Sunday, August 19, 2007
Learning Stlyes
Thanks to Kenneth's post 'Learning Styles Serendipity' for directing me towards this excellent critical review Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A critical analysis of a large spectrum of theories pertaining to learning styles is presented highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. An excellent read where I am sure there might be some styles lurking in there that were unknown.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
How Research Was Implemented.
The study of the literature, in the previous posts, provided an insight into some of the negative aspects of assessment in education with suggested methods to enable assessment to deliver more positive and effective results. It was also clear that the end product, the main focus of the majority of assessments, does not always give a true reflection of what a child knows as the process and the teacher’s delivery method are also important criteria in assessment. The purpose of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of this perspective through the following research question:
How can teachers assess if their teaching does not cater for how children learn?
The research question posed three important criteria on the research: children’s perceptions of how they learn, styles of teaching and evaluation tools. How we learn not what we learn was one of the driving issues during the research to enable children to develop a better understanding of their own learning styles through participation and reflection on four different lessons that were delivered using four approaches derived from VARK : auditory, auditory and visual, visual and interactive. An electronic means of recording children’s evaluations rather than paper was selected using the social media tool ‘Blogger’ (www.blogger.com) as it enabled children time to reflect and respond to each lesson at home rather than be restricted to a few minutes at the end of the lesson to reflect on the lesson and also, to ensure the allocated teaching time is used mainly for teaching and learning. The Blogger software also enabled each group’s responses to be categorised per group and lesson using the tag system thus providing a quick and simple electronic retrieval system.
The participants were four classes of primary seven children (eighteen children per class) at an independent school where each class normally received the same forty minute ICT lesson each week over a four week period. Due to the nature of the research where group responses were required for comparable purposes each class were taught the same concept but with a different method of delivery as follows:
How can teachers assess if their teaching does not cater for how children learn?
The research question posed three important criteria on the research: children’s perceptions of how they learn, styles of teaching and evaluation tools. How we learn not what we learn was one of the driving issues during the research to enable children to develop a better understanding of their own learning styles through participation and reflection on four different lessons that were delivered using four approaches derived from VARK : auditory, auditory and visual, visual and interactive. An electronic means of recording children’s evaluations rather than paper was selected using the social media tool ‘Blogger’ (www.blogger.com) as it enabled children time to reflect and respond to each lesson at home rather than be restricted to a few minutes at the end of the lesson to reflect on the lesson and also, to ensure the allocated teaching time is used mainly for teaching and learning. The Blogger software also enabled each group’s responses to be categorised per group and lesson using the tag system thus providing a quick and simple electronic retrieval system.
The participants were four classes of primary seven children (eighteen children per class) at an independent school where each class normally received the same forty minute ICT lesson each week over a four week period. Due to the nature of the research where group responses were required for comparable purposes each class were taught the same concept but with a different method of delivery as follows:
The four different lessons focused on teaching children how to create and use two social media tools: email and wikis. The first two lessons focused on email using the provider ‘Yahoo’ (www.yahoo.co.uk) which provides free email accounts. Although the children had personal email accounts at school the decision to use an external provider stemmed from:
· the need to educate children in how to create accounts with a social media tool;
· the need to use a social media tool safely due to the influx of children using Bebos, Myspace, MSN, FaceBook, etc…
· the need to have an account with a provider like Yahoo to enable children to use their account to participate with many of the other social media tools that would be used during term time, for example, Blogger, Voki and Wikis.
The second set of lessons used the school wiki area: http://juniorschool.wikispaces.com to develop basic skills of using a wiki and introduce children to the instant publishing and collaborative aspects of a wiki page.
After each lesson a brief discussion on what made the lesson successful or unsuccessful was discussed to ensure the children understood what they were evaluating: the delivery of the lesson not the outcome was the main focus. Each child then entered their evaluation after each lesson at the blog http://aifl.blogspot.com by selecting the comment link assigned to their group’s lesson.
Prior to commencing the four week block of lessons, a discussion with each class on how they thought they learned took place with each child entering their initial thoughts into their class’s area on the AiFL blog during class time. There were two reasons the children undertook this activity; one to find out if they were aware of how they learn and if this view would change at the end of the block of lessons, the other was to ensure that the children knew how to access the AiFL blog and locate their group’s section and create a comment.
Since the patterns of behaviours of the children and the influences that ICT have on them, rather than a statistical perspective, were more important to the research, a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach to the research was adopted through the following sub-questions:
What are children’s perceptions of how they learn?
What styles of teaching provides the best learning context?
What benefits/disadvantages occurred through using technology in the assessment process?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Learning Stlyes
We all have different methods of assimilating information which have been defined by various theorists over the years to develop a better understanding of how we should present information to others. One of the main theorists, Dr. Howard Gardner, developed the theory of Multiple Intelligence in 1983 (Wise 2002) that consisted of eight different modes to demonstrate how we assimilate information:
· Linguistic intelligence;
· Logical-mathematical intelligence;
· Spatial intelligence;
· Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence;
· Musical intelligence;
· Interpersonal Intelligence;
· Intrapersonal Intelligence;
· Naturalist Intelligence.
Kolb’s theory of learning breaks down the above list into four concise compartments where children learn as:
· Diverging (feelings and watching);
· Assimilating (watching and thinking);
· Converging (doing and thinking);
· Accommodating (doing and feeling).
Gardner’s and Kolb’s theories of learning have influenced researchers and educationalists seeking to define the most effective way to teach children. Although both theories are used widely, the most popular theory is the VAK (Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic) which was developed from the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research. Some analysts add Read/write to make VARK which mirrors a large proportion of learning in schools where children read texts from books, screens or whiteboards which they copy, note take or write in their own words.
Each of the above theories highlights how we learn in different ways, for example, some people perform better by listening to information, whereas, others prefer using their visual skills by reading information. The traditional instructional style of teaching may not be meeting everyone’s learning styles resulting in children’s assessments being misinterpreted where the teacher views their failure as not knowing rather than not understanding. Assessment is therefore not just about end products and test results but more importantly about:
‘growing understandings of how we learn and how good teachers teach.’
(Smith I 2004: 10)
· Linguistic intelligence;
· Logical-mathematical intelligence;
· Spatial intelligence;
· Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence;
· Musical intelligence;
· Interpersonal Intelligence;
· Intrapersonal Intelligence;
· Naturalist Intelligence.
Kolb’s theory of learning breaks down the above list into four concise compartments where children learn as:
· Diverging (feelings and watching);
· Assimilating (watching and thinking);
· Converging (doing and thinking);
· Accommodating (doing and feeling).
Gardner’s and Kolb’s theories of learning have influenced researchers and educationalists seeking to define the most effective way to teach children. Although both theories are used widely, the most popular theory is the VAK (Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic) which was developed from the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research. Some analysts add Read/write to make VARK which mirrors a large proportion of learning in schools where children read texts from books, screens or whiteboards which they copy, note take or write in their own words.
Each of the above theories highlights how we learn in different ways, for example, some people perform better by listening to information, whereas, others prefer using their visual skills by reading information. The traditional instructional style of teaching may not be meeting everyone’s learning styles resulting in children’s assessments being misinterpreted where the teacher views their failure as not knowing rather than not understanding. Assessment is therefore not just about end products and test results but more importantly about:
‘growing understandings of how we learn and how good teachers teach.’
(Smith I 2004: 10)
Monday, June 25, 2007
It Is My Right To Know
It is not just the teacher who is the sole contributor to evaluating a child’s piece of work but the child and peer’s views are also of great importance. Due to the demands of an active classroom it is difficult for teachers to be able to give quality feedback to every child on every piece of work completed daily. This is where an integrated and balanced approach to self and peer assessment enable pupils to reflect on not one person’s views but the views of others and self. This is not a process that comes natural to children as they do not have the experience and training of a teacher. Children are, however, honest evaluators and quick learners under the correct guidance from their teachers who inform children what they need to learn (learning intention) and how to recognise success (success criteria). If a child does not understand what or why a task is being undertaken due the learning intention not being clear or having too many aspects to meet then misunderstandings will arise. Children need to know what end product or process the teacher wants them to accomplish where:
‘knowing the leaning intention for every task is it seems, a child’s basic right as a learner.’
(Clarke S 2006: 47)
By sharing the learning intentions with children, not only are they more focused and ready to start tasks with less time-wasting tactics it also provides a clear focus when evaluating. Once the desired goal is clear, feedback needs to also take into account present position and a way to close the gap (Sadler 1989 cited Black & Wiliam): where is the child in their learning and what do they need to do to move on. This part of the evaluation process is much easier for teachers as they look at each child on individual levels. Children, on the other hand, can be self-centred in that they may judge another child’s work to their own ability. This is where peer evaluation can fall down as it is not just the end product or the concrete evidence that is assessable but the internal learning process. Even for teacher’s this task can be difficult as:
‘tuning into the learner’s mind to clarify what learning has taken place, to identify what learning difficulties are being experienced and to introduce future tasks is one of the biggest challenges for classroom teachers.’
(Smith I 2004: 18)
It is hard to tune into to every pupil’s mind because the classroom teacher is always rushing to get through a set of work. Even when they question pupils they quickly want the correct answer through their addiction to the right answer and wanting to proceed to the next part of the lesson. Children who don’t respond promptly or with understanding become disaffected as they are not giving ‘thinking time’ or the delivery of the lesson does not meet their learning style.
‘knowing the leaning intention for every task is it seems, a child’s basic right as a learner.’
(Clarke S 2006: 47)
By sharing the learning intentions with children, not only are they more focused and ready to start tasks with less time-wasting tactics it also provides a clear focus when evaluating. Once the desired goal is clear, feedback needs to also take into account present position and a way to close the gap (Sadler 1989 cited Black & Wiliam): where is the child in their learning and what do they need to do to move on. This part of the evaluation process is much easier for teachers as they look at each child on individual levels. Children, on the other hand, can be self-centred in that they may judge another child’s work to their own ability. This is where peer evaluation can fall down as it is not just the end product or the concrete evidence that is assessable but the internal learning process. Even for teacher’s this task can be difficult as:
‘tuning into the learner’s mind to clarify what learning has taken place, to identify what learning difficulties are being experienced and to introduce future tasks is one of the biggest challenges for classroom teachers.’
(Smith I 2004: 18)
It is hard to tune into to every pupil’s mind because the classroom teacher is always rushing to get through a set of work. Even when they question pupils they quickly want the correct answer through their addiction to the right answer and wanting to proceed to the next part of the lesson. Children who don’t respond promptly or with understanding become disaffected as they are not giving ‘thinking time’ or the delivery of the lesson does not meet their learning style.
The Nail In The Coffin
The learning and teaching aspect of assessment falls under the umbrella of AiFL as a sub-category Assessment AS Learning: learning how to learn where learners become more aware of what they learn, how they learn and what helps them learn (LTS ). Learning how to learn has parallels with Vygotsky’s constructivist model of learning where adult interaction and discussion enables teachers to extend children’s understandings (Durkin K 1995). Giving a mark or a basic comment are no longer deemed appropriate to enable a child to progress as the mark or vague comment only gives a message of what a child did not achieve not how they can achieve it. Research reveals that marking is really a teacher chore that they do because they need to have all the work marked to date resulting in the ‘time monster’ being against them. Marking is also done ‘away’ from children with feedback coming too late after the learning. What Assessment AS Learning advocates is that feedback to children should be more constructive with comments about how to achieve rather than marks. This does not eliminate using marks as children do need to know how well they are doing but they do not need constant reminders when they are failing they need advice where:
‘The real purpose of marking is to give good feedback to children about how well they did against a specific learning intention and some ideas about how they can improve.’
(Smith I 2004: 18)
‘The real purpose of marking is to give good feedback to children about how well they did against a specific learning intention and some ideas about how they can improve.’
(Smith I 2004: 18)
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The Answer
Black & Wiliam (1998) advocated that formative assessment was the answer to these problems. Their research proved that formative assessment, day-to-day ongoing assessment based on how well children fulfil learning intentions, had a more positive impact resulting in raised standards for all levels of abilities compared to summative assessment, snapshot testing which establishes what a child can do at that time (Clarke 1998). Black & Wiliams came to classify assessment as:
‘all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by their students in assessing themselves, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged.’
(Black & Wiliams 1998: 2)
By assessing formatively the end product is no longer the focus but the process where the teacher becomes more informed of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ a child has learnt to enable future learning to build on what the child needs to learn and adapts the learning to meet the child’s style of learning. Teachers now need to:
‘focus on how children are learning. They need to tune into children’s minds to connect with their thinking and feelings…The rational for formative assessment is based firmly on our growing understanding of how we learn and how good teachers teach.’
(Smith I 2004: 10)
‘all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by their students in assessing themselves, which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged.’
(Black & Wiliams 1998: 2)
By assessing formatively the end product is no longer the focus but the process where the teacher becomes more informed of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ a child has learnt to enable future learning to build on what the child needs to learn and adapts the learning to meet the child’s style of learning. Teachers now need to:
‘focus on how children are learning. They need to tune into children’s minds to connect with their thinking and feelings…The rational for formative assessment is based firmly on our growing understanding of how we learn and how good teachers teach.’
(Smith I 2004: 10)
Harmful Effects Of Assessing
The turning point in assessment in education was through Black & Wiliam’s (1998) report Inside The Black Box which highlighted many of the negative aspects of assessment at that time backed by evidence that:
“there is a wealth of research evidence that the everyday practice of assessment in classrooms is beset with problems and short-comings.”
(Black & Williams 1998: 5)
One of the problems was with effective teaching where emphasise was on quantity and presentation rather than quality. The second problem was the negative impact of marks. It was apparent that the final mark, rather than the process, was more important with cases of children being taught to the test in order that the results were high. The effect on underachievers was detrimental as they constantly could not achieve high results or, at the other end of the spectrum, the process becomes a competition with peers rather than personal improvement. The third concern was the managerial role where the collection of marks was more important than the analysis of the results. This style of assessing was summed up
‘Classroom assessment has become disconnected from learning. For many teachers, it is mainly about measurement through paper and pencil tests, administered by the teacher after leaning has taken place with the aim of assigning a pupil to an appropriate level or grade.’
(Smith I 2004: 8)
This style of assessment is very much a tick sheet that looks at results and presentation but is not concerned with the process and how to improve teaching and learning for the children. How many times has assessment taking place at the end of term or the end of a unit and no change to teaching has taken place or mis-understandings addressed because it is time to move on to the next concepts or topic? How can plans be changed when the assessment is only giving a snapshot of what the children know at that time resulting in children being labelled as low achievers? These styles of assessment that encourage rote and superficial learning focus on comparative results that can communicate failure rather than supporting progress where:
“Low achievers become overwhelmed by assessments and de-motivated by constant evidence of their low achievement.”
(ARG 2002: 4)
“there is a wealth of research evidence that the everyday practice of assessment in classrooms is beset with problems and short-comings.”
(Black & Williams 1998: 5)
One of the problems was with effective teaching where emphasise was on quantity and presentation rather than quality. The second problem was the negative impact of marks. It was apparent that the final mark, rather than the process, was more important with cases of children being taught to the test in order that the results were high. The effect on underachievers was detrimental as they constantly could not achieve high results or, at the other end of the spectrum, the process becomes a competition with peers rather than personal improvement. The third concern was the managerial role where the collection of marks was more important than the analysis of the results. This style of assessing was summed up
‘Classroom assessment has become disconnected from learning. For many teachers, it is mainly about measurement through paper and pencil tests, administered by the teacher after leaning has taken place with the aim of assigning a pupil to an appropriate level or grade.’
(Smith I 2004: 8)
This style of assessment is very much a tick sheet that looks at results and presentation but is not concerned with the process and how to improve teaching and learning for the children. How many times has assessment taking place at the end of term or the end of a unit and no change to teaching has taken place or mis-understandings addressed because it is time to move on to the next concepts or topic? How can plans be changed when the assessment is only giving a snapshot of what the children know at that time resulting in children being labelled as low achievers? These styles of assessment that encourage rote and superficial learning focus on comparative results that can communicate failure rather than supporting progress where:
“Low achievers become overwhelmed by assessments and de-motivated by constant evidence of their low achievement.”
(ARG 2002: 4)
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Let's Start From The Very Beginning
ACE (A Curriculum For Excellence) and AiFL (Assessment is For Learning) are a few of the buzz words that have permeated teaching environments over the past few years. Since the launch of A Curriculum for Excellence in November 2004 by the Scottish Executive many educationalists have analysed the curriculum to put children at the heart of learning and teaching to enable all young people to become successful learners, responsible citizens, effective contributors and confident individuals (Scottish Executive 2006).
By redefining learning and teaching this changes how we address assessment to ensure assessment fits
‘the purposes of learning, using techniques which are well chosen to support learning, inform planning of next steps and give a good basis for reporting of progress.’
(Scottish Executive 2006)
The initiative AiFL supports ACE where teachers review their assessment procedures to make them more in tune with learning and teaching through carefully questioning, planning and sharing the results. The importance of AiFL as a major pedagogy in all classrooms was put forward by the Scottish Executive (2006) who proposed that all Scottish Schools would be aware of AiFL by 2007.
This awareness is well and truely imbeded in our schools and any teacher who looks puzzled when met with the acronym AiFL has surely had no interest in current educational initiatives. If 2007 was the proposed date for awareness when will the date for all teachers implementing AiFL into their classrooms be? If it has not already started than now is the time to change the way assessment is used in the classroom so that:
‘learning and teaching are at the heart of an effective curriculum.’
(Scottish Executive 2006)
By redefining learning and teaching this changes how we address assessment to ensure assessment fits
‘the purposes of learning, using techniques which are well chosen to support learning, inform planning of next steps and give a good basis for reporting of progress.’
(Scottish Executive 2006)
The initiative AiFL supports ACE where teachers review their assessment procedures to make them more in tune with learning and teaching through carefully questioning, planning and sharing the results. The importance of AiFL as a major pedagogy in all classrooms was put forward by the Scottish Executive (2006) who proposed that all Scottish Schools would be aware of AiFL by 2007.
This awareness is well and truely imbeded in our schools and any teacher who looks puzzled when met with the acronym AiFL has surely had no interest in current educational initiatives. If 2007 was the proposed date for awareness when will the date for all teachers implementing AiFL into their classrooms be? If it has not already started than now is the time to change the way assessment is used in the classroom so that:
‘learning and teaching are at the heart of an effective curriculum.’
(Scottish Executive 2006)
Assessing How Children Learn Not What They Learn
AiFL is the buzz word in staff rooms and meetings where different methods of formative assessment are being implemented for the benfit of children to ensure that assessment is at the heart of learning. This is all fine but there is not point is assessing children if the method of teaching does not meet their learning styles. Over the past months I have put myself on the line to ask children to assess my teaching methods. Before I hear you ask, I have not gone down the line of 'rate my teacher'. The evaulations the children made were more reflections on how successful or unsuccessful they were due to the way that I taught. This gave insights in their different learning styles and how one style does not fit all. Over the next few days I am going to give a more indepth analyses of my study of learning stlyes mixed with current theories in the hope that someone will take onboard this 'how' rather than the 'why' as a starting point with children.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Group 4 - Last Lesson
Today's lesson was taught to you with only the teacher talking. How easy was it to follow the instructions? Did you need to ask for help? Would you want all your lessons just to be talking?
Group 3 - Last Lesson
Today's lesson was taught to you with the teacher talking and notes on the board. How easy was it to follow the instructions? Did you need to ask for help? Was this the best way for you to learn?
Group 2 - Last Lesson
Today's lesson was taught to you using only notes and no teacher talking. How easy was it to follow the instructions? Did you need to ask for help? Would you want all your lessons just to be notes?
Group 1 - Last Lesson
Today's lesson was taught to you using notes, teacher explaining and the whiteboard for demonstrations - the all singing and dancing way. How easy was it to follow the instructions? Did you need to ask for help? Would you want all your lessons taught this way?
Friday, February 02, 2007
Group 4 - Creating A Report
Today's lesson was taught to you with the teacher talking and notes on the board. How easy was it to follow the instructions? Did you need to ask for help? Was this the best way for you to learn?
Group 3 - Creating A Report
Today's lesson was taught to you with only the teacher talking. How easy was it to follow the instructions? Did you need to ask for help? Would you want all your lessons just to be talking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)