New research from The University of Auckland’s Faculty of Education led by Professor Stuart McNaughton has achieved remarkable increases in reading comprehension at seven decile-one schools in south Auckland.
Teachers were taught how to use student achievement data and evidence from their own teaching to monitor and improve both their teaching and pupil learning.
So let me get this straight:
Teachers were taught how to use student achievement data
Teachers review the student's progress
and evidence from their own teaching
and notice what they are teaching that works
and improve both their teaching and pupil learning
and thus teach better.
No sh*t Sherlock. Are you going to copyright that, or can anyone use this amazing revolutionary technique?
“The programme recognises that effective teaching is dependent on understanding the strengths and needs of individual students.
Is there no end to the wisdom available to us as we make unimaginable leaps in education?
It begs the question, what have teachers been doing previously? Well, here's my theory (the whole point of having as blog, right?).
This so called breakthrough method of teaching simply indicates that when the goal is to educate individuals, then the methods will differ from when the goal is to simply deliver a lesson, and let the marks fall where they may.
Delivering a lesson, rather than targeted *teaching* is going to create worse outcomes both collectively and individually.
Re-inventing the wheel needn't earn resounding accolades from the educational intelligensia, and they needn't get excited at the remarkable 'breakthrough'. It only highlights the previous idiocy.
Now there are obviously a whole range of blended options in teaching to a class and incorporating individual follow-up. Fine. Let's not get distracted with basic logic, lest we think it another unexpected innovation.
Admittedly, there may be some real innovation buried in that article, and the reporter did not manage to articulate it. That too is a problem. After all, they are most likely a product from the NZ educational system. Another fail.
Perhaps I was hyper-sensitive to the implicit messages in this article because I had just come across another article where a Principal suggested that WHAT ones children were learning was not so important as getting an idea of the progress the child was making.
Now, I realise the point the Principal was making is valid, but I personally would have not dismissed the WHAT as readily in making his point.
WHAT the child is learning is also important for a parent to understand. Take an interest, and supplement your child's learning because it seems as if teaching lessons shaped to suit your child is an extremely novel concept.
Related Link: Reading Levels Soar at low-decile school. Apparently, teaching makes a difference.
And see Scrubone on Mars and Venus: Other Sherlock Moments
PS: Sarcasm aside, it's great to see some progress in literacy in the low decile schools. Let's roll this out where it is needed, rather than another million dollars spent on computers and broadband accounts (otherwise known as substitute teachers).
Teachers were taught how to use student achievement data and evidence from their own teaching to monitor and improve both their teaching and pupil learning.
So let me get this straight:
Teachers were taught how to use student achievement data
Teachers review the student's progress
and evidence from their own teaching
and notice what they are teaching that works
and improve both their teaching and pupil learning
and thus teach better.
No sh*t Sherlock. Are you going to copyright that, or can anyone use this amazing revolutionary technique?
“The programme recognises that effective teaching is dependent on understanding the strengths and needs of individual students.
Is there no end to the wisdom available to us as we make unimaginable leaps in education?
It begs the question, what have teachers been doing previously? Well, here's my theory (the whole point of having as blog, right?).
This so called breakthrough method of teaching simply indicates that when the goal is to educate individuals, then the methods will differ from when the goal is to simply deliver a lesson, and let the marks fall where they may.
Delivering a lesson, rather than targeted *teaching* is going to create worse outcomes both collectively and individually.
Re-inventing the wheel needn't earn resounding accolades from the educational intelligensia, and they needn't get excited at the remarkable 'breakthrough'. It only highlights the previous idiocy.
Now there are obviously a whole range of blended options in teaching to a class and incorporating individual follow-up. Fine. Let's not get distracted with basic logic, lest we think it another unexpected innovation.
Admittedly, there may be some real innovation buried in that article, and the reporter did not manage to articulate it. That too is a problem. After all, they are most likely a product from the NZ educational system. Another fail.
Perhaps I was hyper-sensitive to the implicit messages in this article because I had just come across another article where a Principal suggested that WHAT ones children were learning was not so important as getting an idea of the progress the child was making.
Now, I realise the point the Principal was making is valid, but I personally would have not dismissed the WHAT as readily in making his point.
WHAT the child is learning is also important for a parent to understand. Take an interest, and supplement your child's learning because it seems as if teaching lessons shaped to suit your child is an extremely novel concept.
Related Link: Reading Levels Soar at low-decile school. Apparently, teaching makes a difference.
And see Scrubone on Mars and Venus: Other Sherlock Moments
PS: Sarcasm aside, it's great to see some progress in literacy in the low decile schools. Let's roll this out where it is needed, rather than another million dollars spent on computers and broadband accounts (otherwise known as substitute teachers).