General query: experience of teaching/learning/your kids at school

[House of Usher]

I'm in the last few weeks of my teacher training course, so never before has the debate about 'dumbing down' education been so close to home!

In the course of my teaching practice I've come in for criticism for not giving my students something called a 'task sheet' for every assignment I set them, having not encountered one before in 11 years of university study and 3 years of university teaching; and my teachers and mentors have had an uphill struggle trying to make me identify 'learning objectives' and 'learning outcomes' for every class I teach; again something we managed perfectly well without when I did my A-levels and when I studied at 3 different universities. It was only when I started my teacher training that I first encountered a 'learning outcome'.

From my own (recent) experience this means that the students don't see the relevance of anything I tell them that isn't directly related to a specified 'learning outcome' (of which you are supposed to have no more than three per lesson, and they are inclined to ask which bits of the lesson are important for them to learn. Which logically presupposes that I'm filling my lessons with information that, whilst interesting, isn't important for them to know, in which case why bother? I might just as well summarise the lesson in three sentences and let them all have the next two hours off!

What I need to know is:
- did any of you encounter lesson aims and learning outcomes in your A-level or degree study?
- did you get a Task Sheet for your university assignments outlining what you had to do and what criteria you had to satisfy, or did you just get essay questions, word limits and reading lists like I did?
- do any of you have kids who are at school who get given Task Sheets to go with their homework, or does their teacher just tell them what to do and then mark it?
- if you have kids at school, does their teacher identify the 'learning outcomes' for them for every lesson they get taught, so they know which bits of the lesson to instantly forget because they're unimportant?

[TordelBack]

Ah, one of my favourite questions when I was (briefly) a lecturer:

"Which bits of this do we have to know?".
"Why none of it dear, we're all just wasting each other's time."

Think of the trouble I could have saved myself by just writing three answers on a bit of paper, anding them out and then trundling on with my inconsequential waffle...

I'm not much help to you, Ush, having done BA and part-taught Masters at the National University Ireland, and taught Diploma-level in the Institute of Technology and Saor Olscoil outfits, and my little'un isn't yet school age, but I can safely report:  

Thank God, no.

[TordelBack]

Eckchewly, I'm sorry, I realise that I just misspoke:  

I did have one outsatnding lecturer in Climatology who did indeed set lesson outcomes, or rather course outcome singular.  It was a Final Year elective course, and he wrote "Describe and explain the climatology of the Tropical Zones" on the board, and said "This will be your exam question, worth 100% of your final marks.  By the end of this course, you will be able to answer it fully in one hour".  Bloody brilliant - i got stuck in with a will, and after much blood sweat and tears The Course Outcome Was Achieved.  

But I'm thinking that's not exactly what you're referring to...

But I'm thinking

[Pete Wells]

Hey Ush, good luck with the career. I've been a very happy teacher for 13 years now and I have to say it's an absolutely wonderful job. I'd also like to stress that it gets much easier after your teaching practice, a bit like driving becomes a doddle after passing your driving test.

Hmmm, you do seem to have a downer on lesson objectives. I have to say, in my opinion they are important, but certainly not worth getting your knickers in a twist about. As far as I know, kids (and adults) are much happier when they know what they need to do and, often, how they could/should to do it. Lesson objectives don't need to be closed little statements, for example, I'd have no qualms about having "By the end of the lesson you will have designed a new superhero" as a lesson objective as obviously the task of designing the character would be the focus of the lesson and take most of the two hours.

I'm sure when you plan a lesson you know what you want you class to do and how they're gonna go it. There's your objectives and outcomes right there.

However, just to confuse matters, in my opinion it's good practice to agree learning outcomes with your students. If they have ownership of what they're doing then they tend to try a little harder. As a teacher it's easy to steer a class in the direction you need them to go.

I have to say though, I teach school children (aged 4-19) and I'm assuming that you're teaching HE so this might not be at all relevant to you!

As for those Task sheet thingies though, while they didn't have 'em in my day, my Michelle is currently at uni and she gets an assignment title and a list of Learning outcomes which must be addressed in her essay, so perhaps they're in vogue at the moment.

Stick in sir, it'll be worth it!

[House of Usher]

My problem with all this is that if you define 3 learning outcomes for your lesson, it means everything included in that lesson has to fall within the definition of that learning outcome, or it appears tangential. It's a straitjacket.

My problem with Task Sheets is that by telling students in minute detail how to tackle assignments, instead of giving them a broadly defined task to do (an essay title) and the tools to do it (a reading list), and see how much initiative they show, then you're training them to expect very specific instructions throughout their working lives.

Ofsted and the QAA are now insisting that educators embed Key Skills for industry in the teaching of all subjects. Surely wet-nursing them through every assignment is not good training for work, where they may be expected to show a bit of resourcefulness, e.g. when dealing with clients, rather than expecting to have an algorithm (the new word for 'flow-chart') to hand to deal with every eventuality.

[Proudhuff]

Having two kids in education just now, I feel your pain. At parent's evenings we hear about the current lurve with outcomes, targets and worksheets etc. There seems to be little flexablity in the system, great if you wish to avoid the old duffers and clock watchers who taught my generation, sad if you can't say 'Hey kids! its sunny for once lets do a nature lesson outside' a Doris Stokes is needed.

And don't get me started on the levels of home work they get at Primary!!

Fayther-Huff

[Dan Kelly]

Never head task lists and the like.

We're starting to see the results of this at work now.  We like to employ graduates who can think for themselves and have generally given them the basics of what the need to do, pointed them at some reasonable examples and information, and let them go at it.  Checking them as we go.

A lot of the new grads are totally floored by this approach.  if you're not telling them exactly what they need to do they are stumped.

What ever happened about being taught to think for yourself?

[Proudhuff]

Burn the Heretic!!!

[Funt Solo]

Ah - a Learning Outcome needn't be a straitjacket - you just make sure it's wide enough to give you the freedom you want.

We have to use LOs when defining our taught modules here at the Uni I work in.  The LOs are the definition of what the student is expected to be able to do at the end of the module.  We used to keep them to ourselves (well, not advertise them) because they were very much an internal measure.

For example, if we asked a student to build a space rocket, and they built a flying saucer instead - have they passed the module?  Well, you go back to the learning outcomes: if they say "the student will be able to create a flying thing that travels in space" then the answer is yes.  If you specified rocket, then probably the answer is no.

Now - there's been a strong push to involve the students in PDP (*spit*), and tell them all about the LOs.  Frankly, managment are all creaming themselves about it and implementing all sorts of mad schemes for no other reason than they can, it's trendy, and they need to be seen to be doing something.

Y'see, it's forcing students to understand the language specific to the career of a tutor, and if they're not training to be a tutor, then isn't that rather a waste of their time?  There's also a horrible focus on transferable skills - which means that we can get away with teaching them stuff that's got SFA to do with Computing, and still call it a Computing course.  Or, to put it another way - we can put 1000 students from all different courses in one lecture theatre - which saves on staffing.

Their (arguably, quite pointless, and certainly very expensive) education suffers, but who's going to question the University?  Not students - they trust us.  Not parents - they could give a fuck what happens to little Smithers after he leaves home.  Certainly not teaching staff - we're all too fucking busy. And not the unions - because managment have them tied in knots of red tape over a million other little issues.

</rant>

[Proudhuff]

haha! the old LOs, I did a bit of studenting recently, and altho I had given a 'complete answer that showed I understood the subject clearly' I hadn't unfortunately said a 'keyword', so of for an oral quiz where the loverly lecturer ended up giving me crossword-like clues for the keyword!!

[House of Usher]

"We have to use LOs when defining our taught modules here at the Uni I work in. The LOs are the definition of what the student is expected to be able to do at the end of the module."

Unfortunately, I'm expected to define learning outcomes for every single lesson, not just the module.

The headache for me is that because I'm in the business of teaching largely theoretical and not practical subjects - sociology, psychology and very occasionally English Literature - I don't actually require my students to do anything; but it would help if they came out of a class knowing a bit more than they did when they went in. In an information-heavy subject area if you go measuring performance in terms of what students can do rather than in terms of what they know, then inevitably you end up trivialising the subject.

[SamuelAWilkinson]

For example, if we asked a student to build a space rocket, and they built a flying saucer instead - have they passed the module? Well, you go back to the learning outcomes: if they say "the student will be able to create a flying thing that travels in space" then the answer is yes. If you specified rocket, then probably the answer is no.

I'm totally signing up for this course.

[Peter Wolf]

 ?

 Glad i am not in the education system.

[Peter Wolf]

 I missed your comment before but i was coincidentally thinking the same thing.

 Thinking for yourself isnt fashionable anymore it seems but for me its too late now as you cant teach an old dog new tricks and since i have no proper education to speak of or certainly no qualifications thinking for myself is the only asset i have and quite honestly if i was not able to organise and think for myself i would be stuffed.

 Self reliance and being able to think independantly are two things i would be lost without.


 It just stinks of New Labour what i am reading about in these posts.

 It sounds like the new graduates have to be wet nursed and spoonfed everything.

 Terrible.

[Funt Solo]

::"Unfortunately, I'm expected to define learning outcomes for every single lesson, not just the module."

Well, yes - that does seem rather stupid.  I mean, were I asked to do that in my job I would protest that it's too restrictive.

For example, if the cohort is finding the current pace too easy, you can pick it up, or vice versa - slow it down to focus more closely on the basics.  Or, if you're feeling saucy, try to cater to all levels of ability at once.  If you're tied too closely into promised LOs per lesson, then you can't switch things around, shake 'em up or twiddle with the settings.

Even worse - if it's a case of red tape for the sake of ultimate transparency, you end up spending too much time on relatively pointless paperwork and less time on (SHRIEK!) teaching students about stuff.

Here's the thing, though: if there's evidence that the close use of LOs that you describe is enhancing student learning, then whatever you may think of it, it's a good thing.  

(I was freaked out by the PDP peddlers who visited our Uni and told us that, because students hated it with a passion, we had to do more to sell it to them. No mention was made of perhaps dropping it as a lost cause, or reviewing why students hated it.  Our place is planning to rename it "Future Focus", in order to get over the negative attachment to the term PDP.  New, cleaner than clean, whiter than white: Future Focus!  The same old shit in a new frock.)