The DTLLS and GDTLLS Blog

Ofsted Under Fire

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:49:00 +0000

Monday's edition of the Guardian reported that Ofsted was facing a crisis in public confidence as it came 'under a series of attacks on its authority this week, with the watchdog accused of being "flawed, wasteful and failing"'. (Guardian, 2009)
The report goes on to say that:

The children's services inspectorate will be criticised today by service
heads in every local authority in the country, headteachers' leaders and in a
damning forthcoming report by MPs on the government's school accountability
system.

Its new inspection regime is accused of forcing social work departments to
focus on passing inspections instead of looking after children, giving good
schools mediocre ratings on routine technical matters – such as fences not being
high enough – and more claims that sub-contracted inspectors are not fit for the
job. (Ibid)

The critics include former Ofsted chief Mike Tomlinson (pictured above).

You can read the full report here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/23/flawed-ofsted-fails-inspections

I don't have much time for analysis tonight, but my initial thoughts are roughly as follows.

Few teaching staff will shed tears for Ofsted, and most will hope that the criticism leads to some genuine improvement. But I wouldn't hold my breath. But while government are under pressure to make cuts in public spending, while attempting to not reduce quality, this might be the perfect opportunity to take a close look at what Ofsted has to offer, and streamline it to focus on the things that will really make the difference to education's bottom line.

Parkinson's law says that work expands to fill the time available, but I think that there is an equivalent in the public sector that says remit and work expands to fill the funding available. If the coming round of cuts includes Ofsted we may see the inspectorate forced to focus only on the things that really matter.

Whatever happens, it brings delight to teachers everywhere to see their most ardent critic under critique themselves.

Learning Styles are "Bunk"!

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:55:00 +0000

Seán posted a comment on an earlier post of mine about learning styles and linked to his views on the subject. I thought I would reply.

Here's a devastating scientific criticism of the popular but groundless VAK learning style theory, which also attempts to explain why teachers love it, despite its complete lack of supporting evidence.

While the debunking of learning styles once and for all would be welcome, I would question that teachers "love" them. In my experience their use is down to an expectation that tutors use the popular methodology and in many cases it is an institutional *procedure* and has to be followed. This is what Frank Coffield (2008) would call "tactical compliance".

I think often we slavishly get students to complete the learning styles tests and file away the results, so we can bring them out when Ofsted (or whoever your education inspectorate is) comes along to prove that we 'really do care about diversification in our teaching'.

That learning styles should make much if any difference to teaching approach may well be dubious. Frank C certainly has my respect. But that they are "love[ed]" by the teaching profession at large is, certainly in my experience, a nonsense.

We do it because we are told to (because line managers and quality auditors expect/demand it).

If learning styles are "real" in any sense - even being that learners do have "preferences" or find it easier to learn in one way rather than another then they must have some value in that sense. The issue is how to apply it. But the hard reality is that no state education system has the funds, and no teacher the time, to tailor every subject to the whims of each and every student's preference in detail.

Only a superhuman could actually apply the required level of personalisation in any meaningful way. So we lip serve the tests just as we lip serve our application of their results.

I generally agree with Seán's comments in his working hypothesis that:

...a mixture of types of material and techniques seems likely to maximise the possibility of learning, and interestingness of delivery...

But I would put it the other way round - a mixture of types of material and techniques seems likely to maximise the interestingness of delivery and therefore the possibility of learning.

In my own experience of teaching and observing others, the approach to applying learning styles has been diluted to pretty much that. Use a variety of approaches (so much testing finally results in what was common sense to most of us anyway).

The final reality is of course that once a learner leaves education no one, and I mean NO ONE, is going to care for their learning preferences. They must simply get on with the job. So the final value for any learning style profile, (if you accept that they have value), may be to identify a learner's area of weakness and therefore area of required development. If they are poor at Kineasthetic - they may simply have to get better at it - their future boss simply won't care to make special allowances for them - they can either do the job or they can't.

Having said all that, while I have to do it there's no harm in seeing what correlations appear as part of teacher training - don't you find it interesting?

++++

Finally I would like to thank Seán for his comment, otherwise I might have missed the Frank Coffield report he mentions, which is by far the best education read I have come across in a long long time - reference below. Thanks Seán... and good luck with the ongoing battle against the unnecessary.

Frank Coffield (2008). Just suppose teaching and learning became the first priority.... London: Learning and Skills Network. 51

Ofsted - Part of the problem?

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:25:00 +0000

I am sure many (if not most) in the teaching profession would say "yes, of course" to the question above. But while the public mood is to place yet more accountability on those in the public sector (which includes teachers) it is not likely to be an easy task persuading people that actually, the very body which holds the teaching profession most accountable - is part of the problem.

According to the BBC this view is supported by the NASUWT in response to Ofsted's report on standards of English teaching in Primary and Secondary school.

While Ofsted is reported as saying:

"progress has been made in the past five years and standards have risen - but
not fast enough." (BBC)

The response from the NASUWT was according to the BBC "extremely sceptical" about the value of such reports from Ofsted. Its general secretary, Chris Keates, said:

"Ofsted's definition of what is 'good' changes on an annual basis, making
it impossible to compare results over any period of time.

"This report says results are not improving fast enough. What does that actually mean? No matter how much or how quickly results improve, Ofsted will continue to move the goalposts. It's a race teachers can never win.

"One of the biggest single factors which undermine the efforts of teachers to raise standards is the amount of time they have to spend meeting the real or perceived needs of Ofsted rather than being able to prioritise the needs of pupils. Ofsted is part of the problem, not the solution."
(BBC)

If you have been in the teaching profession long enough to feel the impact of an Ofsted report you will probably understand where Chris Keates is coming from. If you have never worked as a teacher you may never understand what it is to have government demand performance targets of teachers, when much of that is in fact out of the teacher's direct control (things such as upbringing, parental support, funding, whether the student even has breakfast...).

For the non-teachers I put it this way. Which do you think more likely to increase your child's performance at school, and what would you prefer your child's teacher did?

Focus on and worry about Ofsted, and the admin Ofsted values?
Or focus on and worry about your child, and how their education is getting on?

Common sense makes the answer pretty clear. But while we have a government and educational system that values top-down management from afar, over local teachers responding to local needs in creative ways (commonly called empowerment), then what Ofsted is looking for will always take priority over your child's needs.

With that in mind you'd better hope Ofsted knows what your child needs more than your child's teacher does. And you'd better hope that if teachers focus on what Ofsted calls "good practice" and fill in all the paperwork to prove that "good practice " takes place, that somehow, miraculously this will have the desired effect on your child's education.

It is simply a matter of trust - Ofsted don't trust the teachers to do it, they only believe the paper that says it was done, they call that evidence.

Personally, I would prefer to spend more time planning and actually giving quality lessons, than taking time away from that to create paper trails that make it look like I did. But for Ofsted, the audit trail is more real. To be fair, they probably want both the good teaching and the paper trail. But there is only so much time in a week, so while the paper trail is more important, guess where the teacher's attention will be?

Hoorah for Knighted Head Teacher - Now untie the hands of the rest of us...

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:31:00 +0000

In this years list of knighthoods is included the Head Teacher of Robert Clack School in Dagenham, Paul Grant. I for one applaud this move. He certainly deserves it if the achievements reported by the BBC are anything to go by:

Head teacher Paul Grant is credited with restoring discipline to a failing Essex secondary school.

In his first week as head teacher at Robert Clack School in Dagenham, Mr Grant excluded 300 pupils in a drive to consistently enforce discipline.

But last year the proportion of students achieving five or more good GCSEs was just above the average and the government named it as one of 12 schools "excelling against the odds".
(BBC)

Wonderful. If 300 students need excluding for their behaviour then yes, the Head Teacher should be allowed to exclude them.

Unfortunately many Heads are not taking this kind of action, even on a much smaller scale. Some cite targets to reduce exclusions and expulsions for this, but whatever the reason, to fail to consistently enforce discipline is to fail every student at the most basic level.

If targets really are preventing Heads taking action, then they should ignore them and enforce discipline anyway. Why wait until 300 need excluding in one week? There is no excuse for that.

"Disappointed" that young people are "Concerned" about the economy?

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:18:00 +0000

One has to wonder what the DCSF really expects anyone to do about this, and why they even think this is a problem. The BBC reports that:

A spokesperson for the Department of Children, Schools and Families, said
it was "disappointing" that some young people were concerned about the economy.

Well deary me, young people are actually aware of what is going on around them and it causes them concern. Pardon me for being a little dismissive but isn't this a good thing? When we say "young people" these days we are refering usually to those up to the age of 19. Surely an 18 or 19 year old should be shouldering some concern about the state of the economy. Why does the DCSF think this is cause for concern?

I say, get your students to take it on the chin, face the world and make their own futures against all odds. No namby pamby molly coddling from me. Tell them this is how the world is, but they can still make it.

Learning Styles, Hidden Secrets

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:34:00 +0000

Learning style questionnaires, if we are not careful, can be little more than a technicality, especially in my area. After all, how many ways can you teach someone to draw? Explaining how only goes so far, this is not English comprehension, you have to get the students to see it, and do it.

Typically we have students for art that have high visual and high kineasthetic prefference, and this makes sense given what art & design entails. Typically they have a lower relative auditory preference. Something like this:

This is what we expect for art. However we have 2 students with the reverse.

When they clearly have a preference for auditory learning, and they are less strong on a visual or kineasthetic approach, why choose Art? I might expect this profile from an English Literature student or something.

A quick peep at their Literacy diagnostic showed them both to still have strong L2 literacy skills, with one of them exhibiting some L3 literacy skills. So, I ask again, why Art?

I believe the answer is that they both have a disability which makes learning via their preferred method difficult. One is Dyslexic and the other Dysgraphic (writing is an issue).

Basically, they don't have as strong a natural leaning to learning art the way art learning works (visually, and by doing), so it seems they picked art because their disability means they are prevented from learning other subjects that better match their natural learning style.

These learners will need particular help (lots more describing than is normal for an art student) since in some ways it appears that they are choosing to go against their own nature by doing art. (That's my view, but I welcome your comments.)

I wonder how much support this lends to my theory that some students choose art, not because they are great at it, but because they simply found other subjects even more difficult (on account of Dyslexia for instance). What do you think?

Teaching Art or Multimedia (Unit by Unit or Everything Linked?)

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:49:00 +0000

When I first started teaching multimedia after working for several years in industry, I was pushed in the direction of teaching each unit of the course separately from the other. The college approach seemed to be one of individual teachers taking responsibility for individuals units (or subjects) and each being taught independent of the others during different sessions across the week.

At the time (several years ago now) I was so new to teaching that I didn't argue. After all, I am the newbie, what do I know? However as my teacher training progressed (now complete I am glad to say) I came to see how this approach was not really the ideal for our students. I did not feel the approach would adequately make the students into what I call whole creatives. Instead of seeing the course as 18 units, I began to see teaching and learning in multimedia as being essentially split into just 2 main areas:

Design Processes/Design Thinking
Tools and Tool Techniques

These areas appear in each unit in different degrees. Some are very strongly focused on design thinking, while others on tools. While the titles of these two areas could probably do with some refinement, the idea is that while different types of knowledge or skills can be taught independently initially, ultimately learners need to be able to use these together to be a whole creative individual. We call this bringing of knowledge or skills of different kinds together synthesis.

I have developed a model to explain this below:

Synthesis of skills over time allows greater learner maturity, freedom and creativity

For instance a learner can be taught how to use Photoshop during one session or unit, and methods for generating ideas in another session or unit. But this only goes so far, they must then be able to use those two skill areas together to meet creative objectives.

I did not feel that teaching units independently of each other was going to achieve this.

In changing the unit by unit approach however, it needs to be understood that you still can't pour everything together into a big pot straight away either. The problem there is that the concept of using skill areas together is too large and complex to be a good starting point and learners will simply drown. Initially then learners must be taught some different skill areas independently but then (as soon as possible and as they become ready) they should be guided so that their understanding in these different areas becomes linked together

This is essential for several reasons.

Learners who remain strong in design processes are usually good at understanding design problems, and generating and refining ideas - but unless they learn about production tools (e.g. Photoshop or Studio Max) they will not fully understand how the technology impacts on the suitability or production of their ideas.

Learners who are strong on tools and techniques for using tools are able to use technology efficiently - but unless they learn to apply the design process they will be under-developed creatively and relegate themselves to the role of technician, essentially reproducing the ideas of others. They may be efficient, but not as effective as they could be.

The aim then is for learners to be able to use tools and techniques in conjunction with design process and design thinking, thus making them whole creative individuals.

So I don't worry about one unit per lecturer any more, or one unit per session. Instead we teach by project, we link units to projects and work on them in every session, and every tutor brings their expertise to each project.

This is actually one of the benefits of the BTEC National Diploma system. While the whole qualification is made up of 18 units (each one being a different subject), we are free (and encouraged to by Edexcel, if not your particular college) to link these units together wherever possible.

I like to teach new tools or skills separately and give short projects or homework to ensure these new skills are understood. Then I like to feed these new skills into larger projects where they must be used in conjunction with the design thinking and design process skills, or other tools skills the learner has.

In this way learners get to learn processes, and tools, and bring them together. It is not always easy, but learners do have the opportunity to become better creatives who can see how everything they learn fits together, and can make intelligent decisions based on a real understanding of the whole picture.

A Degree in Selling Cars

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:10:00 +0000

The ripples of the Leitch Report spread far and wide, and it seems universities are not immune to its influence. That, and of course the drive for universities to generate funding, has no doubt led in some small way to the idea that universities need to provide more training to meet employer's skill shortages.

This BBC article talks about Loughborough University's collaboration with Ford to create a BSc in Car Dealership. Going, it seems, are the days when multinational corporations were capable of training their own staff to meet the needs of their business, from the expertise held within the company.

While some may chuckle at the idea, doing it this way does have some advantages for the individual, not least of which is that their training, while useful to the company, will also be a formally recognised qualification.

From the government's point of view this is great because it means more people are getting university degrees (one of their other priorities along with basic skills for the under achieving), but I will talk more about this and the magic growth in favour of the "Foundation Degree" over HNDs and L4 NVQs in another post.

Which Costs More? Evening Classes or Mental Heath Care?

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:07:00 +0000

The BBC reports that the government's response to the Leitch Report, while driving a focus on basic skills, has left adult learners missing out on Life-long Learning.

Associate Director of the National Institute of Adult Coninuing Education (Niace) Stephen McNair is reported to have said:

"There are clear benefits in terms of public health and social cohesion from life-long learning that are not recognised by the government..." (BBC)

It seems that Niace is now using this approach to try to pressurise the government into increasing funding for education for personal development (perhaps Life-long Learning in its purest sense).

In response the government reckon they are investing a further £210 million in "informal adult learning". No small sum but only a teeny tiny % of the total LSC budget.

I suspect that what we have heard of the government's response is, at least for now, the best statement they can give to the press at this moment in time. Meanwhile I hope they do look at how feasible it is to oil the machinery giving money to "informal adult learning" on a grander scale.

Being cynical for a moment I suspect they will do it in style if it means they spend less on mental health via the NHS (in other words produce cost savings elsewhere) but otherwise the momentum they have in developing basic skills, and "upskilling" the "work force", will mean that education for recreation or personal development will probably not get much light in the near future. Don't forget, the government are trying to get the economy going, as well as improving the UK's position internationally as a base of skills and that means giving people work skills.

Evening classes for the long term incapacitated, women at home with small children, carers and the elderly, in languages and art, hardly fits that bill. So for now they are unlikely to become a pressing government priority.

Having said that, I do agree with Niace on this one. But then I am biased, any proposal that allocates more funding to FE institutions is, from my perspective, a good thing. After all, I do work for one.

Accessibility and Colour Blindness

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:17:00 +0000

Colour blindness has been more relevant to me this year more than previous years on account of having a colour blind student.

While it certainly doesn't make life easier for an Art & Design & Interactive Media student it doesn't make it impossible to work in the design industry either. I did know of a former product designer, who was colour blind, who had a successful career in industry and in teaching.

Even so, as a teacher, it is helpful to have some understanding of colour blindness so I know what to expect, and can help the student develop strategies to cope with areas of difficulty.

One resource I found recently is a website called Vischeck. Vischeck provides colour blindness simulation tools, including an image previewer, a website previewer and a Photoshop filter. The site also gives information about a Daltonization algorithm for correcting images for colour blind people. All fascinating stuff.

I downloaded the Photoshop filter and installed it for Photoshop and Fireworks. It works fine in both.

I wondered how the normal visible spectrum would look to a colour blind person, and so I used the Photoshop filter to adjust a bog standard colour wheel. The results were truly astonishing:

I just cannot imagine a world so radically different to the one I see now.

Now I know why my student picked a muted grey/green instead of a vibrant green to represent grass in a client visual. To them they looked the same.

This insight into how colour blind people actually see the world is probably the most valuable outcome of this find. Meanwhile the Photoshop filter will allow me to demonstrate it to other people, and to gauge usability of my own designs.

Procrastination and Task Avoidance

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:36:00 +0000

Related to my recent ponderings on student motivation is procrastination. This being the most obvious side effect of reduced motivation (students delaying working). I did write an assignment a few months ago on "Managing behaviour in the classroom" and procrastination was the behaviour I focused on at that time. I did plently of research but one source in particular I found especially insightful (Take a peek online here).

One of the findings indicated that procrastinators "are frequently unsure of their ability to complete a task. Consequently they delay starting the task in Question." It goes on to say:

At the heart of such irrational fear for procrastinators is an inappropriate concept of what constitutes an adequately accomplished task. Failure is inevitable; standards are simply too high. To circumvent the emotional consequence of this failure, procrastinators delay beginning a task until it cannot be completed satisfactorily. The payoff for the procrastinator is that his or her avoidant behaviour furnishes a convenient excuse for the inevitable failure caused by this avoidance. A task done poorly by the procrastinator can be blamed on time limitation or even laziness, rather than inability. In this manner, procrastination serves as an ego defensive function, not unlike that postulated in psychoanalytic theory. Furthermore, its occurrence is perpetuated because of this reason, despite the anxiety it seems to create in the frantic last-minute efforts of the procrastinator. (Ferrari et al.)

If you saw yourself in that passage, you wouldn't be the only one. What I find interesting is that yet agin we see a link to prospect theory. This time it is loss of self-image that is being protected. You might say that procrastinators work hard at procrastinating in the sense of putting up with the anxiety - but the payoff is worth it, because they don't have to face up to being unable - they can always blame the procrastination for any underperformance or failure.

From the student's point of view however, teachers can take action to eliminate this reason for procrastinating. At the heart of this passage is the idea that students have "an inappropriate concept of what constitutes an adequately accomplished task". As a teacher then, I need to ensure my students have a correct concept of what is adequate. There are several things I can do to help bring this about:

At the beginning of any task or assignment, present a good example of a task or assignment completed. Talk the students through it.
Provide more information about what the students are to achieve.
Ask questions to determine understanding - specifically target known procrastinators.
Regularly tutorial students to monitor progress, ask direct questions to find out actual attainment, do not be hazed.

This is often easier said than done. Past educational (or home) experiences have taught some students that being wrong is to be a failure, therefore they try to haze their teachers rather than use them to correct their understanding. This takes time to correct, but until it is corrected to a sufficient degree, students "hide" from their teachers, pretending they understand when deep down they still have "an inappropriate concept of what constitutes an adequately accomplished task" and are subconsciously planning to procrastinate.

What is really key, is that students do understand what they need to do, and feel that they can do it.

I have found that the cognitivist approach works best in these situations. My students are far too clever to be fooled by mere positive talking, and the stick and carrot approach only works if students are earning the carrots they get (which can sometimes mean all they get is stick - so it only serves to reinforce their belief in their own failure). What I do instead, by way of using the cognitivist approach, is to tell them about Ferrari et al, explain the motivations for procrastinating, and explain the solution. Empower (how I hate that word) them to regulate their own behaviour, by helping them to recognise the stimulating factors.

It will probably take longer to see change this way but I am more convinced that the change will be real. Students who change from the inside (motivated by their own understanding) are surely better off than those who change on the surface only, while all their doubts and fears remain, and which will resume control again as soon as the student is out of your influence.

Intrinsic Motivational Growth and the End of Term

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:00 +0000

Perhaps like me you have witnessed the increasing business of your students as the end of the academic year approached. Perhaps also like me you saw motivation to work increase beyond your wildest dreams, soaring to heights you thought the students could never attain. Perhaps like me then you also experienced the disappointment that such motivation was saved up until the very last minute.

From my point of view it is disappointing when such strategies effectively relegate the students to grades below their capability. I have given the problem much thought and yesterday began to see a connection I had not seen before.

My Hypothesis

Once again Prospect Theory may have a connection. Prospect Theory basically says that people are more likely to take action to avoid a loss, than they are to take action to recieve a gain.

I beleive this principle is in action within many of our students. My hypothesis is as follows:

Typically intrinsic motivation drops after the first few weeks on the course. They are more familiar with the territory, they have made friends and might therefore have more distractions. The novelty has worn off and other life factors are impacting academic success. They are beginning to "chill out" too much and there is a sense that there is plenty of time. This is the part we teachers all hate, and we have to keep finding ways to get our students to value their education. In more extreme circumstances students refuse to work, have tantrums etc.

Then as the end of the year approaches, the mindset begins to change. Suddenly, in spite of their previous performance (or lack of it), they have decided that they do want their qualification after all - it would be such a waste of time to spend a year at college and come away with nothing!

And there we find the connection. After all the weeks and months have passed, almost regardless of the type of student, each one of them feels they have now made an investment of time and effort.

From the teachers perspective it might not have been enough time or effort, but from the student's point of view the investment has been made. With this new perspective the student looks at the approaching end of year, looks at their grades, their pile of unfinished work, and suddenly wants to get it done.

Prospect Theory says students are more likely to take action to avoid a loss, than they are to take action to recieve a gain. Because students now feel they have made an investment they now have something to lose. They feel it likely that they might lose their invesment and so are more likely to take action to avoid the loss.

And there you have it. My hypothesis in a nutshell. Take a peek below and you can see it in a diagram too.

Even more amusing, if you let it happen, is the students who continue to come in to college even after the end of term. Grasping with both hands their "last chance saloon". Students with appalling attendance records during term time somehow find the motivation to come into college during their holiday. An incredible increase in motivation. Wow.

Of course this is just my theory, I am happy to discuss its potential flaws. We mustn't also forget the other extrinsic factors like fear of parents, fear of not going to uni etc... or are they intrinsic too?

I think my next student study will be based around this. Perhaps prospect theory comes into it, no doubt other factors, but I want to know what the factors are. Then I can start introducing them earlier in the year to bring about this marvelous motivational change sooner.

Half a Brain, and Attention Deficit

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:56:00 +0000

One "diagnostic" test I have had the opportunitiy to do with several groups of my students is the Adult Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) self report scale (ASRS) from the World Health Organisation (Sample here). This does not diagnose the disorder, only a Doctor can do that, but has been proved to be reliable at predicting probability.

Along with all the usual numeracy and literacy diagnostics I find this one helpful for finding out which students are most likely to struggle with concentration, and seek out distractions.

The test is originally designed to indicate probability of someone having ADD. Actually, I don't use it for this, though interesting. I use it mainly because in answering the questions on the test I find out some interesting things like:

Which learners will find it hard starting a piece of work.
Which learners will find it hard finishing a piece of work.
Which learners tend to procrastinate.
Which learners are disorganised.

Knowing all these things can be really helpful as you try to get each learner to reach their potential. The test reveals these things simply in the questions it asks. Answers are given as 'never', 'rarely', 'sometimes', 'often', 'very often'.

How often do you have trouble wrapping up the final details of a project, once the challenging parts have been done?
How often do you have difficulty getting things in order when you have to do a task that requires organization?
How often do you have problems remembering appointments or obligations?
When you have a task that requires a lot of thought, how often do you avoid or delay getting started?
How often do you fidget or squirm with your hands or feet when you have to sit down for a long time?
How often do you feel overly active and compelled to do things, like you were driven by a motor?

These questions reveal quite a bit about my learners inner workings that is really helpful.

In pondering Attention Deficit, I have wondered to what degree this is actually a 'condition' for my learners, and to what degree they simply never learned to concentrate properly.

A large proportion of my students insist that listening to music helps them to concentrate. I disagree. Logically, if half your brain is being used up with music, only half is available for doing the work. OK, there may be left brain right brain issues here, fine, I welcome your insight. In favour of my view I cite the animation director of 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' whose mentor ain his early days advocated turning the music off - and when he did, his animation imediately improved.

Why? Because in the words of his mentor he wasn't "clever enough to think of two things at once".

So where does that leave our students? Because they have never learned to focus on one thing, they find it boring, the trade off is to listen to music and only work on part efficiency. Half a brain.

Prospect Theory and Student Motivation

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:41:00 +0000

I know I promised to talk about the behaviourist approach to discipline, but I just had to say something about the recent BBC Horizon programme - "How to Make Better Decisions".

Part of the program went into an area of behavioural psychology called Prospect Theory. Although students motivation was not the subject of discussion I could see definate connections between students decisions to work or not and Prospect Theory.

So what is Prospect Theory?

Prospect theory basically explains how human motivation is altered depending on a persons perceptions of risk. Simply it says - people are more likely to take action to avoid a loss, than they are to take action to recieve a gain.

(You can read more on Wikipedia, or for a more succinct article, on EconPort.)

It took me about half a second to make a connection between this and my own student's motivation.

Impact on student's motivation

My hypothesis is that education, in the student's mind, is more about recieving a gain than it is about avoiding a loss. Their qualification is seen as something that they currently don't posess. Likewise improved job prospects, possibility of increased earnings etc. are all future events - 'maybes' that they currently don't own. They lose nothing that is currently theirs if they fail. This is particularly true if the student already has low self-esteem - then they can't even lose that.

On the flip side, students do own some things that do stimulate more vigorous action.

Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is one example. Students who recieve EMA feel a definate sense of ownership. If their EMA is paid late even by one day, students rarely fail to take up the issue with their tutors. On one occasion a student, mistakenly thinking that certain college employees are to blame, even spoke about making complaints against those staff members they percieved were to blame. I say this because it is important in illustrating the students sense of ownership. Prospect Theory says these students are more likely to take action to avoid a percieved loss. This is born out in practice - and as I just mentioned, even motivates potentially more drastic action.

In some class situations (thankfully not mine) the students most prized possesion may be the respect of their peers. If so, Prospect Theory says, they will take more drastic action to keep that peer respect than they will to do anything the teacher asks.

Owning the future

Assuming the above is true (and I believe it is), solutions are both obvious and difficult. One solution I have begun to adopt with my students, is to help them to take ownership of their future. They need to feel that their next step, whether employment, whether university, (whatever it is), is something that they own right now - and by implication, something that they can lose. When a student takes ownership in this way, Prospect Theory says they will be more likely to take action to prevent the loss of their future dream.

So how are we doing it? I, along with my team, have adopted a strategy that introduces students to their next step almost as soon as they start with us. We do this by taking students to open days at universities, by inviting in speakers from universities, by getting the students to start deciding straight away what their next step will be. To have an aspiration that they own.

True, their future next step is 2 years away. But it is that very idea that we need to change in the minds of our students. By owning their future next step now, Prospect Theory becomes an advantage to our students, and not a distraction.

Army style discipline in schools?

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:22:00 +0000

The latest news is likely, for some teachers, to bring hope and frustration in equal measure. The BBC reports that the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) is urging the government to:

"adopt a US-style programme which brings ex-servicemen and women back to
school."

Their reasoning?

"...ex-soldiers could have a profound effect on discipline and learning."

Their logic is simple. Ex-soldiers are not intimidated by adrenaline fueled adolescents. Ex-soldiers are statistically more likely to stay in the profession longer. Ex-soldiers are more confident in their moral authority. Ex-solidiers are likely to gain respect, especially from boys, because of their experience in a macho profession.

The implication however is that teachers from other backgrounds may be more intimidated, less likely to stay in the profession, un-confident in their moral authority and less likely to gain the respect of boys.

All in all a description of a teacher worn down by the circumstances of their job day-in day-out.

The Frustration

It is at this point the frustration kicks in. Surely there is a reason why some (perhaps many) teachers might be described in this way - apart from the fact that they don't happen to have spent 10 years in the armed services.

I suggest that many, if not all teachers, could be as effective at maintaining discipline as any ex-serviceman - provided they were given the training, tools and support from their senior management team.

The Hope

Unbelievably the think tank's report also said:

"Whether we like it or not, children from more deprived neighbourhoods often
respond to raw physical power".

One has to wonder what they expect ex-soldiers to do that existing teachers currently do not do. Something highly illegal by the sounds of it. But this may represent a teeny glimmer of light in the area of classroom discipline.

Perhaps new government policies will come down from above, untying the hands of school senior managers and teachers to be more effective. We can only hope.

While none of us would really want to 'bring back the cane' I think the CPS has really hit on the crux of classroom discipline - sometimes what is required is a show of strength - and currently by-and-large, that show of strength is simply not being given.

It really comes right down to behaviourist theory at its most basic level - stimulus response - Stick and Carrot. The problem however is that balance between the two may not be correct, too much carrot and not enough stick for the students who need it most - so it doesn't work effectively. This is a topic all on its own and I will cover it in my next post.

F.E. Management Under Scrutiny

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:19:00 +0000

While lecturers up and down the country have this notion of F.E. being a business drumed into them by managers in order to instill concern over meeting targets, do F.E. managers understand that F.E. is a business to a degree appropriate for their role?

Why do I ask? One side effect of the new teacher training courses (DTLLS and GDTLLS) especially in year 2, is that lecturers are encouraged to explore, examine and criticise the business functions of their institution. As such, management suddenly come under scrutiny from their subordinates to a degree previously un-encountered. Gone are the days of generic moaning about policy and management demands - this has now been replaced by serious study, research and analysis - level 5 and Level 6 analysis at that. All in all, the new graduates, when they moan, will be doing it with new authority. Managers and policies are being appraised by their subordinates as never before.

What then are these lecturers finding in their research? What recommendations are coming out of their analysis?

At this point I can only comment on my own findings (though feel free to leave comments). Early findings indicate the following:

Short Term and Medium Term business goals are in conflict.
Lack of synergy between important areas of business function.
Marketing can and should be more closely aligned to business objectives.
Pressure to pass sub-standard student work to meet targets diminishes staff morale and respect for management.

Are the managers aware of these issues and taking appropriate action? Do they listen to fresh ideas from the ground floor?

I suggest that the degree to which these two questions can be answered in the affirmative is a primary indicator of the degree to which managers understand that F.E. is a business, and treat it as such.

One very heartening thing I can say in favour of our new management... we have been invited to give feedback, we have been asked to tell them the things they may not want to hear. This is very refreshing. However, I wonder how many will dare to do it? It very much depends on whether the aim of management is to root out and squash the criticisms, or whether they are truly open to new ideas, and willing to hear them out non-judgementally.

Remove bad teachers?

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:16:00 +0000

"Sub-standard teachers should be removed from schools to make way for better colleagues, a key government education adviser has suggested.

"Sir Cyril Taylor said there were about 17,000 "poor" teachers in England. "(BBC)

On the other hand...

"Teacher Frances Gilbert said problems they had to deal with included parents unwilling to accept the disciplining of their child, government paperwork, and head teachers who would not back them up."(BBC)

However while there is unlikely to be agreement about who is to blame, there are some areas against which a teacher's ability may be more easily assessed:

"'Obvious' weaknesses, such as not knowing enough about their subject or being unable to keep control of a class..."(BBC)

So what is this discussion all about? We know the UK has some of the worse qualification stats for adults, we know many students leave the school system with few or no qualifications. But this does seem to be one attempt at placing a large part of the blame on poor teachers.

Sure there are good teachers and bad teachers, but this suggestion from the "key education adviser" misses some other important points - such as the number of teachers leaving the profession because they are "burned out" - such as broken homes - such as poor parenting - such as expulsion/exclusion targets.

It's easy to go teacher bashing, but this is becoming a worrying trend. In fact the problem is not that simple. Yes lets look at the impact of poor teachers, but lets also look at the impact of increasing discipline, of holding parents responsible for their children's behaviour, of holding students themselves responsible for their own learning. This will take a whole society approach, and is much more complex than removing poor teachers.

HAVE YOUR SAY - read what teachers and the public have to say on the issue >

Law change to raise learning age

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:01:00 +0000

The BBC reports: "There will be an 'educational opportunity' Bill so all young people can stay in education or training to the age of 18, Gordon Brown told MPs.

"The measure - one of several announced in the Commons - is an effort to drive up the 'staying on' rate. "

Read more >

This basically is a nice way of saying that education or training will be compulsory for 16-18 year olds who are unemployed. It is part of a bigger strategy to deal with the NEET (Not in Education Employment or Training) problem and is due to come into force for 17 year olds in 2013 and 18 years olds in 2015. How effective it will be remains to be seen and it is not without it's opponents - especially when the proposals include fining young people who are NEET - effectively criminalising them for doing nothing.

For one I welcome a proposal that makes it less attractive to be an unproductive future benefit leech, however to insist that young people do something, and criminalising them if they don't, even if they are supported by parents and not benefits does seem to encroach on individual choice.

Is this where left wing socialism reaches so far that it meets right wing capitalism round the back? "You will want to better yourself even if we have to make you do it".

Radio 4's PM discussed the issue this evening. Listen to an interview with Jim Knight, the Schools Minister and Adam Hildreth, who left school at 16 after setting up his first company when he was 14:

LISTEN HERE (Download the item in MP3 format) >

School creativity 'needs support'

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:11:00 +0000

The BBC reports that "Creativity in schools needs to be taken 'far more seriously' if it is to avoid being squeezed out of a crowded curriculum, says a report from MPs.

"The Commons education committee warns that creativity is a 'second-order priority' in England's schools. "

Read more >

I am glad to see that this issue has been brought back to our attention. While the focus is so much on standards and attainment as Britain's solution to global competition, we must not miss, in the delivery of education, the one factor that could make those other things truly competitive - creative thinking.

Time to re-look at the Cox Review of creativity in business commissioned in 2005 by the Treasury. The review "sets out the steps that the Government and the business, broadcasting and education sectors should take to ensure that UK businesses harness the world-class creative talents that the UK possesses."

Read the Cox Review on Creativity in Business >

Read more on the value of creativity:

The Design Council >
Design Council introduction to the Cox review on creativity in business >

A-Levels may be scrapped (still... or is it again?)

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:55:00 +0000

This issue seems to have been going on forever, we probably still don't know what is actually going to happen. However I heard an interesting news report on Radio 4's PM that discussed the issue. All the more interesting, considering that I thought the Tomlinson Report was not considered all that credible.

LISTEN HERE (Download the item in MP3 format) >

You can also read more about it here >

QIA a success - but may be streamlined

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:04:00 +0000

The Quality Improvement Agency (QIA), set up by the government to "streamline" efforts to raise the game across further education, has announced a saving of £23m in its first year of operations.

The quango, which might itself fall victim to streamlining if colleges are granted self-regulation by government, says it is making an impact on almost every college and training company in the country.

Read on >

Related News Websites

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:22:00 +0000

Your tutor probably drummed into you the importance of keeping up with the latest developments in industry, you know, that national and international viewpoint we need to be analysing against.

Anyway, here are a few news sites that might augment your reading in the Times Ed, and the FE Focus:

http://www.fenews.co.uk/
http://www.tes.co.uk/
http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/default.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/education/education_news/

Dig in...

Rules and Regs

noreply@blogger.com (Insight) — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:19:00 +0000

This blog is one place you can read issues and share findings related to your DTLLS or GDTLLS course. However please do not use it to swap or share assignments. Facilitating plagiarism is not one of my aims. I won't be posting mine on here, please don't try to post yours.