to look to find reliable research and what if I don't like what I read or can't change my practice enough to take it on board anyway?
I am always wary of research; I have seen some practices that I would consider to be dubious when teachers have been involved in their masters projects. I have carried out deliberate changes to my practice as a result of some external CPD, and I am not sure if what I did had any impact.
I wonder if Research Ed can help with any of this? How can a teacher carry out a research project in their own school? How can teachers get access to sound research? If they do some research, how do they share it? How do we ask for funding to carry out research? How do we motivate ourselves to continue with changes in practice? What research is going on at the moment into teaching and learning and what can we learn from it?
Then again, I think that showing researchers that teachers are interested in what they are doing can only be positive. That having teachers feeling that they should, and in some cases must, engage with research can only be a good thing. That having the DfE engaged could help to move our 'profession' forward. I also got the impression that the word stills needs to be spread that it is important those who work in schools become engaged with research and Research Ed can only help to do that as word spreads.
I don't have an intention to go to Research Ed in September, I will hopefully be newly married and should spend some time with the husband. I will also have done ASE conference, two teachmeets, pedagoo south west, York tweet up, Wellington Festival of Education and ASE west conference as well as Research Ed Midlands and I think that is all I can spare.
In the mean time, I will take my research distilled by the School Science Review Journal, and by books like 'Good Practice in Science Teaching, what research has to say', 'Making Sense of Secondary Science', 'Evidence based teaching'. And luckily for me I have access to people who can help me understand the implementation of the ideas in these books too.
Thanks to Tom, Helene and the staff of John Henry Newman Catholic College for Research Ed Midlands. All of it was interesting and nothing I experienced was not worth it. A very positive day.
As a classroom teacher I haven't been able to take anything from the conferences that I can use in the classroom. So why go? And why go a second time if I didn't think that the first time was relevant to me?
I am curious about the link between research and education. To me there seems to be lot of information out there for teachers to use to help them teach better/differently, but is any of it any good? There are a lot of books by teachers, for teachers, but are any of them based on evidence or just anecdote? Does it matter?
After Brain Gym (which I never did in my own classroom) and Learning Styles (which I was always sceptical of) I am never entirely sure if I can trust anything that comes my way. I wonder to myself what good research looks like and how I can find it. I wonder if through the research Ed conferences I might come across teaching methods that will help me and my students.
On top of being sceptical about research, I also find it unapproachable. "Direct Instruction" is the latest twitter/blogger buzz phrase. Those that use it seem to know what it means, I am not so sure I do. "Progressive Education", "Constructivist", "Meta-Cognition", etc etc. I saw Tim Oates talk about assessment at the ASE conference, I understood very little of what he said, only those used to the academic talk of assessment were able to follow him. As a scientists I understand the necessity of using technical language that describes exactly what you mean, however the in-context interpretation of the uninitiated could lead to misinterpretation.
I was interested in the session by Joe Hallgarten, who was looking at the relationship between teachers and research. Some of the guiding principles for resarch-rich, self-improvng education systems he showed us were that teaching should be informed by the latest research and teachers should be research literate. I agree with all of this, but how do I get 'research literate'? I can't understand the language, I don't know where to look to find reliable research and what if I don't like what I read or can't change my practice enough to take it on board anyway?
I am always wary of research; I have seen some practices that I would consider to be dubious when teachers have been involved in their masters projects. I have carried out deliberate changes to my practice as a result of some external CPD, and I am not sure if what I did had any impact.
I wonder if Research Ed can help with any of this? How can a teacher carry out a research project in their own school? How can teachers get access to sound research? If they do some research, how do they share it? How do we ask for funding to carry out research? How do we motivate ourselves to continue with changes in practice? What research is going on at the moment into teaching and learning and what can we learn from it?
Then again, I think that showing researchers that teachers are interested in what they are doing can only be positive. That having teachers feeling that they should, and in some cases must, engage with research can only be a good thing. That having the DfE engaged could help to move our 'profession' forward. I also got the impression that the word stills needs to be spread that it is important those who work in schools become engaged with research and Research Ed can only help to do that as word spreads.
I don't have an intention to go to Research Ed in September, I will hopefully be newly married and should spend some time with the husband. I will also have done ASE conference, two teachmeets, pedagoo south west, York tweet up, Wellington Festival of Education and ASE west conference as well as Research Ed Midlands and I think that is all I can spare.
In the mean time, I will take my research distilled by the School Science Review Journal, and by books like 'Good Practice in Science Teaching, what research has to say', 'Making Sense of Secondary Science', 'Evidence based teaching'. And luckily for me I have access to people who can help me understand the implementation of the ideas in these books too.
Thanks to Tom, Helene and the staff of John Henry Newman Catholic College for Research Ed Midlands. All of it was interesting and nothing I experienced was not worth it. A very positive day.
Sunday, 31 March 2013
ASE session: asking good questions
Why are good questions important?
Robin Millar of York University began this session with the comments:
- Assessment is the most significant driver of real change.
- Defines real learning goals
- It provides an "operational definition" of what the learning means.
I would have to agree with all of the sentiments above.
The emphasis on quality of written communication has changed the way many science departments teach. It was the six mark questions that have driven this.
Range of learning intentions:
- Recall
- Understand ideas and models
- Present and analyse information
- Carry out standard procedures
- Process display and interpret information
We were introduced to the York Science Project. Where questions are being written to check understanding.
We were told: "York Science is about checking understanding. Interested in writing good questions that check understanding. You can't see understanding, you can only check it."
I knew this already because I have been using York Science Resources in my lessons. The questions/activities are useful because they not only give an idea about what the students don't know, but what they do believe and in some cases how strongly.
Mary Whitehouse described some way of questioning: construct an explanation;
- chose sentences from multiple choice to make explanation - see second photo,
- chose true sentences from a list,
- identify ideas from text (directed activity related to text)
Carol Davenport then spoke about writing exam questions. To be honest it is a topic I haven't thought much about before. The exam papers arrive, the students complain, I say "oh dear they won't know how to do that", and that is as far as it goes.
Carol described that when she writes for the exam board she starts with the point on the specification and writes an answer that related to that point.
Then find the context and the question.
The process for writing an exam question is quite involved. The question goes through several drafts and revisions and is seen and reviewed by a lot of people. Even though it doesn't feel like that when I see the final paper!
Consider "is your question going to get the answer you think it will?"
Finally Mary Whitehouse showed us an example of a poor question.
What makes a good question?
While the top photograph shows a version of the question suitable for American students talk of "sidewalk" and an image of a parking meter may confuse UK students. The word "crack" could also cause confusion.
Below is an edited version of the same question.
Teachers download questions from all sort of places, so be aware of the question.
I know I have selected activities that once the students start them I realise are poorly worded. However, I find that end of topic tests from published schemes of work are the most poor; students struggling to interpret the question and access the marks.
Project 2061 was mentioned as the source of questions. But US based and biased towards US language.
Finally Robin Millar said when summing up:
- Question doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough to do a job... Back and forth with writing questions.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Sunday, 10 March 2013
Festival of Physics
I believe that you need three things to be a good science teacher. 1. An understanding of the place of science in the curriculum, 2. An understanding of how children learn and 3. A passion for science for the sake of science. This blog post is about number 3.
When I first started teaching I had come straight from my degree course and to be honest I was "scienced-out". Over the years that has changed a lot. As my degree level knowledge has wained my love of science for the sake of it has increased. So I gathered together my family (partner -48 and step-daughter -12) on saturday and headed to At-Bristol for the IoP-South West Branch Festival of Physics. We saw lectures about colour perception, Astronomy, Molecular Gastronomy and a workshop on the Hydraulics of helicopters.
All three of us had an engaging day; we learned something new from all of the lectures.
The day started with a lecture about colour. It took our key stage 3 knowledge on light a step further. My step-daughter who recently studied light in year 8 was able to happily access the ideas being talked about. The lecturer covered colour addition and subtraction and proved that what we teach at key stage 3 isn't quite the full story.
The lecture about the Universe was nothing that we don't teach at GCSE. However she included information about the astronomers that helped make the discoveries - I didn't realise so many were women! The presenter also talked about amateur astronomy, and showed us some amazing images she had taken, explaining the equipment she used.
The hydraulic workshop was excellent. The presenter works for a company that makes helicopters and despite the high technology involved was able to explain the ideas behind moving the angles of the propellers in terms of year 9 pressure. The teachers in the room (there were 5 of us) were all excited by his equipment and took a lot of photographs to recreate the equipment at school!
The last lecture was about molecular gastronomy. We were shown the RSC video of Heston Blumenthal eating tobacco jelly. Again linking to the curriculum. It was interesting to find out how much your own experiences affect the taste of the food you eat.
I am always impressed that my GCSE and Key Stage 3 science knowledge is enough for me to access a lot of the general interest science lectures and TV programmes. Of course I also have some knowledge of A-level Biology and Chemistry from 15 years ago, and my key stage 3/gcse knowledge is very strong due to 10 years of teaching it!
More than that though, by attending events like this I can relate the work of real scientists to what I teach. It is relevant that students understand about colour addition and subtraction in year 8 if they are to be involved in the digital arts. If cooks and chefs understand that people enjoy food more if it is served off a white plate that will help their business be more successful. I now have some information about how to be an amateur astronomer and may encourage one of my students to get involved in this. Knowing that helicopters use hydraulics may help to engage a disaffected student.
Well done to the IoP south west branch. I am already looking forward to next year!
When I first started teaching I had come straight from my degree course and to be honest I was "scienced-out". Over the years that has changed a lot. As my degree level knowledge has wained my love of science for the sake of it has increased. So I gathered together my family (partner -48 and step-daughter -12) on saturday and headed to At-Bristol for the IoP-South West Branch Festival of Physics. We saw lectures about colour perception, Astronomy, Molecular Gastronomy and a workshop on the Hydraulics of helicopters.
All three of us had an engaging day; we learned something new from all of the lectures.
The day started with a lecture about colour. It took our key stage 3 knowledge on light a step further. My step-daughter who recently studied light in year 8 was able to happily access the ideas being talked about. The lecturer covered colour addition and subtraction and proved that what we teach at key stage 3 isn't quite the full story.
The lecture about the Universe was nothing that we don't teach at GCSE. However she included information about the astronomers that helped make the discoveries - I didn't realise so many were women! The presenter also talked about amateur astronomy, and showed us some amazing images she had taken, explaining the equipment she used.
The hydraulic workshop was excellent. The presenter works for a company that makes helicopters and despite the high technology involved was able to explain the ideas behind moving the angles of the propellers in terms of year 9 pressure. The teachers in the room (there were 5 of us) were all excited by his equipment and took a lot of photographs to recreate the equipment at school!
The last lecture was about molecular gastronomy. We were shown the RSC video of Heston Blumenthal eating tobacco jelly. Again linking to the curriculum. It was interesting to find out how much your own experiences affect the taste of the food you eat.
I am always impressed that my GCSE and Key Stage 3 science knowledge is enough for me to access a lot of the general interest science lectures and TV programmes. Of course I also have some knowledge of A-level Biology and Chemistry from 15 years ago, and my key stage 3/gcse knowledge is very strong due to 10 years of teaching it!
More than that though, by attending events like this I can relate the work of real scientists to what I teach. It is relevant that students understand about colour addition and subtraction in year 8 if they are to be involved in the digital arts. If cooks and chefs understand that people enjoy food more if it is served off a white plate that will help their business be more successful. I now have some information about how to be an amateur astronomer and may encourage one of my students to get involved in this. Knowing that helicopters use hydraulics may help to engage a disaffected student.
Well done to the IoP south west branch. I am already looking forward to next year!
Friday, 28 December 2012
ASE conference - what should I go to?
I am going to all four days of the ASE conference - mainly because I can this year. It only cost £132, before the hotel.
There is a lot of choice at the conference. I want to get the balance right! Policy, science, STEM, the future of the ASE and pedagogy. Here are the events I have picked out so far:
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Rudgleigh Ave,,United Kingdom
Thursday, 27 December 2012
In school teachmeets
Is it sad that we have to have the idea of in-school teachmeets either subject specific or whole school?
Why weren't schools already encouraging and allowing all members of staff to share good practice? Do we need to have a teachmeet or could we have just used meetings or even gatherings?
Can the sharing of good practice and ideas occur by another means than someone standing in front of a presentation and recycling an idea? I would hope so.
In the first school I worked in we discussed classes, ideas, strategies. There was no competition between staff for favour of the management so we were happy to share and support each other. More than that we had a layer of middle management who wanted to improve the experience for the students and also support other staff: They didn't want to get an assistant associate vice championship league division 2 head teacher position. The ideas didn't need a acronym and they didn't need to be celebrated during morning briefing, there was no mention of "boosting your CV".
In the third school I worked in it was all about point scoring. Young staff who saw possible positions on the management team, usually via a head of year position. There were no organic sharing of ideas only attempts to get the management to favour you. Discussions were not about pedagogy, they were about organisational matters. Re-writing schemes were about filling in boxes in order to look "innovative", not about ensuring best practice were embedded first. More over there was no learning for peers because everyone had to appear as the expert, no one was allowed to be humble as that was a weakness.
Maybe the schools that intend to do in-school teachmeet need something to kick start the sharing of practice. But I worry. The only time I was happy to "show off" at an in school teachmeet situation was when the management appointed someone over me and I was happy to use the opportunity to show that I was by far the better candidate(!), and I had the opportunity because no one else wanted to volunteer. I spoke every other week at the departmental teachmeet. Not the best motivation for sharing practice!
So what is the answer? A culture where teachers are allowed to seek support from each other and are happy to share their ideas. Not immediately easy, but a few key characters who naturally talk about their lessons help to spread this culture.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Why weren't schools already encouraging and allowing all members of staff to share good practice? Do we need to have a teachmeet or could we have just used meetings or even gatherings?
Can the sharing of good practice and ideas occur by another means than someone standing in front of a presentation and recycling an idea? I would hope so.
In the first school I worked in we discussed classes, ideas, strategies. There was no competition between staff for favour of the management so we were happy to share and support each other. More than that we had a layer of middle management who wanted to improve the experience for the students and also support other staff: They didn't want to get an assistant associate vice championship league division 2 head teacher position. The ideas didn't need a acronym and they didn't need to be celebrated during morning briefing, there was no mention of "boosting your CV".
In the third school I worked in it was all about point scoring. Young staff who saw possible positions on the management team, usually via a head of year position. There were no organic sharing of ideas only attempts to get the management to favour you. Discussions were not about pedagogy, they were about organisational matters. Re-writing schemes were about filling in boxes in order to look "innovative", not about ensuring best practice were embedded first. More over there was no learning for peers because everyone had to appear as the expert, no one was allowed to be humble as that was a weakness.
Maybe the schools that intend to do in-school teachmeet need something to kick start the sharing of practice. But I worry. The only time I was happy to "show off" at an in school teachmeet situation was when the management appointed someone over me and I was happy to use the opportunity to show that I was by far the better candidate(!), and I had the opportunity because no one else wanted to volunteer. I spoke every other week at the departmental teachmeet. Not the best motivation for sharing practice!
So what is the answer? A culture where teachers are allowed to seek support from each other and are happy to share their ideas. Not immediately easy, but a few key characters who naturally talk about their lessons help to spread this culture.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Newsletters via email and post
I stated in a previous blog post that I had felt the need to take charge of my own professional development as it was falling between the cracks at my previous school.
I joined a lot of mailing lists.
Some of them are:
Snapshot Science
National STEM centre
SAPS
National Science and Engineering Week
OCR
Edexcel
ASE
SCORE
Planet Science
Teachfind
Science Learning Centre
Nuffield Foundation
@Bristol
Sec-Ed
National College for School Leadership
RI channel
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
I joined a lot of mailing lists.
Some of them are:
Snapshot Science
National STEM centre
SAPS
National Science and Engineering Week
OCR
Edexcel
ASE
SCORE
Planet Science
Teachfind
Science Learning Centre
Nuffield Foundation
@Bristol
Sec-Ed
National College for School Leadership
RI channel
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Location:The Circus,Bristol,United Kingdom
Excitement over the January ASE conference
The annual ASE conference is 4 months away, but I am excited already.
The preview brochure has come through the post in the last week.
I have been through and highlighted everything I want to go to. I need a Hermione Granger time turner thingy to go to everything I have chosen. And as more is added I may struggle even more.
I know this year that I will only choose a couple of booked courses so I can change my plans as more events are added to the programme.
I really hope that there is a lecture like the in the zone lecture last year or David Attenborough the year before. I will keep my Friday afternoon free just in case.
I would recommend to anyone to go to a frontier lecture, as well as the teaching workshops and debates.
I have other things in my life this term, a trip up North, a holiday in Cornwall and of course Christmas, this just makes my job a bit more entertaining too.
If you are a science teacher you should try to go.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
The preview brochure has come through the post in the last week.
I have been through and highlighted everything I want to go to. I need a Hermione Granger time turner thingy to go to everything I have chosen. And as more is added I may struggle even more.
I know this year that I will only choose a couple of booked courses so I can change my plans as more events are added to the programme.
I really hope that there is a lecture like the in the zone lecture last year or David Attenborough the year before. I will keep my Friday afternoon free just in case.
I would recommend to anyone to go to a frontier lecture, as well as the teaching workshops and debates.
I have other things in my life this term, a trip up North, a holiday in Cornwall and of course Christmas, this just makes my job a bit more entertaining too.
If you are a science teacher you should try to go.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Thursday, 12 July 2012
A teacher's library - how much is excessive?
Am I alone in having a massive library of teaching books? I doubt it.
This is the shelf that has most of my pedagogy based ones, and some of the journals I have.
But I also have a lot of textbooks. Most of them bought with my own money.
I haven't photographed my folders of schemes of work. They fill shelves at school and crates at home.
Is there a better way?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
This is the shelf that has most of my pedagogy based ones, and some of the journals I have.
But I also have a lot of textbooks. Most of them bought with my own money.
I haven't photographed my folders of schemes of work. They fill shelves at school and crates at home.
Is there a better way?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)