H809 is only a 30 point course (2 = post-grad cert, 4 - diploma, + another 60 pointer = MA). Not sure if I will plod on although I have to say it is one of the most interesting courses I have ever done. Would be nice to have an online qualification under my belt. Maybe the certificate will be enough.
Anyway, the short course means it only has 3 assignments (50%) and a final project (50%). So I finished off assignment 3 today and turned my attention to the final project, which is in the form of a research proposal, with literature review.
My project is going to look at the development of my staff wiki (oft mentioned in earlier posts). I am thinking of using Browne's idea (2003) - see earlier blog post, 'virtual learning' - and employing Laurillard's four categories of interactivity, adaptivity, discursiveness and reflectivity to design my proposal. Not sure about this yet.
I am certainly thinking that the validity questions in activity 11.7 could be helpful in identifying any limitations in my proposal.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
learning communities and wiki editing etiquette
James Aczel blogs the following thoughts about editing etiquette on wikis and the communities which they both serve and form.
A wiki that consists only of additions and not revisions would be missing the chance to improve readability when accuracy, coverage and detail are improved. At the same time, losing the norm of respect for peers would also be undesirable.
So does a wiki made by such a community need additional etiquette compared with, say, Wikipedia?And if so, this wouldn't be the only community with such a tension between a desire to improve a shared resource and a desire not to offend. How might one delineate such communities?
Learning communities are characterised, in part, by a desire to continuously improve. A wiki can be used in many ways to enhance that learning community. In its simplest form, it can be a resource bank. This can be improved by peers making additions and also making comments on the usefulness of the content. I also have an idea that they can be used for research purposes in terms of collecting data through what might be called collaborative writing. A key idea is to use wikis as a means of collaborative learning. Mark Elliott shows how they can be used as a means of large scale consultation.
Perhaps the guidelines need to be made clear so that editing is more in the form of a dialogue than direct revision. However, this might make it more difficult for the reader to follow the argument through. A major problem is that contributions are not likely to be based on empirical considerations – so revisions might be more a matter of nuance or opinion than fact. I don’t feel as though I am close to an ‘answer’ to this one. Although it is possible to track the revision and update history on a wiki page, I believe that it’s quite important to name and date one’s additions.
A wiki that consists only of additions and not revisions would be missing the chance to improve readability when accuracy, coverage and detail are improved. At the same time, losing the norm of respect for peers would also be undesirable.
So does a wiki made by such a community need additional etiquette compared with, say, Wikipedia?And if so, this wouldn't be the only community with such a tension between a desire to improve a shared resource and a desire not to offend. How might one delineate such communities?
Learning communities are characterised, in part, by a desire to continuously improve. A wiki can be used in many ways to enhance that learning community. In its simplest form, it can be a resource bank. This can be improved by peers making additions and also making comments on the usefulness of the content. I also have an idea that they can be used for research purposes in terms of collecting data through what might be called collaborative writing. A key idea is to use wikis as a means of collaborative learning. Mark Elliott shows how they can be used as a means of large scale consultation.
Perhaps the guidelines need to be made clear so that editing is more in the form of a dialogue than direct revision. However, this might make it more difficult for the reader to follow the argument through. A major problem is that contributions are not likely to be based on empirical considerations – so revisions might be more a matter of nuance or opinion than fact. I don’t feel as though I am close to an ‘answer’ to this one. Although it is possible to track the revision and update history on a wiki page, I believe that it’s quite important to name and date one’s additions.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
resistance is futile
In the last blog post, I discussed some of my niggling doubts about whether or not online or virtual learning actually exists as a separate entity - in other words, is it always going to be just an imitation or emulation of face-to-face collaborative and participatory learning contexts?
I suggested that one way forward would be to become assimilated within the virtual culture. I think that this also links to Mark Elliott's idea of stigmergic collaboration.
To be honest, I cannot remember exactly what triggered me to join Twitter - I had heard about months and months ago and done nothing about it. I have a feeling that it was following up a link to a Howard Rheingold paper that got me started. Whatever the reason or circumstance, I am hooked! The links that can be made and followed through social networking sites seem to me to represent a very clear demonstration of using stigmergy to develop personal learning networks.
In reading Davies, J. and Graff, M. (2005)' Performance in e-learning: online participation and student grades' in British Journal of Educational Technology, 36:4, 657-663, I was interested to see the links that their study has made between participation levels in online activities and grades achieved. Now of course, as they acknowledge, there are many variables at play. Perhaps the students who are likely to achieve better grades are also the ones who are likely to find intrinsic benefit in contributing to virtual communities. Davies and Graff (ibid:662) suggest that further investigation is needed into "what factors in online interaction might enhance learning".
With my GCSE students' wiki, a turning point seems to have been an idea which I adapted from Mike Wesch of putting 40 words and phrases on the wiki and giving the students a period of time to write something for each one. This was so much better than just asking them to use their wiki pages as a blog. By focusing their activity on a specific concept, they began to edit and comment upon, as well as add to each other's work. Of course, this is also what happens on the H809 student forums to a great extent. I think the nub of the difference is that we rarely actually edit each other's text. perhaps, as adults, this feels too discourteous? The truth is though, that my teenage students did this in a sensitive and supportive manner - for example, "I like that idea for solving a problem and this is another method that I sometimes use".
Borrowing from Howard Rheingold's ideas about using Twitter backchannels, I also decided to get my teenage students to come and add something on the board whenever the mood takes them during lessons. It has been one of the best changes I have ever made to my teaching. They are really starting to take ownership of their learning.
I am wondering how I can extend that last idea to Continuing Professional Development with other teachers - I have tried it in workshops where anyone can come and write on the board and also by having a keynote observer to do the concluding remarks. How can I get staff and my MA students to work in this editorial way on their wikis? Any suggestions gratefully accepted!
(skim through my blog to find the appropriate references to Wesch, Rheingold and Elliott)
I suggested that one way forward would be to become assimilated within the virtual culture. I think that this also links to Mark Elliott's idea of stigmergic collaboration.
To be honest, I cannot remember exactly what triggered me to join Twitter - I had heard about months and months ago and done nothing about it. I have a feeling that it was following up a link to a Howard Rheingold paper that got me started. Whatever the reason or circumstance, I am hooked! The links that can be made and followed through social networking sites seem to me to represent a very clear demonstration of using stigmergy to develop personal learning networks.
In reading Davies, J. and Graff, M. (2005)' Performance in e-learning: online participation and student grades' in British Journal of Educational Technology, 36:4, 657-663, I was interested to see the links that their study has made between participation levels in online activities and grades achieved. Now of course, as they acknowledge, there are many variables at play. Perhaps the students who are likely to achieve better grades are also the ones who are likely to find intrinsic benefit in contributing to virtual communities. Davies and Graff (ibid:662) suggest that further investigation is needed into "what factors in online interaction might enhance learning".
With my GCSE students' wiki, a turning point seems to have been an idea which I adapted from Mike Wesch of putting 40 words and phrases on the wiki and giving the students a period of time to write something for each one. This was so much better than just asking them to use their wiki pages as a blog. By focusing their activity on a specific concept, they began to edit and comment upon, as well as add to each other's work. Of course, this is also what happens on the H809 student forums to a great extent. I think the nub of the difference is that we rarely actually edit each other's text. perhaps, as adults, this feels too discourteous? The truth is though, that my teenage students did this in a sensitive and supportive manner - for example, "I like that idea for solving a problem and this is another method that I sometimes use".
Borrowing from Howard Rheingold's ideas about using Twitter backchannels, I also decided to get my teenage students to come and add something on the board whenever the mood takes them during lessons. It has been one of the best changes I have ever made to my teaching. They are really starting to take ownership of their learning.
I am wondering how I can extend that last idea to Continuing Professional Development with other teachers - I have tried it in workshops where anyone can come and write on the board and also by having a keynote observer to do the concluding remarks. How can I get staff and my MA students to work in this editorial way on their wikis? Any suggestions gratefully accepted!
(skim through my blog to find the appropriate references to Wesch, Rheingold and Elliott)
Virtual learning
This blog post started as a reflection on the following article: Browne, E. (2003) 'Conversations in Cyberspace: a study of online learning' in Open Learning, 18:3, 245-259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268051032000131017
I have been reading the above article as part of my study for H809. It happens to have quite a lot of resonance with some reflecting I have been doing recently about my work as an associate lecturer (AL) with the Open University. For the first five years as an AL, I tutored on an online only version of a module that I had studied as a face-to-face programme some years earlier, when I was doing my own MA. Last year and this year, I have tutored on a module which is supposed to have a 'blended approach': that is, some face-to-face and some online aspects of tuition and learning. In contrast with both of these, the module H809 (which I decided to study to attempt to improve my understanding of online study) was actually designed as an online only course. Finally, to set the scene for this blog post, I have just embarked on supervising a student on the EdD programme. This will involve only about three face-to-face supervisions over her four or so years, with some allotted telephone supervision and thus mostly online correspondence. My own EdD (just a couple of years ago) was done mainly by post with a little e-mail interaction, along with the same amount of face-to-face as my student can expect.
As an AL, I have certainly found that Browne's stated advantage (2003:245) of asynchronous communication providing opportunity to reflect and make a "considered response" is true. I believe that this is also important for the student. For example, if a little shy or insecure in her/his knowledge of writing ability, the fact that responses can be drafted before publication, with appropriate use of reference material, can make it much easier than face-to-face interaction. However, as Browne (ibid:245) also points out, there is a distinct disadvantage for the tutor if time allocations are not clearly stated early on.
So, Browne's suggestion that a greater focus is needed on the role of the tutor in virtual learning communities seems paramount to me. I have no doubt that, just as with face-to-face, some groups 'gel' better than others. My current MA students state that they value the face-to-face tutorials as a means to get to know both me and each other and to build trust. Martin Weller touched on this in a recent Guardian article (12th May 2009, Time to get with the program) when he explained that academics can get two major benefits from social networking sites, like Twitter. Firstly, as he explains, there are frequent updates of what's new in the areas the Twitter follower is studying. Secondly, the opportunity to exchange what critics might call trivia is actually a chance to build rapport and trust so that followers are more likely to respond to questions. This latter reason is linked with reciprocity, which I have discussed in earlier blogs as well. Howard Rheingold picks up on these themes in his blog post at SF Gate on Twitter Literacy.
In the work that I have done with three main wikis (MA students, High School students, and High School teachers), I note that the trust issue and the building of a community is one of the key motivating factors for contribution.
Browne (2003:246) highlights what I see as a major problem for actually developing collaborative learning through online or cybercommunities. This is the fact that course materials delivered online can remain just an emulation of face-to-face courses. Podcasts and videocasts replace lectures - making them more accessible in many ways; articles and readings are available online - many choose to print them off; assignments are sent electronically - giving the student longer to do them: none of these is that radical in terms of how the learning and teaching actually happens.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about how I can improve my work with MA and EdD students who I see very little of in real life (IRL). This reflection has had some major spin off for the work I do every day with High School students and teachers. Studying H809 has been a turning point in my thinking. When teaching algebra, I often take a rather Zen approach, asking students to imagine that they are the letter x. I am beginning to feel that the same is true of web 2.0 and that it is not enough just to use it, but it is actually necessary to be a Zen type assimilation. As Browne (ibid:249) describes it, cyber-ethnography is a research methodology that requires immersion in virtual culture and communities.
My final project for H809 will look at the work I have done with my High School teachers' wiki and, in particular, what motivates them to contribute to the development of a learning community. I may well adopt Browne's idea of basing the analysis around Lauriallard's (2002: 80) four pedagogic categories of interactivity, adaptivity, discursiveness and reflectivity. Like Knowles though, I wonder if andragogy is not a better word to use here since my objective in setting up the wiki was to encourage teachers to be exemplar learners.
I had a recent 'virtual conversation' with Howard Rheingold (see post titled 'more about how to get students to ask questions' below) - about the fact that teachers need to let go of their supposed autonomy over knowledge if their students are ever to become independent learners. Browne (2003: 246) cites Axelrod (1990), Cowie and Ruddick (1998) and Lave and Wenger (1991) as she postulates that learning takes place through participation, interaction and co-operation. For me, this is all part of the enormous jigsaw called 'teaching' because the issue is how to encourage both teachers and learners to be part of this complex relationship.
references coming soon: Laurillard, Knowles, Perry
I have been reading the above article as part of my study for H809. It happens to have quite a lot of resonance with some reflecting I have been doing recently about my work as an associate lecturer (AL) with the Open University. For the first five years as an AL, I tutored on an online only version of a module that I had studied as a face-to-face programme some years earlier, when I was doing my own MA. Last year and this year, I have tutored on a module which is supposed to have a 'blended approach': that is, some face-to-face and some online aspects of tuition and learning. In contrast with both of these, the module H809 (which I decided to study to attempt to improve my understanding of online study) was actually designed as an online only course. Finally, to set the scene for this blog post, I have just embarked on supervising a student on the EdD programme. This will involve only about three face-to-face supervisions over her four or so years, with some allotted telephone supervision and thus mostly online correspondence. My own EdD (just a couple of years ago) was done mainly by post with a little e-mail interaction, along with the same amount of face-to-face as my student can expect.
As an AL, I have certainly found that Browne's stated advantage (2003:245) of asynchronous communication providing opportunity to reflect and make a "considered response" is true. I believe that this is also important for the student. For example, if a little shy or insecure in her/his knowledge of writing ability, the fact that responses can be drafted before publication, with appropriate use of reference material, can make it much easier than face-to-face interaction. However, as Browne (ibid:245) also points out, there is a distinct disadvantage for the tutor if time allocations are not clearly stated early on.
So, Browne's suggestion that a greater focus is needed on the role of the tutor in virtual learning communities seems paramount to me. I have no doubt that, just as with face-to-face, some groups 'gel' better than others. My current MA students state that they value the face-to-face tutorials as a means to get to know both me and each other and to build trust. Martin Weller touched on this in a recent Guardian article (12th May 2009, Time to get with the program) when he explained that academics can get two major benefits from social networking sites, like Twitter. Firstly, as he explains, there are frequent updates of what's new in the areas the Twitter follower is studying. Secondly, the opportunity to exchange what critics might call trivia is actually a chance to build rapport and trust so that followers are more likely to respond to questions. This latter reason is linked with reciprocity, which I have discussed in earlier blogs as well. Howard Rheingold picks up on these themes in his blog post at SF Gate on Twitter Literacy.
In the work that I have done with three main wikis (MA students, High School students, and High School teachers), I note that the trust issue and the building of a community is one of the key motivating factors for contribution.
Browne (2003:246) highlights what I see as a major problem for actually developing collaborative learning through online or cybercommunities. This is the fact that course materials delivered online can remain just an emulation of face-to-face courses. Podcasts and videocasts replace lectures - making them more accessible in many ways; articles and readings are available online - many choose to print them off; assignments are sent electronically - giving the student longer to do them: none of these is that radical in terms of how the learning and teaching actually happens.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about how I can improve my work with MA and EdD students who I see very little of in real life (IRL). This reflection has had some major spin off for the work I do every day with High School students and teachers. Studying H809 has been a turning point in my thinking. When teaching algebra, I often take a rather Zen approach, asking students to imagine that they are the letter x. I am beginning to feel that the same is true of web 2.0 and that it is not enough just to use it, but it is actually necessary to be a Zen type assimilation. As Browne (ibid:249) describes it, cyber-ethnography is a research methodology that requires immersion in virtual culture and communities.
My final project for H809 will look at the work I have done with my High School teachers' wiki and, in particular, what motivates them to contribute to the development of a learning community. I may well adopt Browne's idea of basing the analysis around Lauriallard's (2002: 80) four pedagogic categories of interactivity, adaptivity, discursiveness and reflectivity. Like Knowles though, I wonder if andragogy is not a better word to use here since my objective in setting up the wiki was to encourage teachers to be exemplar learners.
I had a recent 'virtual conversation' with Howard Rheingold (see post titled 'more about how to get students to ask questions' below) - about the fact that teachers need to let go of their supposed autonomy over knowledge if their students are ever to become independent learners. Browne (2003: 246) cites Axelrod (1990), Cowie and Ruddick (1998) and Lave and Wenger (1991) as she postulates that learning takes place through participation, interaction and co-operation. For me, this is all part of the enormous jigsaw called 'teaching' because the issue is how to encourage both teachers and learners to be part of this complex relationship.
references coming soon: Laurillard, Knowles, Perry
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
more about how to get students to ask questions
an exchange on Twitter (see also last blog post):-
hrheingold@Janshs Maybe even more important -- how can teachers induce the right questions from students? In particular, how to start out that way?
@hrheingold sometimes think it's partly to do w/ building trust & culture where OK 2 say teacher doesn't know everything; culture of explore
hrheingold@Janshs Absolutely - the fear of letting students know that one doesn't know everything is paralyzing for a teacher
@hrheingold I found Perry's "positions of intell'l develop't" good: once jump 2 realis'm that teachers don't know all- independent learners
@rheingold Perry is old though 1970 but still interesting
hrheingoldFirst Day Questions for the Learner-Centered Classroom: http://www.ntlf.com/list/
hrheingold@Janshs Maybe even more important -- how can teachers induce the right questions from students? In particular, how to start out that way?
@hrheingold sometimes think it's partly to do w/ building trust & culture where OK 2 say teacher doesn't know everything; culture of explore
hrheingold@Janshs Absolutely - the fear of letting students know that one doesn't know everything is paralyzing for a teacher
@hrheingold I found Perry's "positions of intell'l develop't" good: once jump 2 realis'm that teachers don't know all- independent learners
@rheingold Perry is old though 1970 but still interesting
hrheingoldFirst Day Questions for the Learner-Centered Classroom: http://www.ntlf.com/list/
Monday, May 4, 2009
just reflecting on how students can be guided
I was just using Twitter to do some ‘thinking out loud’:-
what makes my heart sink? "will this be on the test?" how do we encourage metacognition in subjects like Maths?
perhaps the answer to my question is (at least) two fold: questioning to develop thinking, collaborative learning through web 2.0 ideas
I am just thinking - it's all about getting young students to ask, listen to and answer each other's question
I have been getting my young students to use learning journals for a few years now; now I want to move into collaborative LJs using wikis
it's all about @mwesch and 'asking the right question' and @hrheingold attention literacy
I think the idea of using the wiki page on the interactive whiteboard that I've been trialling is a way forward to develop focused dialogue
what makes my heart sink? "will this be on the test?" how do we encourage metacognition in subjects like Maths?
perhaps the answer to my question is (at least) two fold: questioning to develop thinking, collaborative learning through web 2.0 ideas
I am just thinking - it's all about getting young students to ask, listen to and answer each other's question
I have been getting my young students to use learning journals for a few years now; now I want to move into collaborative LJs using wikis
it's all about @mwesch and 'asking the right question' and @hrheingold attention literacy
I think the idea of using the wiki page on the interactive whiteboard that I've been trialling is a way forward to develop focused dialogue
reflection on week 11 podcasts (see right for links) - using web 2.0 for research
Podcast one (Alan Woodley and Adam Joinson) considered the differences and similarities between paper and pencil surveys and questionnaires and the online variety. One of the main issues seems to be the question of whether or not the sample is truly representative. In addition, the actual responses seem to be different - although, as Adam Joinson points out, this does not mean that within sample comparisons are not valid.
Joinson also seems concerned about the generalisability of results but I am inclined to think that this is less important for qualitative research, where a degree of 'fit' may be more appropriate.
I wasn't quite sure if Joinson was saying that it's not a good idea to mix off-line and on-line methods within one study. I could see the point, if that's the case, in terms of the issues mentioned above. On the other hand, could one method lead on to a deeper investigation using a different approach? I'd welcome some comments on that one.
Joinson points out that 'traditional' academic research uses a class of students who the researcher has easy access to. This means that they may chat with each other during the questionnaire - of course that could also happen online. I am wondering if my GCSE wiki 'pseudo Twitter' idea (see earlier blog posts - tag GCSE) might be a way to gather data by asking respondents to come up and type whenever the mood takes them - or even by using hand held voting devices with text facility.
I thought that the crux of this podcast was the issue of getting respondents to do more than questionnaires, surveys or even interviews can do. If we ask them to edit, critique, suggest questions and generate knowledge (as Joinson suggests) as my Newly Qualified Teachers are doing with their action research (see earlier post - tag CPD), then we may actually have a breakthrough in terms of the kinds of data we capture. My Big Question is - what is the analysis tool we need to design in order to measure this data?
The second podcast (Alan Woodley and John Richardson) starts to look at the issue of how peer review journals operate. Now, this was not especially linked to the idea of web 2.0 or any other kind of e-technology. It was, though, a fascinating insight into how papers do get published in such journals. It remains the case that being published in a peer reviewed journal has much prestige. These days, of course, anyone can 'publish' through blogs, YouTube, and forums like the Open University's Knowledge Network.
I find it interesting that people like Mike Wesch and Howard Rheingold have become well known to lesser 'academics' like me through the web as well as through their writing. I think that we are back, once again to Mark Elliott's 'stigmergic collaboration'.
If I wanted to make the 'jump' from teaching High School as my main occupation to Higher Education (which I currently do part-time), I would need a record of publications - and I don't think they'd accept this blog ....
Joinson also seems concerned about the generalisability of results but I am inclined to think that this is less important for qualitative research, where a degree of 'fit' may be more appropriate.
I wasn't quite sure if Joinson was saying that it's not a good idea to mix off-line and on-line methods within one study. I could see the point, if that's the case, in terms of the issues mentioned above. On the other hand, could one method lead on to a deeper investigation using a different approach? I'd welcome some comments on that one.
Joinson points out that 'traditional' academic research uses a class of students who the researcher has easy access to. This means that they may chat with each other during the questionnaire - of course that could also happen online. I am wondering if my GCSE wiki 'pseudo Twitter' idea (see earlier blog posts - tag GCSE) might be a way to gather data by asking respondents to come up and type whenever the mood takes them - or even by using hand held voting devices with text facility.
I thought that the crux of this podcast was the issue of getting respondents to do more than questionnaires, surveys or even interviews can do. If we ask them to edit, critique, suggest questions and generate knowledge (as Joinson suggests) as my Newly Qualified Teachers are doing with their action research (see earlier post - tag CPD), then we may actually have a breakthrough in terms of the kinds of data we capture. My Big Question is - what is the analysis tool we need to design in order to measure this data?
The second podcast (Alan Woodley and John Richardson) starts to look at the issue of how peer review journals operate. Now, this was not especially linked to the idea of web 2.0 or any other kind of e-technology. It was, though, a fascinating insight into how papers do get published in such journals. It remains the case that being published in a peer reviewed journal has much prestige. These days, of course, anyone can 'publish' through blogs, YouTube, and forums like the Open University's Knowledge Network.
I find it interesting that people like Mike Wesch and Howard Rheingold have become well known to lesser 'academics' like me through the web as well as through their writing. I think that we are back, once again to Mark Elliott's 'stigmergic collaboration'.
If I wanted to make the 'jump' from teaching High School as my main occupation to Higher Education (which I currently do part-time), I would need a record of publications - and I don't think they'd accept this blog ....
Activity 11.7: Investigating validity
The OU’s H809 study guide gives us the following questions aimed at critically reading research in terms of validity.
· To what extent does the study demonstrate that its findings generalise to other participants, places or times?
· To what extent are causal relationships, rather than just correlations, demonstrated?
· Are the instruments used in the study actually measuring what the researchers claim they measure?
· How strong is the evidence for the claims?
· Are alternative explanations possible?
· How could claims be tested more strongly?
The following table compares something that I wrote a while ago in terms of defending the validity and reliability of a small scale piece of qualitative research undertaken by me (for my EdD thesis) alongside the questions asked above. I have found it a useful exercise, even though a retrospective one, as it has encouraged me to look once again at how research is designed and reported upon in order to meet the requirements of critical reading – that is to address the issues around validity and reliability, even for qualitative or mixed methods research.
click to enlargeReferences
Loughran, J., Mitchell, I., and Mitchell, J. (2003) ‘Attempting to document teachers’ professional knowledge’. Qualitative Studies in Education. 16, 6: 853 – 873
Orland-Barak, L. (2002) ‘The Theoretical Sensitivity of the Researcher: reflections on a complex construct’. Reflective Practice. 3, 3
Varela, F.J., Thompson, E. and Rosch, E. (1991) The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
[1] This could be compared with the Hawthorne effect where the objects of the study improve performance simply because they are aware that they are being studied.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Developing the staff wiki - another update
This is beginning to take off properly after 8 months! I now have people editing each other's contributions, adding poster presentations for their Chartered London Teacher Status and adding pages to gather their own data for their own action research projects!
Five of us now have Chartered London Teacher Status and Fellowship of the College of Teachers.
The four Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) are working in pairs on two projects - reviewing the school rewards policy and the key points of planning outstanding lessons. I think we are unusual as a school in that we routinely use good NQT action research to develop policy and practice. I am hoping that my new group of risk takers will also start something big - but more on that in another blog coming soon.
Five of us now have Chartered London Teacher Status and Fellowship of the College of Teachers.
The four Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) are working in pairs on two projects - reviewing the school rewards policy and the key points of planning outstanding lessons. I think we are unusual as a school in that we routinely use good NQT action research to develop policy and practice. I am hoping that my new group of risk takers will also start something big - but more on that in another blog coming soon.
Catch up on how my GCSE maths group are doing
With just two school weeks left until their first paper, I'm not sure who is more nervous - them or me. After 31 years, I still feel the same!
Anyway, the idea of using the wiki page on the white board for them to type questions and hints to one another is going really well. Just wish I had thought of this years ago - thank you Twitter!
I have also devised two sides of A4 with 'sticky note' sized messages with the facts I expect them to need to 'learn'. The idea is that they keep eliminating stuff that they feel confident with until they are left with about five facts to remember overnight before the exam - or less hopefully!
I've also posted their sheets on their wiki but here they are in case anyone is interested. I'm afraid that some of the language is esoteric as it relates to how I explain things but lots will be familiar to anyone. (It's not the A* stuff by the way.)
click to enlarge
I forgot their trigonometry rap so that is separate
SOHCAHTOA is a very strange land
In right angled triangles everyone must stand.
Here comes that hypotenuse again
It's the longest side, remember that my friend.
Nothing written on it? Then you mus use tan.
The other two are harder make the sign with your hand.
Nothing on the free side? Then use must use cos.
If there is then use sin and don't ask 'because'.
If the angle is known and x is on the top
Just multiply it out and then you can stop.
If the angle is known and x is on the bottom
Flip them over and divide - nothing can stop 'em.
Finally remember if the angle is not known
Divide, use shift, and the answer will be shown.
The Saturday just before the exam, we'll have a three hour revision session in school too - not sure what more I can do now.....
Anyway, the idea of using the wiki page on the white board for them to type questions and hints to one another is going really well. Just wish I had thought of this years ago - thank you Twitter!
I have also devised two sides of A4 with 'sticky note' sized messages with the facts I expect them to need to 'learn'. The idea is that they keep eliminating stuff that they feel confident with until they are left with about five facts to remember overnight before the exam - or less hopefully!
I've also posted their sheets on their wiki but here they are in case anyone is interested. I'm afraid that some of the language is esoteric as it relates to how I explain things but lots will be familiar to anyone. (It's not the A* stuff by the way.)
click to enlargeI forgot their trigonometry rap so that is separate
SOHCAHTOA is a very strange land
In right angled triangles everyone must stand.
Here comes that hypotenuse again
It's the longest side, remember that my friend.
Nothing written on it? Then you mus use tan.
The other two are harder make the sign with your hand.
Nothing on the free side? Then use must use cos.
If there is then use sin and don't ask 'because'.
If the angle is known and x is on the top
Just multiply it out and then you can stop.
If the angle is known and x is on the bottom
Flip them over and divide - nothing can stop 'em.
Finally remember if the angle is not known
Divide, use shift, and the answer will be shown.
The Saturday just before the exam, we'll have a three hour revision session in school too - not sure what more I can do now.....
Friday, May 1, 2009
Delicious links
Thanks to Jo Iacovides for her blog post summing up block two and this Delicious link which I must follow up as soon as I can.
Hey Jo, is it OK for me to twitter the delicious link?
Hey Jo, is it OK for me to twitter the delicious link?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)