Bloom's taxonomy.

In the classroom, teachers spend a considerable amount of time asking questions and responding to answers on a daily basis. In fact, teachers can “ask up to several hundred questions per day” (Gall, 1970; 1984 in Alford, Herbert & Frangenheim, 2006). Both the questioning and responding to answers process are fundamental in “arousing interest, summarising major points, encouraging discussion, stimulating higher cognitive level thinking, check on class progress, routines and behaviours, maintain attention and evaluating learning” (Alford et al., 2006). According to Gall (1970, 1984) teachers utilise two main types of questioning: fact and higher cognitive level questions (Alford et al., 2006). Furthermore, approximately 60% of teacher’s questions are fact questions, while the remaining 40% are higher cognitive level (Alford et al., 2006). However, it is recommended teachers dedicate half the total number of questions to higher cognitive level questions into their lessons (Alford et al., 2006).

Benjamin Bloom (1956) devised a taxonomy which categorised the level of abstraction of questions that frequently occur in schools. As there can be a tendency to have too much class time spent on the lower level of Bloom’s taxonomy, it can be used in directing more tasks and questions at the higher level of his ‘thinking’ taxonomy. In the 1990s however, Lorin Anderson led a team of cognitive psychologists, and made significant changes to Bloom’s (1956) previous work. The revised Bloom’s taxonomy consisted of (from lower to higher order questioning and thinking): remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate and design (Alford et al., 2006).

In one particular prac visit, I witnessed a questioning and responding to answers session where the class could have benefited from adopting Bloom’s taxonomy. In this lesson, the students were just being introduced to a unit on electricity. I noticed that mainly all the questions the teacher asked were ‘fact’ questions, and hardly any higher cognitive level questions. After the questioning finished, the teacher wrote factual information about electrical circuits and the students had to then copy the information on the board. When applying this lesson to Bloom’s taxonomy, the level of thinking would have stopped at the lower end of the spectrum: remember. This was an awful shame, as this lesson could have had so much potential. For instance, the teacher could have used a constructivist approach where the students would firstly experiment constructing their own circuit which could have then led to a more higher order cognitive discussion at the end of the lesson. When applying Bloom’s taxonomy then, the level of thinking would have increased to design. Students are not empty vessels and should not be treated as such.

Reference:

Alford, G., Herbert, P. & Frangenheim, E. (2006). Bloom’s Taxonomy Overview. In Innovative Teacher’s Companion, (pp 176-224). ITC Publications.

Cooperative learning.

On my teaching rounds this week I worked with a group of students while they prepared for an upcoming debate. They had previously done a lot of work on debates and had plenty of practice, but this particular group had been selected by the teacher and the class to compete against other year five classes. Their topic was ‘Students should be allowed to wear any hairstyle they want to school”, and their debate group was ‘negative’. As they were competing, my role as the teacher was not to provide them with the answers, but rather, to guide them in the right direction and supervise the group. I must admit, I was very impressed with how cooperatively they worked as a group, and also at how motivated and self-directed they were. It was obvious their teacher had put in a lot of work into teaching them about not only the key components of debates and their structure, but also about effective group work.

This is a clear example of ‘cooperative learning’. Cooperative learning is “an organisational strategy for teaching social skills and responsibility, while at the same time focusing on academic content” (Goodwin, 1999, Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1996 in Arthur, Gordon & Butterfield, 2003). Students utilising this strategy are normally immersed in an activity, as they work collectively in small groups towards achieving a common goal. In this instance, the students were working collectively to research their debate topic. The essential idea surrounding cooperative learning however, is the social skills the students acquire to function effectively as a group. This can include roles such as “reporter, recorder, leader, clarifier, and encourager” (Arthur et al. 2003). It was interesting to watch the students, as while no roles were assigned to each individual student for the research component of the debate, I did notice that roles naturally emerged amongst them. Essentially, cooperative learning combines academic content with social skills so students can gain an understanding of the roles people adopt in order to work cooperatively to achieve a common goal.

Reference:

Arthur, M., Gordon, C., & Butterfield, N. (2003). The impact of curriculum and instruction. In Classroom Management: Creating Positive Learning Environments, (pp.43-52). Thomson: Southbank, Victoria.

Direct instruction as a teaching strategy

Over the course of the semester I’ve learnt there are various teaching strategies. The most commonly used teaching method, however, is ‘direct instruction’ or ‘chalk and talk’. Anyone who goes to school is familiar with this strategy. Basically, direct-instruction is a teacher-centred approach in which the teacher delivers “academic content in a highly structured format, directing the activities of learners and maintaining a focus on academic achievement” (Killen, 2007). As a teaching method, direct instruction has come under scrutiny over the years. However, if used correctly, direct instruction can be a very useful teaching strategy.


Studies in support of direct instruction have revealed this approach to be valuable for “standardised tests, and skills based subjects such as Reading and Mathematics” (Killen, 2007). Direct instruction has also been found to be most appropriate for introducing new content or area of study, as it requires developing student’s basic knowledge and skills, before giving them a more active role in knowledge attainment, such as experimentation for instance (Killen, 2007). Furthermore, direct instruction emphasises “teaching in small steps, providing for student practice after each step, guiding students during initial practice, and providing all students with a high level of successful practice” (Rosenshine, 1987:34 in Killen, 2007).

I was fortunate enough to witness a lesson where I saw all of the above in action. It was a Maths lesson, and the class was being introduced to a new subject area: fractions. As a teaching strategy it was appropriately and correctly used. By the end of the lesson, it was clear the students benefited from direct instruction strategy. The teacher was able to effectively explain and demonstrate new content, provide the students with plenty of opportunities to practice, and provide feedback in a non-threatening manner. I could tell that by the end of the lesson almost every student in the class retained and comprehended the information they had just learnt. This is quite remarkable. Though, it is important to consider there are multiple teaching strategies teachers can use to aid in student’s comprehension and development of skills, and direct instruction is just one of these. Ultimately, teachers need to ascertain if the method is appropriate for the context or not, in order to ensure its effectiveness.

References:

Killen, R. (2003). Using direct instruction as a teaching strategy. In Effective Teaching Strategies: Lessons from Research and Practice, (4th ed.), (pp 101-124). Thomson Social Science Press.

The importance of incorporating technology in the classroom.

Over the last two weeks of teaching rounds I have noticed a huge difference in students and the school environment, compared to when I was at school. I think the main reason for these differences is the rapid growth in technology. These technological advancements have hugely affected the children of today, and consequently altered the school experience.

When I was at school, technology was fairly basic, the internet was relatively new and we used blackboards. Today’s students, however, are the first generations to grow up with new technology. They have spent the majority of their lives surrounded by and interacting with “computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age” (Prensky, 2001). The students in my class are certainly active users of technology; I was gobsmacked when I discovered every single student in the class had a mobile phone (this is in a year 5 class by the way, so students are roughly eleven years old) and about 90% of the students have four T.Vs in their homes!

Because the children of today have grown up in an environment that is saturated by technology, it is no surprise they therefore think and learn differently as a result. As Marc Prensky (2001) states in his article ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’: It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors”. This means the traditional methods teachers were exposed to when they were at school are now outdated, and no longer appropriate for the students of today (Prensky, 2001). Therefore it is critical teachers adopt new teaching methodologies that are appropriate for students from the i-generation. In order to do this, they must teach differently from the way they were taught and “learn new ways to do old stuff” (Prensky, 2001) so students are engaged in the learning experience.

References:

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. 9 (5).

First day of school

This week I had my first day of placement, which was both very exciting and daunting too. I am doing my placement at a Catholic school called Christian Brother’s, which is also an all boys school. All in all, the day went extremely well and I had a great time.

I was mostly impressed by the students who were very well behaved, disciplined and respectful. This was somewhat of a surprise to me, as I thought because the school was all boys, there would be more of a tendency for the students to be disruptive. Though, credit for this must be given to the school for the environment it creates and values it instils. High standards, independent learning, and respect are just a few of the values that are reinforced at Christian Brother’s.

Apart from the three R’s, one of the most fundamental components of a school is its community. The community is what makes schools different from one another, and is also one of reasons a parent will decide to send their child to a particular school. Parents want to send their child to a school where the values taught align with those in the home. As Hinde-McLeod and Reynolds (2003) state in their article ‘Planning for Learning’: “For many parents, choosing a school for their child is a reconciliation of family values and aspirations with those of the new educational context”. But what exactly is a school community, you may ask? A school community can be defined as: “the sociocultural groupings which overlap to constitute a community of learners, where dialogue and respect underlie cognitive apprenticeship and where viable knowledge is inextricably bound to community” (Hinde-McLeod & Reynolds, 2003). At Christian Brother’s, the community can be defined by both gender and religious affiliation. However, a shared educational ethos throughout the school is evident, and positive interactions between members of the learning community is also emphasised.

Here is a link to the school webpage if you are interested: http://www.cbhslewisham.nsw.edu.au/

Reference:

Hinde-McLeod, J. & Reynolds, R. (2003). Primary Contexts. In Planning for Learning, (pp 23-43). Social Science Press.