Five Years of Blogging

18/01/2012 reflection 2 comments


It’s now five years since I started blogging. Wow. I would never have thought I’d still be going five years later. But then, I didn’t expect that it would become the best form of CPD I’d ever undertaken.

I mean that. I think that starting my blog had the single biggest effect on my as a teacher since leaving Teacher Training. It finally forced me to do that thing I always struggled to find time to do – reflect on my practice. Although I obviously still struggle to find time to do this, the audience (perceived or otherwise) encourages me to make the time to reflect more frequently than I otherwise would. The resulting learning has become addictive and has led directly to me signing up for the Chartered Teacher MEd, and my secondment as a CfE Development Officer.

In an age of increasing austerity, and in a profession which should be increasingly moving towards individual-led professional learning – a blog is a completely free, yet incredibly powerful solution. I would strongly encourage any teacher to start one. If you do though, please remember two things. Firstly, you are writing it primarily for yourself. Although the audience encourages you to write it and to try to make it somewhat coherent, you are the main beneficiary of the effort you put in. And secondly, you will go through highs and lows. There are many months when you won’t post a thing, and others when you’ll post lots. That’s ok. Just leave it there, and keep it turning over for when you need it/want it.

Will I still be blogging in another five years…I very much hope so!

Making Learning Real

10/01/2012 cfe, change, science 2 comments

I’m quite inspired by Ewan’s idea of a problem finder curriculum, but I’m not entirely sure how to get there to be honest…however it has encouraged me to persevere with trying to give my pupils’ greater ownership over their own learning, and making their learning more real.

I know it’s nowhere near the idea that Ewan’s proposing, but I have made a couple of recent attempts to use the web to make learning a little more real in my classroom. The first was with an Intermediate 1 Biology class who were about to learn about body temperature. As a parent, I felt that the learning might seem more relevant if the pupils were to produce a website on body temperature for new parents – something I remember being quite anxious about first time round. I knew I’d use Google Sites for the actual creation of the sites, but I didn’t feel that the pupils would buy into this completely with the horrific URLs which Google Sites uses. So I bought a domain name to try and help with this…mybabystemperature.info

You can view their sites by following the link above. The pupils really engaged with the task, many of them taking the responsibility of producing a real website with an actual audience quite seriously.

I’ve since followed this idea up with something similar, but this time the site can be used with a wider range of classes: biologyrevision.info

As you’ll see, I’ve already begun to use this with Standard Grade classes as well as Intermediate 1. Once again, the pupils seemed to really enjoy producing something which is “real” and has an actual audience. And the beauty of Google Sites is that they can collaborate and review in private and only publish once they’re happy with it.

I’m looking forward to finding better and ever more challenging ways of opening up learning in my classroom…

The uncomfortable truth about Curriculum for Excellence

05/01/2012 cfe, change, Featured, reflection, secondment 8 comments

The problems facing Curriculum for Excellence have finally been identified. Carole Ford demonstrated them clearly in her recent article in the TESS.

If you know me your jaw may well now be on the floor. What? Fearghal agrees with Carole Ford’s piece!?! No, rest assured, I haven’t done a U-turn. No, I don’t agree with her points at all, but I think she unintentionally demonstrated why CfE is struggling to gain traction in so many parts of the country. Obviously there are many issues such as support, time, funding etc.; but perhaps the greatest barrier is the support for school leaders in understanding the change, which then impacts on their ability to lead the changes in their schools.

There are many points in her piece which I disagree with, but I’ll pick out a small sample to illustrate my point. In reference to literacy and numeracy she says:

pupils who fail to develop appropriate levels of literacy and numeracy skill in primary school rarely make good this deficit later in the educational process. The CfE solution to this is not, as one might expect, to focus attention on the primary years of schooling but to place responsibility for both onto secondary teachers. Thus we have physics teachers teaching literacy and French teachers teaching numeracy

I find this statement to be shockingly inaccurate for two reasons. Firstly, CfE is continuing to place a strong focus on literacy, numeracy (& health and well being) in the primary stages as well as secondary. And secondly, secondary teachers should not be ‘teaching literacy’ in place of their subject specialisms – but rather using their subject areas as contexts to develop these skills where appropriate. Throughout the broad general education the intention is to improve young people’s literacy and numeracy levels – this is not the sole domain of primary teachers, as any secondary teacher will tell you (bemoan)! Whilst there may well be a number of secondary schools around the country which are requiring their staff to be ‘teaching numeracy’ in place of their subject area, I would argue that this is not the fault of CfE, but of the school leaders who have misinterpreted the documentation.

She goes onto use a similar argument regarding interdisciplinary learning:

interdisciplinary learning, advocated by CfE, is a whole bone of contention in its own right. Why is taking a teacher out of his comfort zone a good thing? Do you wish to be treated by a doctor who is operating out of his comfort zone? The logic of interdisciplinary learning is that I will make better progress in German if the teacher is not fluent in German but pretty good at French or Spanish. In the language of Homer Simpson, “D’oh!”

It’s surprising that an article which criticises the lack of evidence presented to support CfE only itself contains a quote by Homer Simpson, but anyway, interdisciplinary learning. I personally don’t believe that interdisciplinary learning is the holy grail one might think it is if you listen to certain people, but I still think the quotation above misses the point. Interdisciplinary learning is not supposed to be about French teachers teaching German. It’s supposed to be about providing young people with opportunities to see their learning in a more joined up way and be beginning to make connections between the artificial barriers we’ve created between the subjects. This is a skill which I always say marks out the top candidates in Biology, and it is one which is becoming increasingly relevant in today’s world.

Once again, there may well be many teachers out there having to teach a subject outside their comfort zone under the banner of interdisciplinary learning and CfE, but I think Carole Ford is inadvertently highlighting an issue with her colleagues – not Curriculum for Excellence. Don’t get me wrong, I think there are many barriers facing the implementation of CfE, but not all of them lie with the policy documents or the national agencies – as demonstrated by this article.

Inquiry Based Learning in Science

05/01/2012 science, speaking No comments

I thought I’d celebrate the resurrection of my blog by sharing a wee video of me talking about inquiry based learning in science. This was recorded following the PISCES module I helped develop and deliver as part of the STEAM project.

Not Ability, Readiness

20/11/2011 reflection 5 comments

I dislike the use of the word ‘ability’ in schools. I have for some time, but I’ve never been able to propose a credible alternative. Until now.

Why do I dislike this commonly used word? I think it’s to do with the association ‘able’ has to a permanent state of being. It comes across as either/or – either you are able to study biology at a certain level, or you are not. For me, this links closely with Dweck’s concept of a ‘Fixed Mindset’. We have enough of a problem as it is convincing young people that they can change and it’s worth making the effort to learn and improve, so why therefore do we make it even harder for ourselves by constantly using language which implies the opposite?

I have a personal reason for disliking this term also. I was not a high flier at secondary school. For my GCSEs I found myself in the second from bottom sets for both English and Maths. As a result I became convinced that I was simply no good at these subjects, and never would be. Since leaving school I have slowly unlearned this. I learned during the course of my biology degree that I could cope with more challenging mathematical concepts once they had a context and a purpose. Since leaving Uni I relearned a love of reading which I’d lost during secondary school, and more recently discovered that I can read and write critically through the course of my MEd. So, it isn’t that I wasn’t able to do well in those courses…it was that I wasn’t ready to.

I realise that there are some young people who may never be ‘ready’ to do well in Advanced Higher Biology, but a great many of those we class as being unable to do it will be able to at a later date…especially if we haven’t locked them into a Fixed Mindset in the first place!

You’ll have noticed perhaps that I’m not actually arguing against setting here, which is a bit odd for me, I’m just suggesting we stop referring to these sets in terms of their ability…but in terms of their readiness instead.

What do you think?

#LearnMeet

22/10/2011 cfe, change 2 comments

Following my post this morning, I got an interesting reply on twitter from Don Ledingham;

@ We are thinking about setting up an event for staff to develop such a framework for EL Any ideas how we can give teachers ownership?
22/10/2011 8:18 am via Twitter for iPadReplyRetweetFavorite
@donjled
Don Ledingham

I was, of course, very intrigued and replied as follows;

@ Wow. A cracking question can I give it some thought? We should also ask how we can give learners ownership too? Event for them 1st?
22/10/2011 8:20 am via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite
@fkelly
Fearghal Kelly

This has since snowballed on twitter and has now evolved into #LearnMeet, which is beginning to look something like this;

My Idea for 1st #LearnMeet is a central Edinburgh venue, for senior pupils (S6) to give their ideas and opinions. Held after school hours.
22/10/2011 6:17 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite
@rjnicolson
Ruairidh Nicolson

I’m struggling to say what I think on all this, especially in 140 characters – so I thought I’d try a wee blog post instead…I’d like to start by saying I have nothing against the suggested format for a LearnMeet proposed above by Ruairidh - it could be great and I’d be encouraging our Seniors along. However, I think this is disjointed from the original discussion.

I really like Don’s idea, and I think it’s important that pupils and parents have opportunities to input into this framework…but this needs to be done as part of the system. Schools and Local Authorities need to continue to increase the opportunities for a wider range of stakeholders to formally input into the direction of learning and teaching in schools – but this needs to be taken seriously and carried out properly. If the students and parents consulted are to feel as though their opinion really matters, they need to be giving it in an appropriate context…which can of course be augmented by social media, but not entirely reliant on it. And if those who will be developing the framework are to take this input seriously, they need to be confident in the mechanism by which it was acquired…i.e. not in a fringe, twilight event with a small selection of our learners.

I think I would frame this process as updating East Lothian’s Teaching & Learning Policy, which as far as I know hasn’t been touched since 2007. I would certainly be wanting to involve as many pupils, parents and staff as possible in the process through a combination of physical face-to-face groups and online engagement with a clear outcome/framework produced as a result…

A framework for learning & teaching

22/10/2011 cfe, change, Featured, learning cycle, reflection 2 comments

The current trend of giving a document a title which doesn’t match its contents is not new. Building the Curriculum 3 is guilty of this too, a ‘framework for learning and teaching’ it is not. As far back as April 2009, I’ve shared on this blog how I used my interpretation of this document to try to develop a pedagogy which would meet its aims and principles. Arriving at this interpretation was not easy, and I’m sure others have arrived at different ones. The subsequent implementation of this interpretation has not been straightforward either. It’s quite difficult to develop and change something as complex as your approaches to learning and teaching in relative isolation. All of which leaves me with little surprise that many practicing teachers across Scotland are still at a bit of a loss as to what Curriculum for Excellence is supposed to mean for them and their learners beyond the content in the Experiences and Outcomes and the infamous changes in approach to assessment.

It is for this reason that I think the introduction of the learning cycle model and learn2learn at my school is being so positively received. This actual framework for learning and teaching is filling the vacuum left by the Curriculum for Excellence documents by providing teachers with something concrete to build learning experiences around. The implementation of the model is also being supported by those who’ve helped develop it – and crucially – use it day in day out. I’ve already begun to demonstrate how this approach relates to the literature and my experience of using it so far suggests that it has a positive impact on learning (in its broadest sense). I’m also finding that this model is in no way restrictive and actually provides vast potential for development of practice – but in a focused way.

I think all of this provides us with lessons on how to move forward. It’s not, as some would argue, that all secondary teachers are resistant to change. It’s that they need clear guidance and support to make change. In an ideal world we’d all be able to develop our own practice collaboratively based on literature and evidence, within very broad guidance – but this is just simply not realistic. Can Scotland now learn from past mistakes and develop the guidance which will actually impact on classroom practice and the crucial support to make it happen? I hope so, but I have my doubts.

Do the project first!

30/09/2011 active learning, cfe, change, science 2 comments

In June of this year I was lucky enough to attend the Cramlington Learning Festival, something I’ve already mentioned on here.

One of the sessions I attended was led by the inspiring Darren Mead, who shared his Project Based Learning mantra with us: “Do the project first”. In other words, if you’re going to set a project for students to complete then we as teachers should be trying it first and showing this to the students at the outset. Darren showed us one he’d done. Whilst it was impressive that he’d gone and spent all that time making his project, one of the things that really surprised me at the time was that it wasn’t perfect – at one point his young son was doing the camera work! On reflection, I think this is fantastic. It would be potentially devasting to show the students unobtainable perfection and then ask them to try to do their own projects…

As we’re redesigning our S2 courses currently, we’ve been trying to diversify the opportunities for learning and assessment – and using these to help engage the students in the topic. For example, in our new Genetics & Reproduction topic we’re planning to ask our students to produce a documentary aimed at couples who are planning to try for a baby at the end of the topic. We’re going to share this task with them at the start of the topic, but use this to structure the actual lessons:

The six questions in the list slide provide the titles of each of the lessons in the topic. But, since Darren’s session I’d been thinking…should we be trying this first? Should we have a go at producing the documentary and ask the pupils to assess it before we start the topic…so a colleague and I went for it – remember, it’s a long way from perfection – but deliberately so…

We’ll let you know how it goes…

A Sad Day

13/09/2011 MEd No comments

Unsurprisingly, Chartered Teacher Status is doomed. Professor McCormac’s report “Advancing Professionalism in Teaching” published this morning recommends that “The Chartered Teacher Scheme should be discontinued.”

I understand, and share, some of the concerns raised about the CT programme. But, I think this is the wrong move. Firstly, significant improvements have been made in relation to the programme – the revised standard, the code of practice and the closure of the direct route – and I’m not convinced that these changes have been given sufficient time to have impact. And, even if they had – surely we should be continuing to improve rather than abandon?

For me, the CT scheme has had massive impact. It’s allowed me access to an MEd programme, which has in turn revolutionized me as a teacher and my practice. As I now approach the end of my MEd, I’m now also beginning to have a more significant impact on my colleagues also.

I’ve already come to terms with the loss of CT Status some time ago and have focused explicitly on completion of my MEd, but it upsets me that this fantastic career route is now going to be closed to my colleagues. There are a large number of teachers out there who would’ve made fantastic use of the CT route to benefit the learners in their schools…will temporary PT posts really provide a credible alternative?

#EduScotICT

09/09/2011 glow 11 comments

So, he’s done it. The Glow Futures procurement has been halted. Glow’s future now looks very uncertain and could be headed in a very different direction…the question is, is this a good thing? I first learnt of this was from an emailed letter which I assume I received as a result of having attended the ediff event last year, and my initial reaction wasn’t a positive one, partly because the letter failed to strike the same tone as the video clip above. This paragraph left me with a sense of loss, rather than gain:

This afternoon, Michael Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, made an announcement outlining the Scottish Government’s key objectives for ICT in education and his plans for the next generation of Glow. This included stopping the current Glow Futures procurement and utilising readily available tools, through a single sign-on, to make the next generation of Glow more relevant and dynamic.

Whilst I am a huge advocate of radical change when it comes to Glow, I was under the impression that the Glow Futures programme was aiming to achieve this – and so this to me felt like a cut. I was therefore surprised when I saw the almost universally positive reaction on twitter, so I went and watched the video above and began to realise the positive implications of this move. I see why any procurement process may not have been able to successfully achieve Glow Future’s own principles, which were:

  • First Principle: Trusted
  • Second Principle: Personalised
  • Third Principle: Organic
  • Fourth Principle: Motivate
  • Fifth Principle: Engage
  • Sixth Principle: Social
  • Seventh Principle: Easy

They just don’t sit naturally with the type of big IT company which would be attracted to this National procurement process, so a new approach is probably the right move. However, these are very much still the principles which we should be working to. Glow needs to begin to open more doors, get out of peoples way and inspire learning in more classrooms – and crucially – far beyond classrooms. However, I am still struggling to imagine how this is achieved with less resources (as this is surely still a cut – as effectively admitted by the Minister himself).

What exactly will Glow be in this new world? Just a login to various open source apps? Who will manage it? Who will lead it? I’m afraid I’m still left with more questions than answers at this stage. Hopefully they’ll begin to appear soon…

« Older Entries