Report Comments

As I proof-read sets of reports, I wonder if we should only make a comment if we would be willing to state its opposite:

Joe is a bright and very pleasant pupil
Joe is a dim or very unpleasant pupil
Joe is making excellent progress with this course
Joe is making poor progress with this course
Joe is highly motivated
Joe is unmotivated
It is a pleasure teaching Joe
I am not enjoying teaching Joe
Joe is an excellent student
Joe is a poor student
Joe always acts on advice                                    
Joe sometimes fails to act on the advice I give him
Joe is very capable
Joe is not very capable
Joe is a hardworking boy
Joe is a lazy boy

We would happily state some of these "opposites", but some seem completely inappropriate!

Actually it seems to me that we are happy to make positive statements about the identity of a person - they are bright, excellent, intelligent, capable, hardworking etc., but much more reticent about making matching negative statements. We couch them in process language, so the opposite of "Joe is a hardworking boy" becomes "Joe needs to put more effort into his classwork" rather than "Joe is…". The thing is, you can't have one without the other. In a world where there are "bright" students, there are also "dim" students. In a world where there are "pleasant" students there are also students who are "unpleasant". Our statement of the former acknowledges the existence of the latter.

I draw no conclusion - I'm just taking a break, having read 20 sets of reports. 45 to go.


Popular posts from this blog

Some Thoughts about Skills-Based Curricula

I hear a lot of talk about skills-based curricula in Scotland these days, with the general vibe being that skills-based curricula are a Good Thing™. I'm not entirely clear what people mean by a skills-based curriculum, because it is one of those phrases which has slipped into the common parlance of educators without any clear definition (see also "learner conversations"). Try searching on the Education Scotland website for "skill based curriculum" and you'll draw a blank. I guess it means a curriculum defined in terms of the competencies being developed by our learners: a curriculum defined in terms of the things we want our learners to be able to do, rather than what they know.

I can see the appeal of this, but I am wary. Here are a couple of things which would worry me if they were true:

1.  Is this curriculum seeking to develop generic, transferable skills?

If so, we really need to distinguish between actual skills which are applicable in a range of conte…
Read more

Planning for Learning or Planning for Behaviour?

Several months ago I found myself sitting beside a quite senior staff member from one of our colleges of initial teacher education, who complained to me that her student teachers all seemed to be obsessed with behaviour management.

I was flabbergasted, but failed miserably to put together a reasonable argument for why the students were quite right.

That conversation came back to me today as I taught a maths cover class, who were learning about the graphs of linear equations.  The class had some lively characters in it, and they were clearly struggling with the central concept: that a line on a coordinate diagram represents all the points where a particular linear equation involving x and y is true.

As they explored this concept through a series of activities, many of them experienced confusion and frustration. These are normal, healthy emotions for learners. We were able to stick with these challenging experiences partly because the pupils were operating in an environment in which mis…
Read more

Learning styles are a myth and I am not an auditory learner

Image
I switched on Radio 6 this morning, and the track they were playing had a drum sound which caught my ear. It reminded me of a rototom - a tuned drum which was quite popular in the 80s. I had a set of three in my drum kit.



I doubt many listeners would have made that connection. I suspect many listeners would not even have particularly distinguished that drum sound. I think many people just hear songs in a much less differentiated way, unless they make a real effort. I, like most musicians, tend to hear the guitar, the drums, the bass, the keyboard and the vocals separately.

In other words, I am extracting more information from the audio than some might.

It would be tempting to imagine, therefore, that I would learn better through hearing than through other senses. But that is nonsense. Imagine trying to learn about the physical geography of a country through hearing about it without a map!

But this is exactly the argument made by people who insist they are "visual learners" d…
Read more