A little story about behaviour, relationships, expectations and consequences:
A while back, I taught a really tough Year 11 class. There weren't many of them in the room. Their attendance was sporadic. They hated science, and weren't doing very well.
>
The students in there were very challenging. Lots of needs, lots of difficult home lives etc. Not straightforward.
Individually, I got on extremely well with every single one of them. I did my lunch duty near where they hung out and we used to chat and have jokes and stuff. Relationships were strong.
>
The lessons were tough. I had to work damn hard to keep them engaged and attentive. And there were occasional high level blow-outs.
Nothing abnormal for anyone who's taught in a standard challenging secondary.
Most of the time, homework doesn't work. There are lots of reasons for this, but one biggie is that a key part of the evidence is all too often overlooked. Short thread to explain what that is 🧵👇
There isn't a huge amount of evidence on homework. But the EEF handily summarise what there is, and one of the things that sparks off big questions in my head is this:
On the face of it, it's not clear why this should make a difference. If you set students work, and they do the work, you'd expect them to learn stuff.
EXCEPT
Most students don't think homework is important. They don't understand the point.
If you thought behaviour was a problem in England, wait till you see Scotland and Wales...
>
I'm interested to know how these stats change over time. I suspect fewer science teachers over time are doing practicals, both because of the issues here, but also because of a growing awareness around them not being great for actually learning.
I need to stop tweeting about Inquiry and research papers about it.
I *know* it doesn't work. I've been in ~500 lessons over the last ~18 months, and in any case when the teacher was not explicit about something, a good number of students then didn't understand that thing.
Two quick notes
1. It's worth asking yourself "hm, I wonder what type of student was most likely to not understand that thing"
If you aren't sure, the answer is "probably the one that needed to understand it the most."
2. I have seen plenty of occasions where teachers *were* explicit with The Thing and students *still* didn't understand The Thing. I've written about that, and I can work with it and help. But I can't work with a philosophy of *purposely not giving them The Thing*
Lots of people are now talking about attention and strategies for ensuring students are listening. I think that's a Good Thing, so here are some things that might help 👇👇
The longer you spend questioning one student, the more likely it is that others in the room will switch off. Questioning the one student is important though, so you need to use techniques that keep everyone else involved.
Thinking about everyone else when you are questioning one student requires a change in perspective. It requires you to say "ok, this one student is important, but everyone else is too." That doesn't come naturally, and I call it a "class eye view"
At TTA for the bulk of our verbal questioning we use a form of Cold Call that involves a) putting the name at the end of the question, and b) targeting specific students. So NOT hands up, NOT calling out, and NOT at random.
How do we target? Based on what?
>
This will vary. Bread and butter check for understanding questions* would be targeted to students who tend to take a bit longer to grasp the concepts than others. So, if they get the answer right, we can make an "ok" inference that other students might also have grasped it.
>
*Note of course that when it comes to checking for understanding, this method (along with pretty much every other method) is way worse than using mini-whiteboards. But it's better than most other verbal questioning methods.