I am trying to map out progression through the working scientifically ideas, I can't do that without looking back at the work that has gone by on levels and APP.
I can't help thinking about progression of students as being in levels or stages. I can't help but think that there are levels of difficulty in tasks and levels of outcomes to activities.
I have an idea about what I want my students to be able to do at the end of Year 9. How do I get them from the level they are at when they start Year 7 to the level I want them to be at the end of Year 9, but by a series of steps or levels?
Showing posts with label APP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label APP. Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
Saturday, 1 March 2014
Scrapping Levels: Opportunity or Threat?
I have read a few things lately about the use of levels in schools that help me to understand why some teachers and managers are happy at their demise. However, these comments also make me feel that we need something to replace levels.
If schools and teachers are using levels and not using the information to inform intervention and support progression, then I would agree levels are not fit for purpose. But I would question why they would not.
I am not really interested in measuring students; schools will need a way to do this. They can use grades A-E as I had when I was at middle school (before levels) and compare students against other students in the school. An A or B grade will keep parents happy. Tracking can be done through percentages and scores on tests. If schemes of work are built where content gets harder then we'd assume that students are progressing in their studies if they get more than zero in a test?
I would agree with those who question the use of levels in reporting. I would ask: 'how honest are the levels we report to senior management and parents'? And I suggest the answer is not very. Is it possible to accurate to within a sub level? Are students always learning at the same level and does that level get incrementally bigger each term? In the case of science, I would say not. So why does a good proportion of reports, I have seen, imply this is the case?
Another question would be 'how confident are teachers with level descriptors'? In my experience, not very! I have watched lessons that were engaging and entertaining, but not above level 3. I have seen levelled objectives that were not levelled correctly. I have worked with many teachers who couldn't describe level ladders even in a simplified version such as 'identify', 'describe', 'explain', 'use key ideas', and 'link key ideas'. Without understanding the levels and progression they represent then levels are useless.
However, how do teachers ensure they are pitching their lessons correctly, how do they know whether some concepts are more difficult than others, how do they know what advice to give to students to help them move forward in their understanding?
I want to take my students from a concrete understanding (level 4) to an abstract one (level 6), how will the teachers of the future know this without having the structure of levels? Will we be taught it? Will it be forgotten?
I won't stop using my knowledge of levels to help my student progress. I won't stop using that knowledge to help students understand the generic outcomes and how to improve their understanding and written work. I won't stop using levels to understand where to pitch the difficulty of my lessons.
What will the science teachers of the future do to help them understand the difficulty and progression in key stage 3 science? I am concerned that the 'scrapping' of levels means that we are throwing away the idea of progression in the thinking of our students and instead of helping students to understand more difficult concepts we will just expect students to know 'more'. This is not the same.
What is more difficult, understanding the particle model or understanding balanced and unbalanced forces? What constitutes a higher level of knowledge, remembering the first 20 elements of the periodic table or being able to explain the difference between metals and non-metals?
I don't ever believe that if a system isn't working we should just throw it away before firstly considering what the problem is and secondly thinking about why the system was introduced in the first place. We need to ask ourselves what Paul Black was trying to achieve in his work that underpinned the idea of levels, and if we are throwing that away when we throw away the level descriptors. I think we are.
If schools and teachers are using levels and not using the information to inform intervention and support progression, then I would agree levels are not fit for purpose. But I would question why they would not.
I am not really interested in measuring students; schools will need a way to do this. They can use grades A-E as I had when I was at middle school (before levels) and compare students against other students in the school. An A or B grade will keep parents happy. Tracking can be done through percentages and scores on tests. If schemes of work are built where content gets harder then we'd assume that students are progressing in their studies if they get more than zero in a test?
I would agree with those who question the use of levels in reporting. I would ask: 'how honest are the levels we report to senior management and parents'? And I suggest the answer is not very. Is it possible to accurate to within a sub level? Are students always learning at the same level and does that level get incrementally bigger each term? In the case of science, I would say not. So why does a good proportion of reports, I have seen, imply this is the case?
Another question would be 'how confident are teachers with level descriptors'? In my experience, not very! I have watched lessons that were engaging and entertaining, but not above level 3. I have seen levelled objectives that were not levelled correctly. I have worked with many teachers who couldn't describe level ladders even in a simplified version such as 'identify', 'describe', 'explain', 'use key ideas', and 'link key ideas'. Without understanding the levels and progression they represent then levels are useless.
However, how do teachers ensure they are pitching their lessons correctly, how do they know whether some concepts are more difficult than others, how do they know what advice to give to students to help them move forward in their understanding?
I want to take my students from a concrete understanding (level 4) to an abstract one (level 6), how will the teachers of the future know this without having the structure of levels? Will we be taught it? Will it be forgotten?
I won't stop using my knowledge of levels to help my student progress. I won't stop using that knowledge to help students understand the generic outcomes and how to improve their understanding and written work. I won't stop using levels to understand where to pitch the difficulty of my lessons.
What will the science teachers of the future do to help them understand the difficulty and progression in key stage 3 science? I am concerned that the 'scrapping' of levels means that we are throwing away the idea of progression in the thinking of our students and instead of helping students to understand more difficult concepts we will just expect students to know 'more'. This is not the same.
What is more difficult, understanding the particle model or understanding balanced and unbalanced forces? What constitutes a higher level of knowledge, remembering the first 20 elements of the periodic table or being able to explain the difference between metals and non-metals?
I don't ever believe that if a system isn't working we should just throw it away before firstly considering what the problem is and secondly thinking about why the system was introduced in the first place. We need to ask ourselves what Paul Black was trying to achieve in his work that underpinned the idea of levels, and if we are throwing that away when we throw away the level descriptors. I think we are.
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
Improving your work in science
I haven't had a good experience with key stage 3 schemes of work in the past 5 years. (Until I came across Segue and Wikid from Upd8). I was happy to learn that at my new school, we use the QCA units in my department.
However, now that I am now teaching from the QCA schemes again I am not particularly happy about them. I am won over by the themes and how the UpD8 schemes allow progression of skills and thinking and do not cause the teacher (or me at least) to focus on knowlegde. I think that this helps the student develop into a scientific thinker during key stage 3.
We are not supposed to use levels at school. Dylan William has been listened to and levels are not to be given out. I rely on them see: "are-levels-my-crutch" I need the APP grid to help me give advice to help the students improve. I don't just want to teach content. Science changes, an analytical mind will be capable of working things out, if it is able to develop at school.
So how do I help my students go from "I want to remember lots of things" to "How can I explain this in a more detailed way"?
I have tried. The presentation below contains examples of level ladders that I asked the students to use. But they found it very difficult, and I am not entirely sure why.
I know that now I need to use my questioning and dare I say "academic mentoring" to move the students on towards more independence in their thinking.
I can't get away from using levels. Even those that use SOLO are assigning a level, it just isn't a number, to their students and/or their work. The levels are labels to help us as teachers, and it helps lad mark the progression.
My previous post shows the type of activity I am doing at the moment. http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/trying-to-develop-thinking-in-classroom.html I hope that by using APP explicitly I can help the students to realise that only be thinking and adding detail to their answers can they improve in science.
It worked before, can I get it to work again?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Location:Easton-in-Gordano,United Kingdom
However, now that I am now teaching from the QCA schemes again I am not particularly happy about them. I am won over by the themes and how the UpD8 schemes allow progression of skills and thinking and do not cause the teacher (or me at least) to focus on knowlegde. I think that this helps the student develop into a scientific thinker during key stage 3.
We are not supposed to use levels at school. Dylan William has been listened to and levels are not to be given out. I rely on them see: "are-levels-my-crutch" I need the APP grid to help me give advice to help the students improve. I don't just want to teach content. Science changes, an analytical mind will be capable of working things out, if it is able to develop at school.
So how do I help my students go from "I want to remember lots of things" to "How can I explain this in a more detailed way"?
I have tried. The presentation below contains examples of level ladders that I asked the students to use. But they found it very difficult, and I am not entirely sure why.
I know that now I need to use my questioning and dare I say "academic mentoring" to move the students on towards more independence in their thinking.
I can't get away from using levels. Even those that use SOLO are assigning a level, it just isn't a number, to their students and/or their work. The levels are labels to help us as teachers, and it helps lad mark the progression.
My previous post shows the type of activity I am doing at the moment. http://geordiescience.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/trying-to-develop-thinking-in-classroom.html I hope that by using APP explicitly I can help the students to realise that only be thinking and adding detail to their answers can they improve in science.
It worked before, can I get it to work again?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Location:Easton-in-Gordano,United Kingdom
Trying to develop thinking in the classroom
This is an activity I did with 9.1 on Monday and will try again with 9.1 tomorrow.
The idea is that they can write the answer to varying degrees of depth and I can use questioning to help them realise the thinking involved. This should have the desired effect of bringing on their metacognition and hopefully improve their approach to both learning and answering exam questions.
On Monday the class were very clingy and unwilling to give it a go without me checking their work every moment and reassuring them they were correct. I also had a handful that use the opportunity to not get on with the work whilst I was helping others. I think that their confidence levels need to be improved, but hopefully by doing these sorts of activities it will do just that.
The idea is that they can write the answer to varying degrees of depth and I can use questioning to help them realise the thinking involved. This should have the desired effect of bringing on their metacognition and hopefully improve their approach to both learning and answering exam questions.
On Monday the class were very clingy and unwilling to give it a go without me checking their work every moment and reassuring them they were correct. I also had a handful that use the opportunity to not get on with the work whilst I was helping others. I think that their confidence levels need to be improved, but hopefully by doing these sorts of activities it will do just that.
Saturday, 21 April 2012
Are Levels my Crutch?
I read in this month's copy of "Education in Science" that levels are unlikely to feature in the new re-write of the national curriculum.
There are so many issues with levels and grades. Firstly that students think that they are a failure if they don't get a certain level or grade. Parents too get hung up on grades. Secondly there are teachers who don't know what it means for a student to be at a certain level and what that level looks like. This knowledge gets even less confident at GCSE.
I have already written a blog post about using APP to help students to engage in their learning. Moreover, levels have helped me to understand the progression of students, the subtleties of what I am teaching and how I am teaching it.
I can't imagine teaching without levels; it will be a big shift, but not necessarily for the worse.
There are so many issues with levels and grades. Firstly that students think that they are a failure if they don't get a certain level or grade. Parents too get hung up on grades. Secondly there are teachers who don't know what it means for a student to be at a certain level and what that level looks like. This knowledge gets even less confident at GCSE.
I have already written a blog post about using APP to help students to engage in their learning. Moreover, levels have helped me to understand the progression of students, the subtleties of what I am teaching and how I am teaching it.
I can't imagine teaching without levels; it will be a big shift, but not necessarily for the worse.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Using APP (badly) to improve engagement in my classroom
This year I have been teaching a course called Segue to my year 9 students. I have used Wikid before, a course from the same people for year 7 & 8, but I haven't been as impressed by that as I have by Segue.
For those who don't know the course consists of two or three lessons followed by an APP assessment. The lesson plans are thorough and included objectives that give a detailed picture of the ideas the students should be using.
After the first few teaching cycles my students latched onto the APP level criteria from the assessments. They wanted to get better. On top of this one of my groups starting getting upset and put off science because they were "the bottom set". So I started sharing APP levels with the groups in every lesson by writing them on the white board during my break or lunch before the lessons.
I would pick a stand of one of the assessment foci and write up the level 3-6 or 7 sentences corresponding to that idea.
Yes, the students were still interested in numbers: "does that make me level 6?" was asked quite a lot. "Could you do that independently?" is my reply to that question, followed up with "but now you know what to do next time to get to level 6".
By using APP in this way I was able to engage my groups, increasing their motivation and confidence. It has been an incredibly useful tool encouraging students to ask "what do I need to do to get better", and this was a regular question in my lessons.
There are a lot of statements in the key stage 3 APP grid; I just keep a laminated colour copy in my teaching files. I have started to pick up patterns and find strands that I like, but still don't know it that well. I have to plan the assessment into the lessons, but the rewards have been well worth it.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
For those who don't know the course consists of two or three lessons followed by an APP assessment. The lesson plans are thorough and included objectives that give a detailed picture of the ideas the students should be using.
After the first few teaching cycles my students latched onto the APP level criteria from the assessments. They wanted to get better. On top of this one of my groups starting getting upset and put off science because they were "the bottom set". So I started sharing APP levels with the groups in every lesson by writing them on the white board during my break or lunch before the lessons.
I would pick a stand of one of the assessment foci and write up the level 3-6 or 7 sentences corresponding to that idea.
Yes, the students were still interested in numbers: "does that make me level 6?" was asked quite a lot. "Could you do that independently?" is my reply to that question, followed up with "but now you know what to do next time to get to level 6".
By using APP in this way I was able to engage my groups, increasing their motivation and confidence. It has been an incredibly useful tool encouraging students to ask "what do I need to do to get better", and this was a regular question in my lessons.
There are a lot of statements in the key stage 3 APP grid; I just keep a laminated colour copy in my teaching files. I have started to pick up patterns and find strands that I like, but still don't know it that well. I have to plan the assessment into the lessons, but the rewards have been well worth it.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Cabot Close,Bristol,United Kingdom
Monday, 9 April 2012
What should the aims of a key stage 3 science curriculum be?
After being asked by a colleague via twitter what the aims of a ks3 scheme should be I reflected that although I have complained within this blog about the quality of the key stage 3 schemes at my school I have not written anything about what the schemes should be like.
When considering what key stage 3 should develop in my students I wrote a list of skills:
Investigating skills -
Drawing a table
Calculating averages
Drawing graphs including, choosing scales, picking the right sort of graph, drawing a line of best fit
Identifying patterns in data and in graphs
Identifying anomalies
Following a procedures/methods
Choosing equipment
Identifying variables, including ones to investigate, measure and control and the language associated with variables and fair testing
Describe how to make an experiment a fair test
Carry out a risk assessment
Using measuring equipment appropriately
Recognising the value in repeats
Understanding the vocabulary especially reliable, reproducible, repeatable, precise, valid, fair, sensitivity, and range
Evaluating procedures
Evaluating data
Comparing primary and secondary data
Making predictions and hypothesises, generating questions to investigate
Construct arguments/conclusion using evidence
Identify primary and secondary data
Communication skills -
Correctly using the language such as bias, theories, laws, principles,
Recognising bias in science articles
Using secondary sources
Identifying the work of a scientist and different types including how they work together
Describe how ideas can be developed
Use Internet and books to carry out research
And thinking skills - grouping, ordering, prioritising, classifying, identifying relationships, probability, using sizing, ratio, using abstract models
However, the vast majority of this can be found on the APP grid. (As much as this is disliked by many).
But just developing skills is not enough in my opinion. You also have to engage students in science, help them see the relevance to their every day lives. Future morph has great ideas relating science to our every day lives and sources for this, for example: http://www.futuremorph.org/teachers/viewitem.cfm?cit_id=4834
It is also vital that students get an idea of what science can and can't do; what is meant by science enquiry; and that science idea evolve and change as more evidence comes to light. To often science is taught and thought of as absolute truths, when in reality it is evolving.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
When considering what key stage 3 should develop in my students I wrote a list of skills:
Investigating skills -
Drawing a table
Calculating averages
Drawing graphs including, choosing scales, picking the right sort of graph, drawing a line of best fit
Identifying patterns in data and in graphs
Identifying anomalies
Following a procedures/methods
Choosing equipment
Identifying variables, including ones to investigate, measure and control and the language associated with variables and fair testing
Describe how to make an experiment a fair test
Carry out a risk assessment
Using measuring equipment appropriately
Recognising the value in repeats
Understanding the vocabulary especially reliable, reproducible, repeatable, precise, valid, fair, sensitivity, and range
Evaluating procedures
Evaluating data
Comparing primary and secondary data
Making predictions and hypothesises, generating questions to investigate
Construct arguments/conclusion using evidence
Identify primary and secondary data
Communication skills -
Correctly using the language such as bias, theories, laws, principles,
Recognising bias in science articles
Using secondary sources
Identifying the work of a scientist and different types including how they work together
Describe how ideas can be developed
Use Internet and books to carry out research
And thinking skills - grouping, ordering, prioritising, classifying, identifying relationships, probability, using sizing, ratio, using abstract models
However, the vast majority of this can be found on the APP grid. (As much as this is disliked by many).
But just developing skills is not enough in my opinion. You also have to engage students in science, help them see the relevance to their every day lives. Future morph has great ideas relating science to our every day lives and sources for this, for example: http://www.futuremorph.org/teachers/viewitem.cfm?cit_id=4834
It is also vital that students get an idea of what science can and can't do; what is meant by science enquiry; and that science idea evolve and change as more evidence comes to light. To often science is taught and thought of as absolute truths, when in reality it is evolving.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Bristol, UK.
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Differentiation, how practical and possible?
I have been talking to my partner during the course of this year about the "struggles" he is having with his classes. He is an AST (and his teaching skills and understanding are advanced beyond anyone else I have met, but I am biased), and part of those "struggles" is that he has very high standards for himself and his students.
His opinions and concerns are very interesting to me as he tries to mould an unruly bunch of students disinterested in science into a group of students who will engage and think for themselves. In order to to this he has had to use differentiation.
I suppose these days what he does is called personalised learning.
My partner knows all the students in his class very well. He makes it his business to engage with them and find out their interests. He has a little bit of knowledge about a lot of things so is easy to talk about subjects that the students have an interest in and link the science he is teaching to the things that the students can relate to.
Using this knowledge and his experience he is able to tailor the activities that the students in his class carry out to their specific needs. He can do this in such a way that the students don't look to another group and ask "why can't I do the same as him".
How does he do it?
Firstly he doesn't teach GCSE, he teaches key stage 3 and BTEC. Personally I find that these courses allow for a lot more flexibility than GCSE and are therefore more open for personalisation.
At key stage 3 he uses the APP grid to get students to set personalised targets for themselves. They can chose the level they want to work at and the outcomes of the activity are ones that they have set for themselves. He does this through questioning and using the conversations he has to empower his students.
He has also built in projects to his lessons. During the rocks topic he asked the students to produce a presentation about "why are rocks so special?" They could talk about or share on the web, but they couldn't use PowerPoint. The students' work ranged from an essay by one student to posters, to online mindmaps.
He has been using the reporting system within his school to support this. Asking students to demonstrate during his lessons that they are resilient, resourceful, reciprocal and reflective. It is difficult for the student to do that if the lessons are structured to the nth degree.
Within science it is always difficult to take a more personalised approach when the learning involves practical work. However, it is possible when you have a good knowledge of the curriculum, assessment levels and your own students by setting personal targets and better still get students to set their own targets based on something tangible.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
His opinions and concerns are very interesting to me as he tries to mould an unruly bunch of students disinterested in science into a group of students who will engage and think for themselves. In order to to this he has had to use differentiation.
I suppose these days what he does is called personalised learning.
My partner knows all the students in his class very well. He makes it his business to engage with them and find out their interests. He has a little bit of knowledge about a lot of things so is easy to talk about subjects that the students have an interest in and link the science he is teaching to the things that the students can relate to.
Using this knowledge and his experience he is able to tailor the activities that the students in his class carry out to their specific needs. He can do this in such a way that the students don't look to another group and ask "why can't I do the same as him".
How does he do it?
Firstly he doesn't teach GCSE, he teaches key stage 3 and BTEC. Personally I find that these courses allow for a lot more flexibility than GCSE and are therefore more open for personalisation.
At key stage 3 he uses the APP grid to get students to set personalised targets for themselves. They can chose the level they want to work at and the outcomes of the activity are ones that they have set for themselves. He does this through questioning and using the conversations he has to empower his students.
He has also built in projects to his lessons. During the rocks topic he asked the students to produce a presentation about "why are rocks so special?" They could talk about or share on the web, but they couldn't use PowerPoint. The students' work ranged from an essay by one student to posters, to online mindmaps.
He has been using the reporting system within his school to support this. Asking students to demonstrate during his lessons that they are resilient, resourceful, reciprocal and reflective. It is difficult for the student to do that if the lessons are structured to the nth degree.
Within science it is always difficult to take a more personalised approach when the learning involves practical work. However, it is possible when you have a good knowledge of the curriculum, assessment levels and your own students by setting personal targets and better still get students to set their own targets based on something tangible.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Rudgleigh Ave,,United Kingdom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)