Dangerous fun

Today, I have read two blogs that are explaining that lessons should be fun for children. They both say that fun in lessons is fine and also desirable. They miss the point. Let me make it clear that I would not want any teacher to plan, deliberately, a dull lesson. To squeeze any possible enjoyment that a child might have in taking part in the learning of the lesson.

Too often, in education, we seem to set up this polarisation. 'Ah, you're the one who says lessons should not be fun. So that means you want children to have a boring experience in your classroom!'

Poppycock. Nonsense. That is not at all what is being said by those that add a degree of caution tot he 'fun' lesson. There are several reasons for this. In no particular order they are:

Working memory is easily disrupted and if we are to learn something, other than skills like riding a bike, it has to go through working memory to get into long term memory. Working memory is a little more complex than this but the best model is by Baddeley and Hitch. This model is quite old and was proposed in 1974. When designing a lesson we have to put the learning up front and be very careful about the way in which we present that learning to children. Daisy Christodolou in her YouTube video explains what children remembered in a lesson she gave on the apostrophe. The lesson was full of fun and based around children planning a day in the life of a village. Far from remembering anything about the apostrophe what they remembered most vividly was that a chin saw was used to cut down the tree. One problem with planning fun. The fun was motivating but also the distraction.

If you think children need to be having fun you might well avoid or minimise particular learning as that particular piece is difficult to make fun. practice is not always the most fun thing one can do and practising to mastery and beyond can be quite a slog. If we believe children should be willing to put up with the boring stuff then we will organise our lesson and our expectations that they will do what is required for learning. We will explain to them, in assemblies perhaps, that to learn requires you to put in the effort even when it is not sugar coated. We might even have a reward system that credited children who showed the grit needed. If we believe they need to learn we will create systems that value those behaviours.

Fun                                              No Fun.  It is not either or. It is a choice we make that ensures the learning content is front stage and that we don't distort that learning for the sake of fun.

Ask yourself how much are you worried by the fact that your children might misbehave if they do not find the learning fun? Is your learning plan predicated on stopping children misbehaving? Going off task? Not being focused? Is that really what happens if you plan quality learning and don't mix in enough fun?

Have you ever significantly altered or even removed a part of a lesson because you could not make it fun enough?

Stop it. Plan good lessons and expect good learning behaviours.

' I think planning for fun is fine....if we want pupils to remember only the fun.' @Benneypenyrheol

How might we start to 'see' learning in a classroom?

My brain hurts and I have a dreadful cold with the nose blockage from hell. But I have been trying to make the idea of 'seeing' learning make sense in my head and can't. So I am going to try and write thoughts down. Sometimes the view becomes clearer when I do this and sometimes not. Have to see what happens as I type. Actually, I am not sure I know what all my thoughts are!

Firstly, it has worried me that we can't see learning. @learningspy blogs about only being able to see performance in a classroom and that teachers who try to make that performance visible to themselves and to an observer might be damaging the learning that eventually results from the lesson. That, I think you will agree, would be quite a worry.

I am not sure if that view is at odds with Hattie's requirement to make learning visible to the teacher. Will our trying to make learning apparent so we can do something about those children who are not learning as well as they might actually make the possibility of learning less likely?

Also Robert Coe's views that we kid ourselves, and Ofsted kids itself, that by observing a lesson they can say something sensible and valid about the learning in that lesson. He identifies that we don't really see learning in classrooms but we use a number of proxies, some better than others, but all somewhat distant from the intention of observation which is to see and evaluate learning. He suggests that observing lessons is fraught with inaccuracy. Different observers see and value different things and that there is no evidence of a link between lesson observation and improvement in the quality of the teacher. Presumably we would all agree that one of the main purposes of lesson observations would be to, in some way, lead to teacher improvement. Bit worrying of the process is so flawed that there is little chance of that happening.

Party this depends on the definition of learning we use. My working definition is that a child has learned if:

1. there is a change in their behaviour
2. they know or understand something new, or more deeply
3. they have remembered the learning for long enough for it to be valuable
4. the learning has some validity

I think that one of the reasons we are not able to see learning happening in a lesson is simply that fact that learning happens over time. They may be able to answer a question during the lesson but will they be able to answer that question some time after the lesson?

I at trying to accept that we can't see learning in a lesson but that we might be able to identify the proxies we can observe that will allow to be able to say that it is likely that learning will happen. What are these proxies? That is what I have been puzzling over with my semi-solid filled nose! Sorry!

Change in behaviour.

I think this is most obviously seen in whether or not children can answer appropriate questions posed by the teacher. the questions will have been planned so that the teacher is trying to make the learning visible, as Hattie says.

There will be other opportunities such as children being able to do the work set; the practices that teachers give for children to see if they can apply their new understandings to similar but different problems. How well are they able to use the intended learning?

What do they write and take note of? Are these the critical things that relate to the learning? Are they able to identify what matters?

They know or understand something new, or more deeply.

I guess this is tested by the behaviour changes. Can they answer the questions and how difficult are the questions they can now answer? Are they using their previous knowledge to help them find answers to the more difficult problems? What does the teacher do to get them to use their previous, relevant knowledge?

They have remembered the learning for long enough for it to be valuable

This is an area I have been thinking about for a while. It is the need to support children to remember what they have learned. What does the teacher do that evidences the need for children to remember?

There will be things like the clarity of the initial introduction of the material. How is the confusing mass of information pared down initially so that the learner can focus on that which really matters in the early stages of learning? How are the potentially distracting features minimised so that working memory is not overloaded? If we make the hook so engaging the hook is remembered rather than the learning intended.

What strategies has the teacher used to make the content memorable? Not making the event surrounding the learning memorable but the actual material that is meant to be learned? For me the difference between these two is critical. Don't try to make the learning fun as the fun itself can easily distract the learner. They might just remember the fun! I don't want you to try to make it boring, just make it not distracting when they are first learning. If you allow for too much interpretation by the learner you risk allowing too much misinterpretation by that learner.

So what do we see the teacher doing that will support remembering? Could be a homework that requires the learner to commit to memory the work covered.

The learning has some validity.

This has a couple of elements. Firstly is the work that which should be covered. Is it part of the scheme of work for this class?

The second is about the match of the difficulty of the work with the current abilities of the class.

I am dismissing this element in quite a cursory manner not because I think it is unimportant but because it is, I believe, easier to evidence than the other three.

So, a lesson observation proforma for the process might look some thing like:

What is going on in the lesson?

Is material from previous lessons being used?

Is the material being presented clearly with minimal distraction?

Are key learning points emphasised?

Is there then graded practice?

Is the teacher choosing when to intervene?

Are students focussed and working hard?

What is done to secure the key learning? What memorisation techniques are used?

Is feedback making children think? Is the feedback on the task? (Given we can't see learning)

D I RT  Is time given to improve work following feedback?

Robert Coe says that “Learning happens when people have to think hard.” Perhaps this is the key. When observing can we evidence children thinking hard?
That could well be it. I guess there would also be some quality measures.

I wonder what else and what other strong proxies for the possibility of learning to happen?

Alternative Bloom's, bespoke for different subjects

Alternative Bloom’s

Original	@Xris32	Science	Maths
Creating	Creating	Concluding	Refining
Evaluating	Understanding	Evaluating	Evaluating
Analysing	Evaluating	Analysing	Applying
Applying	Analysing	Using	Recognising
Understanding	Remembering	Remembering	Seeing
Remembering	Parodying	Copying	Looking

A blog post by @xris32 considered Bloom’s and what it might have a form that was less useful for the way he sees English teaching and learning. While I like Bloom’s I have always had problems with it as a taxonomy. It is not an ordered list where the base is used to build the layers upwards. I will not go into why this is but it is quite easy to show it does not work in the way a taxonomy works. As an aside, for me, SOLO is a much more effective taxonomy.

He has a much more detailed exploration of his English Bloom’s.

I thought I would have a god at seeing what happened if I tried to create, top level Bloom’s stuff, a science Bloom’s and a maths one just to see if I could.

I left a column empty to see if you thought there were different lists that would logically apply on different circumstances. Be interested in any thoughts you have.

Yesterday I got a pair of shoes..

Yesterday I got a pair of shoes, new shoes. They came in a box, a shoe box sized box. Not very exciting but the box served its purpose and delivered the shoes as it was meant to.










Today I got a box that looked very exciting. It was a big box wrapped up with pretty coloured paper and
ribbon. It had smiley stickers and interesting pictures stuck onto the coloured paper. I was very eagerly tearing of the paper and ribbons to get inside the box.

Inside the box was another box. What fun.

Inside this box was a pair of shoes. Was this pair of shoes better than the shoes I got yesterday? Was this pair of shoes more shoe like than the first pair of shoes? Nope. Both days, just a pair of shoes.




Teaching. Planning exciting boxes to show a pair of shoes? Is that what we do?

Shallow, Deep, Profound

Some of the teacher training I am involved in uses the model:

Shallow

Deep

Profound

We use it while we are discussing coaching and its relationship to teaching. It covers a great deal and promotes a lot of discussion over a range of topics.

Teachers tend to think that we are trying to get children to operate deeply and sometimes profoundly. That is true but that itself, the rush to deep as I call it, can cause serious problems with the quality of the subsequent learning if we have not 'paddled around in the shallows enough'. I am an advocate of spending enough time in, and also in revisiting, the shallows of learning.

Shallow is not a bad place to be. It is not limiting learning. To be 'in at the deep end' can be very damaging to a child's view about their ability to learn.

Clearly the word 'shallow' can be pejorative.

What a shallow person she is. Not a nice thing to say or to have said about one.

He only has a shallow understanding implies a gap; something missing that could be present.


The language associated with Bloom's Taxonomy of lower order skills and higher order skills creates a similar urge to move to those, clearly, more attractive higher order things!

If you are told that teachers questioning is 80% recall and understanding, the two lowest levels of Bloom's, then you will feel there is a need to move to the higher end. I might take a somewhat different view. I might be quite pleased that you were spending appropriate time at the 'lower' end.

Why do teachers need to ask lower order questions?

If you know why this is then you might not be so sniffy about these kinds of questions. There are learning reasons, remembering reasons, recalling reasons, assessment reasons, and other reasons. Do you know these reasons and why 'paddling in the shallows' is so critical for quality learning?

There are also some bad reasons for asking lower order questions. You need to know these and modify your practice appropriately.

Paddle lots, please, for the sake of the children.

Inspired by Linsey. A very thoughtful teacher.

We gain information by listening and hearing.

We gain information by looking and seeing.

We gain information by hearing and seeing.

We gain meaning by thinking about what we see and hear.

We gain meaning by thinking appropriately about what we can think about.

We gain meaning by linking what we see and hear to what we have already seen and heard and thought about.

We begin to secure what we understand by active thinking.

We can remember because we know and can recognise similarities.

We can remember because we know what it is not.

We can recall because we have remembered and we have practised remembering enough.

We have learned if we can do all of these.

Thank you, Linsey.

Engagement - is it a matter of definition?

It might be but I suspect it is also a word which is heavily coloured by your view of what the purpose of education is as well.

Let me try and say what I believe engagement is and what it is not. I will also try and explain why I think these things. My focus is really on learning and I am influenced by the work of cognitive scientists such as Dan Willingham and my favourite, Dylan Wiliam.

I also hold strongly to the view of working memory as being a feature of all learners; a very limited route into the brain and an easily disturbed input. Distraction to the material (I can’t think of a better word) held in working memory will be highly damaging to learning. That distraction can be internal or external and teachers can add, inadvertently to the level of distraction. Teachers can also present material in chunks that are too large or too many which will prevent working memory from operating effectively.

I also think that there are some different purposes relating to learning which may be phase specific. In early years there can properly be an emphasis on providing children with experiences. If one has never been taken to a zoo, for example, by one’s parents then it would be important for some of that experience to be replicated by the teacher. Taking children on a visit or taking part in a classroom activity that mirrors the zoo experience in some way is valid. It is also inefficient as a learning process for several reasons. But I don’t see a way around this inefficiency.

So, what is it that I am using as my definition of engagement?

First of all engagement is a process that a child carries out in their brain when they are thinking. It is the processes that a learner uses to pay attention to the learning stimulus and to then make sense of that stimulus. In a simple example if we were teaching a child that 2 + 2 = 4, then one thing that they must do is to pay attention to what we say. The information that we transmit must get into working memory. It must get in undistorted and ready to be processes, again within working memory. Paying attention, knowing which parts of the environment to attend to and which bits to avoid are key to what I mean by engagement.

So the first part of engagement is to pay attention to what matters and to disregard that which does not matter. The teacher’s role in this is critical and a good teacher will know what to emphasis and what to disregard, or at least waive, as inclusion might do more to distract than support learning. One reason why I think humans will remain as teachers for a long time yet and not be replaced by machines!

After attending to the 2 + 2 = 4 lesson content the learner has to process this so that it makes sense; is memorable; can be used - initially in a very limited way, and later in more complex ways; attached to what is already known. To do this a learner must try to link the new knowledge about 2 + 2 = 4 to existing knowledge. The more links and the more secure these links the better the understanding.

We can teach children how they can engage more effectively.

I do not recognise as valid terms such as an engaging lesson nor an engaging teacher when I am thinking about the brain processes of engagement. I use engagement in a very specific way.

I think we also need to make sure that children can be attentive, not meant as trivially as looking at, but looking at and thinking about.

One of the issues with engagement as a teacher created process is that the teacher is offering some learning opportunity to a child and if the child does not know what to pay attention to, if the stimulus has a feature of attractiveness for the learner then we are at a loss to know what the child will attend to and engage in, in a sense of what they will think about and puzzle over.

That might be enough. Let’s see.