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.

Confidence Grids. Mixed reviews: but I like it.

I have been inspired by the York Science project (www.yorkscience.org.uk ) to use diagnostic questions with my students. York Science have already produced lots of examples for key stage 3, but after a suggestion about using examiners reports on their blogs I decided to change my attention to GCSE classes. http://yorkscience.org.uk/making-best-use-of-exam-questions/

I made some over the summer as examples for the department, but yesterday and today was the first time that I tried them with a GCSE class. I gave the question in the image above to both my year 11 chemistry classes. It was a review of the last section where they learned about using temperature to change the rate of reaction.

I was really pleased with the results. From my point of view I could see who had misconceptions and might write the wrong thing in an exam: those who did not understand English enough to realise why an answer is wrong. For example the answer 'the collisions are faster gave a lot of debate in the class as to why this did not mean the same thing as 'the collisions are more frequent'.

I asked the students afterwards, a few did not like the activity. They did not want to get the question wrong in the first place and found it hard to understand. A few didn't mind the activity. And some were pleased as they liked that you could see the sort of statements that wouldn't give you marks and therefore know how to avoid them.

I think that this is a great activity to use with a class, and will aim to use them more often.

Thanks a lot to Mary Whitehouse and the York Science Team.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Bowldown Rd,Tetbury,United Kingdom

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

Embedded Formative Assessment

Embedded Formative Assessment is a term used by Dylan Williams. it means monitoring the student's progress during the lesson.

This is something that I want to check happens in the lessons in the science faculty at my school. Questioning and using tasks to promote discussion with students and between students.

But if it isn't happening how do I support staff into bringing this into lessons?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad