PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513 Overview of Learning Theory (Stage 1A)
Piaget’s insights have important applications in education. His view was that knowledge develops through equilibration, meaning self-discovery is a part of learning. Therefore, true understanding only occurs through making one’s own accommodations. “Each time one prematurely teaches a child something he could have discovered himself, that child is kept from inventing is and consequently from understanding it completely” (Piaget, 1970). Within teaching practise, Piaget’s theory could allow children to learn for themselves and build independence and confidence.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
There are criticisms to Piaget’s ‘discovery learning’ approach. Bennett et al., (1976) found that children taught via formal methods did better in reading, maths and English. However, this lack of success for discovery learning may be due to teachers spend the majority of their time on core topics, which is what children are assessed on. Furthermore, discovery learning requires more sensitivity and experience knowing when and how to guide their pupils. It could be argued that discovery learning isn’t practical in everyday teaching, as it is not the method, but the application of discovery learning which is the problem. Within both my placement schools, Skinner’s operant conditioning is apparent within every classroom. Both with behaviour policy and for rewards for outstanding work by pupils (Vivo points). The learners are conditioned to work in a certain way, making their own choices, whether positively reinforced or negatively reinforced. Bandura’s modelling behaviour is reinforced for all staff in St John Plessington, as they are expected to model perfect literacy and thus, the children are expected to follow. The child as ‘the sponge’ can be conflicting within a school with behaviour problems, e.g. St Mary’s. No reaction can also be a reaction with regards to behaviour, therefore new or shy teachers can be walked all over as children copy their classmates and test limits of staff.
For children from low socio-economic backgrounds, a reward system for behaviour and outstanding work can be stimulus for a passion for education; hopefully, pushing those children to better themselves.
Pavlov’s ‘stimulus-response’ to learning resonates with me. Teachers can create atmosphere in a classroom and this can be positive or negative. From pupil trails in my two schools, it is clear to see how classes and individual pupils react to teachers and subjects. A love of English was instilled for me by a passionate and creative English teacher many years ago, but if teachers lack passion or simply don’t bother to make lessons interesting, children will not respond and this reaction will be with them for life.
PR7101 – Steven Tones Bruner’s spiral build-up of ideas is used within the National Curriculum within every subject. At the very start of our lives, we learn basic English, e.g. a child learns the alphabet, words, sentences, and paragraphs. In secondary English, these skills come around the spiral again to develop their vocabulary, grammar and learn how to write arguments in their essays. Dewey’s method of moving freely is complicated for an oversubscribed secondary school. However, pursuing the pupil’s own interests early on in school can help them decide which career path they would enjoy the most, helping with GCSE and ALevel choices.
J34513
Dewey’s discovery learning is apparent in many lessons in School A. Some departments use it in every lesson, such as mathematics. They will have a lesson with diagrams on the board, e.g. with isosceles triangles, and the children have to ‘discover’ or find out the angle and even perhaps the question.
I have observed many teachers using instructional Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (aka scaffolding) e.g. giving hints but not including the full solution, offering modelling of an answer for the pupil to imitate. In both my placement schools, teachers arrange seating plans to give children a chance to learn from more capable peers. This gives less able pupils guidance and encourageme nt so they can complete the work and learn, without direct help from the classroom teacher.
Freire’s ideology that educators and learners work together to achieve an outcome resonates highly with me as trainee teacher. As a pupil, I often disliked teachers who were the big ‘I am’ and talked down to pupils, even though we both wanted the same thing e.g. for me to learn as much as I could and get great results. Freire also discusses respect through dialogue. Many think if you are a teacher, as a professional, you cannot be a friend to a learner. However, you can still have respect and be friendly toward pupils. Socialising and building the confidence of a young mind is very important.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
Analytical Critique of Articles (Stage 1b): Critique 1 ‘Behaviourism, Constructivism, and Socratic Pedagogy’ Peter Boghossian (2006)
The principal point in this paper is that Socratic pedagogy is standalone, and incompatible with other methods of teaching. It is briefly compared to constructivist and behaviourist learning theory, as Boghossian discusses similarities and compares the relationships of the learning theory and Socratic pedagogy. However, this paper finds that “ultimately it is fundamentally incompatible with both” (Boghossian, 2006).
The main inconsistency running through this article is that, although there are many similarities, constructivism and behaviourism are the antithesis of Socratic pedagogy. This is an oxymoronic idea. Lam (2011) argues that the Socratic learning method is included in the umbrella of constructivist learning approaches, as it is inquiry based. There is also constructivist-based pedagogy underpinning the elenetic process; the discovery of truth through discourse (Boghossian, 2006) and this is the key Socratic Learning Method. Dewey (1933) is often cited as the founder of constructivism and he hailed inquiry learning: “Engage in sustained inquiry: study, ponder, consider alternative possibilities and arrive at your belief ground in evidence”. He also saw the importance of social and interactive processes, and determining ideas for oneself, which could mirror the ideology of Socrates (D’Angelo et al., 2009). The dialogue of questioning could also linked to Bruner’s (1977) guided discovery learning and scaffolding. The truth, which is the main outcome of the elenchus, would be built from a dialogue with the Socratic teacher. Additionally, the elenetic process could be classed as using a more knowledgeable other to build learner knowledge, and also develop knowledge with adult guidance to exceed what can be obtained alone with the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Similarly, Freire’s (1997) ideas of the teacher gaining knowledge from the learner relate directly to Socratic pedagogy: “the main purpose … is to help the students, and the teacher, find the truth” (Boghossian, 2006), suggesting both the learner and teacher grow from the elenchus.
The Socratic Learning Method can also be linked to the belief of Piaget (1970) who believed in active methods of learning to discover the truth for oneself, and where the role of the teacher is to aid learning, not give direct tuition. Therefore, it could be argued then, that Socratic pedagogy is a sliver of constructivist learning theory.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
With behaviourist learning theory, there is a clear distinction of what the truth is, and the aim of the teacher is to guide the students to this truth. This is similar in ideology to the Socratic Learning Method. Boghossian (2016) cites Jonassen (1991) to state that a behaviourist paradigm merely tells the learner about the world and they replicate its contents. However, Socratic pedagogy "Relies on a … set of questions … designed in a way that lead students to an idea” (Garlikov, 2011). This dialogue could lead learners to a proscribed, behaviouristin-style, idea. Bogossian also states a behaviourist would “view the Socratic method as a type of stimulus”. However, this doesn’t suggest that behaviourist learning theory is the antithesis of Socratic elenchus, as this paper concludes. There is a clear draw for the potential of the Socratic Learning Method to link with both constructivist and behaviourist learning theory.
In addition, Bogossian draws upon his own previous academic papers in the argument against the “fundamental” incompatibility with the learning theories, in order to back up his points. This could be seen as bias, as this isn’t an objective way to argue academically. One must use other sources to give rigour to points made. This brings into question the validity of this academic research.
In conclusion, Bogossian argues Socratic pedagogy is incompatible with behaviourist and constructivist theories. There is, however, clear constructivist and slight behaviourist models evident in the Socratic Learning Method. A teacher may define oneself as a behaviourist, constructivist, or Socratic teacher, however the practice which works best for the teacher should be what matters in the classroom. Why can’t a Socratic teacher use a blend of behaviourist or constructivist principles, too? Socratic pedagogy could be seen as a middleground of the two learning theories. However, it seems irrational to completely dismiss the two learning theories and describe them as the antithesis of Socratic pedagogy, especially when the author is using his own previous academic work to back up points.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
Analytical Critique of Articles (Stage 1b): Critique 2 ‘Classroom Management: A World of Misconception’ Tracey Garrett (2014)
The central idea in this paper is that the model put forward by Garrett will aid novice teachers to effectively manage a classroom. It states that novice teachers are misguided in their formal training, and are led to believe classroom management is only effective based upon “discipline … a quiet classroom … rewards and punishments and engaging instruction” (Garrett, 2014). Instead, Garrett aims to dispel these classroom misconceptions and help teachers “better understand, reflect upon, and deconstruct the process of effective classroom management” (Garrett, 2014). The model put forward in this paper has five key areas: “creating the physical environment, developing rules and routines, establishing caring relationships, implementing engaging instruction, and addressing discipline problems” (Garrett, 2014). However, the first problem is that the paper has already dispelled two of these key areas as a common misconception, ‘implementing engaging instruction’ and ‘developing rules and routines’.
Dewey (1933) believed that a one-way, didactic approach to learning was not a good model for life, and hindered learning. Instead, learning should be engaging as it is a by-product of work and play. Moreover, Bruner (1977) stated: “interest in the subject matter is the best stimulus for learning”. In the paper, Garrett (2014) suggests the novice teachers should “plan engaging learning activities … facilitate cooperative learning experiences”. This is repetition of key learning pedagogical ideas, and which many formal teacher training courses study in great detail. Similarly, Garrett (2014) ‘dismisses rewards and punishments’ and ‘discipline’, yet favours her ideas of developing rules and routines and addressing discipline problems. This seems as though they are synonymous. In terms of behaviour, Skinner’s (1948) idea of operant conditioning applies largely to classroom management, in which the learner is conditioned to behave in a certain manner through positive or negative reinforcement. This is very similar to Garrett’s (2014) model, which dictates for teachers to: “develop rules to guide student behaviour, and establish routines.” The word ‘routines’ is linked greatly to the idea of conditioning. Moreover, the ideas of Skinner could be linked Garrett’s model, “implementing logical consequences for misbehaviour”. Which again, links to sanctions and punishments. Likewise, Bandura (1977) believed that behaviour is “learnt through the environment through
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
the process of observational learning” and pupils then imitate positive or negative behaviour in the classroom. This could link to Garrett’s (2014) instruction in the model, which states: “prevent minor misbehaviour”, as this is copied by children from observing models.
Another critique of this paper is that Garret only used ten novice teachers to interview and take her results from. This is a very small sample. A higher sample could increase the validity and reliability of her research into the model for classroom management. Moreover, she states: “I identified and contacted 11 novice teachers who had recently completed my course”. This, as a sample, has been hand-picked. This could be argued to be a selection bias, as the teachers interviewed may have been exceptional students of Garrett. Additionally, every teacher in the sample was positive about the model of classroom management. It could be that it is fantastically implemented, however to not have one criticism or negative result is unlikely. The paper would increase validity of research if the model was implemented with 100 teachers of whom she didn’t know personally, and then could answer objectively.
To conclude, the paper identifies key areas in which Garrett believes novice teachers fall short in relation to their classroom management. However, she intends to dispel common misconceptions of classroom management, yet uses two of these in her model. This is contradictory. For example, Skinner’s (1948) idea of operant conditioning and Garrett’s (2014) “implementing logical consequences for misbehaviour”. These are clearly linked. In addition, the very small sample of novice teachers in the paper were hand-picked by Garrett, which could be seen as selection bias, and therefore could suggest the research was not objective.
PR7101 – Steven Tones The Big Picture was apparent in the lesson from the start. GCSE questions were on the board to remind pupils that next year they would be undertaking their GCSE examinations. This year 10 lesson was building up the knowledge which the pupils would have been learning throughout their pupil career with Bruner’s spiral curriculum. Similarly, this class still has a year until they take this exam and they are preparing themselves to meet the even bigger, more challenging spiral of year 11 and sixth form. Moreover, the learning was scaffolded throughout the lesson. The children started with context of the poem, and built upon this to analyse the language. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development was considered unknowingly by the teacher as she offered hints and models for the children to imitate, e.g. “That man has suffered physically, what else has he suffered?” The children then realised the poem was related to the PTSD she kept explaining. Miss C also didn’t want the children who are lower ability to miss out on learning, as she asked them questions to give to stretch and challenge (Bloom’s Taxonomy). When the child failed to answer, the teacher passed it on to a peer.
J34513
Lesson Observation 1 (Stage 1c)
The teacher ignored one pupil who was making rude noises. Bandura (1977) stated that no reaction is also a reaction, and pupils may learn to copy this behaviour knowing there is no sanction. However, this may be a result of it being one of the first few lessons of the term. In comparison, Miss C also uses verbal praise: “That looks very colourful Josh, lovely”. This positive reinforcement is another behaviour management technique that worked well. Similarly, the children may copy this behaviour to gauge this positive reaction from their teacher.
In terms of teaching style, Miss C leans toward a more traditional, formative style of teaching (Dewey, 1951). It is very teacher-centred and behaviourist. She apologises for the didactic lesson at the end, meaning she may not always use this method of teaching with this year 10 class. Akin to formative style of teaching is the notion of passive learning. The children in the lesson were being talked at, not to. They were answering questions but it was very hard to gauge if the children had absorbed any knowledge as some children were openly guessing. This is very common in classrooms, but it can become tedious and boring. An active learning approach would require their thinking skills, and you could assess the needs of pupils. When it came to behaviour management, Miss C uses questions to address low level disruption, for which there is quite a lot of: “Boys, what’s the issue?”/ “Are we ready?” This is a more positive way to encourage good behaviour as there is no threat of further action, but Miss C is addressing the situation.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
The teacher sped quickly thorough the lesson as they had to go through the poetry anthology before half term. Rushing through a lesson may not, however, have the desired effect of pupil’s learning and being engaged with English. Bandura suggested that if a teacher doesn’t engage with the pupils and make the lesson fun, they will associate English in a negative manner.
At the end of the lesson the class discussed the tragedy of war and how the poem is very sad. Miss C shared a story of her friend with the class, who went away on a tour of Afghanistan and came home with PTSD. The children asked her questions
J34513
Lesson Observation 1 (Continued)
about her friend and she told an anecdote of how he would have to lock himself inside his house on Bonfire Night, much like you might do with a pet. Although this was personal, it was on-topic and allowed the children to think about the soldier rather than it just being a poem.
Miss C also used her hands to get the attention of the children, where she performed an action to how a mine could possibly blow up inside this soldiers’ mind. This brought in a kinaesthetic way of teaching the children. Moreover, the teacher put on a YouTube video of a soldier and his wife reading the poem aloud. Along with the didactic teaching, it was evident Miss C did try and ‘jazz up’ the lesson and make it a bit more interesting. The YouTube video allowed the children to sit back and think about the context of the poem also. In turn, it also would gauge visual and auditory learners, rather than a pupil merely reading the poem in front of him or her.
Teaching ideas from this lesson observation: Miss C struck me as a teacher who was under time pressure to get the children to understand the poetry anthology, which felt rushed. From this, the learning wasn’t being absorbed by the pupils. An example of this is where pupil’s where guessing questions, not thinking about the information they had just received. The type of teaching Miss C used was also very didactic, which she did apologise for in the end. Not every child learns in the same way, therefore she is limiting the ways in which the pupils can absorb information. She did use another medium, a YouTube video, which made the lesson slightly more interesting but it didn’t engage the pupils. In addition, Miss C didn’t directly challenge any pupil about their behaviour. She questioned some behaviour, but there was no warning or sanction. This then resulted in more low-level disruption and accumulated to the child making rude noises, which she then ignored. I would have used a warning to the child at the very start, as expectations in the classroom should be made clear to pupils; this would link to Skinner’s operant conditioning as an unpleasant stimulus would decrease poor behaviour in the classroom.
PR7101 – Steven Tones I was lucky enough to see the same introductory lesson to the poem ‘Manhunt’ taught in both my placement schools. They were taught very differently in style, and the lessons were pitched for different levels.
Clear classroom behaviour structure in place when children enter the room. This set the lesson off to a positive and authoritative start. Direct questions were asked to the pupils for the starter activity, these were differentiated for abilities. Child R (Rob) is a lower achiever and sits at the front of the class alone so he isn’t distracted. Miss A asked him the first question of the lesson, which he answered: “If someone is on the run”. Later on in the lesson, she asked Grace, (HA) “what does it tell us about the effects of war on personal relationships”. These direct question are a clear example of Socratic teaching and are in keeping with differentiation. Moreover, this links to Dewey’s ideology as pupil response was encouraged. The teacher is also a learning aid for the pupils, rather than giving them the answers. This is a discovery approach.
J34513 Lesson Observation 2: (Stage 1c)
The questions were also aimed to stretch and challenge both pupils, linking to Blooms’ taxonomy. In terms of behaviour management, Miss A addressed any behaviour issues and circulated the class whilst the children worked. A boy was messing with his calculator, she stood next to him and said “You alright?” this shocked the child as he wasn’t aware she was next to him. The teacher also expected high levels of literacy in the pupils, especially considering it was an English lesson. In the centre of the lesson when the children were getting on with their task, Miss A reminded the pupils “Everyone should be facing me now”, this was implicit information and she spoke quietly so that the pupils had to quiet down and strain to hear what she was saying. This also links to Skinner’s behaviourist theories. Miss A is giving a warning to the children, hinting that they may be punished if they are not facing her and therefore, not listening.
Positive reinforcement (Skinner) is used throughout the lesson as the teacher repeats the answer the pupil has given. “Yes, he could have changed.” Rather than just saying ‘correct’. This could link to Freire’s problem-posing method. The teacher and the pupils are working together to construct the answer and gain knowledge. However, for the LA’s in the class she does give hints: “We’ve got lots of words about body parts, what does that suggest.” This links to many inclusive ideas and could be linked to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development as the pupils would take this stimulus and use it as a guide to apply to future questions. This is guided learning. Miss A also asks pupils work in pairs. This links to Vygotsky’s ‘more knowledgeable other’ approach, where a child can be pushed by a HA or peer. This independent work allows pupils to build confidence and construct their own knowledge.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
Lesson Observation 2 (Continued) Pausing the video and asking for an answer to what PTSD is could give inference to stimulus for positive reinforcement and future rewards, linking to Skinner’s operant conditioning. This school uses Vivo points as a reward. Miss C from Lesson Observation 1 (another school) also used the same YouTube video to illustrate the poem. The other mode of learning brings some life into the classroom. Both of these teachers’ methods could be linked to Vygotsky’s MKO as it is using a visual aid to support their learning about the poem ‘Manhunt’, and link to Dewey’s interactive process. Miss A then used a crunched down version of the poem for the children to analyse. This could link to Dewey’s philosophy of discovery, whereby the teacher allows the children to think for themselves. The children weren’t given the poem Manhunt in this lesson. The teacher simply discussed with the class what a manhunt meant, explained the context of the poem, watched a video of a woman reading the poem and then a crunched down version with key words in. This links to Bruner’s scaffolded learning and revisiting the theme of the poem again and again before they are introduced to it. Then they can gradually learn. This could also link to inclusion the class is a low set year nine group, in comparison to Lesson Observation 1, which is a year 10 class. This scaffolding will also take into account the spiral curriculum, as these pupils will revisit this poem in year 10 and year 11. Pupils glued in the poem for next lesson, and then went through some responses from the pupil’s work e.g. ‘What do the words suggest about the poem, can you see any other links in the words used.’ This links to Freire’s problem posing method, as the teacher has given the pupils the stimulus to discover the answers for themselves. This also links to Pavlov’s habit formation as the pupils are using a stimulus-response type of learning in the classroom. Going through the responses toward the end of the lesson would also allow Miss A to assess the pupils understanding to set a suitable lesson next time, this links to Piaget’s ideas of assimilation and accommodation.
Teaching ideas from this lesson observation: Miss A gradually introduced the low set year nine group to a poem with harsh themes of war and mental breakdown. This allowed the pupils to scaffold their knowledge and build up their answers, rather than simply going through the poem stanza by stanza, much like Miss C in LO1. She differentiated questions for the pupils and allowed them to discover knowledge in their own time. This links to inclusion as well, as school policy accounts for all children to be included in the lessons. Miss A used pair work to allow the children to learn from a more knowledgeable other (Vygotsky) and listened to responses at the end of the lesson to allow for suitable tasks next lesson (Piaget). LO2 seemed more engaging to me than LO1, for the simple fact that the children were responding better to the themes of the poem, even though they hadn’t been introduced to it yet. These lesson observations helped me realise there is more than one way to teach a topic successfully without it being didactic, and to assess pupil understanding, as LO2 was more constructivist and developmental in style, and yet more successful as learning was scaffolded and discovery based.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513 Stage 2 – Personal Manifesto
“Using what you have learned so far, write a personal manifesto for how your subject should be taught, and why it should be taught this way.”
The purpose of this manifesto is to pick apart the ideology I have discovered from teaching and learning in my placement schools. English and literacy are fundamental skills in which every participating member of society will employ to communicate, whether at home or in the workplace. A full grasp of English as a child in secondary school will aid the pupil to reach their full potential, as they are not held back by a lack of literacy or knowledge in their adult life. Many job requirements, college and university applications require at least a C/level 5 grade in English language to be considered. This is one of the main reasons English is a core-subject in the National Curriculum.
When initially starting my teacher training, I believed the best teacher was traditional-in-style, didactic and one who would push pupils to achieve their best. This was based upon three years of lecture-led learning in university. I favoured a Socratic learning style; I was a worldaway from my KS3 and KS4 self. Having observed in my two placement schools and from pedagogical research, I now believe that the only way pupils can achieve their best is to utilise different methods inside the classroom, and not a singular formative approach. English is a skilled-based subject, therefore every child can thrive; this also means a variety of teaching styles must be used to ensure each child is included. The approaches which are important to me as a practitioner are ensuring that each child has equal opportunity to learn and grow in the classroom, implementing rewards rather than sanctions and student-centred learning. It is important for me that the needs of the children are at the centre of my philosophy.
Equal opportunity for all pupils, or inclusion, is a key area in which is central to my manifesto. All pupils in my class should be included in all aspects of learning. Although there are many different categories children can be divided into in relation to inclusion, e.g. cultural differences, English as an additional language, socioeconomic differences, behavioural difficulties, the focus in my manifesto is guided by special educational needs. The reason I believe inclusion is vital to classroom learning is that I have a member of my family with special educational needs. As a result of the school’s inclusion policy, he is thriving in a smaller class with one-to-one teaching in his primary school. In relation to special educational needs, Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory (2000) could be used when planning lessons. The MIT involves a wheel of intelligences which don’t
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
always fit inside a rigorous school curriculum, for example, “spatial” or picture-smart, “intrapersonal” or self-smart, “interpersonal” or people-smart. If a child isn’t “linguistic” or word-smart, he may still flourish in other areas. Dewey’s (1933) discovery learning approach also allows for an inclusive process for all children. He discussed teaching to build on the existing experience of the learner which does not oppress them, or impose unnecessary restrictions, requiring a teacher to have a well thought-out philosophy and use well planned activities (Tyson, 2015). Moreover, standard five of the Teacher’s Standards (HM Government, 2014) states that teachers must: “have a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils, including those with special educational needs … and be able to use and evaluate distinctive teaching approaches to engage and support them.” Coming up with creative strategies for helping children focus, stay on task and learn to their full capability is central to my belief. In my current placement school, an inclusion policy is given to each teacher when they are employed by the school. However, from my observations I have noted that many teachers sit pupils with SEN alone and are quick to punish the children. From this, they do little work and I can tell they don’t want to be in lesson. One teacher, who sits a Child A with Asperger’s Syndrome alone, and keeps him behind every lesson for not completing his work, warned the child in front of the class: “If you don’t start doing work, you’ll be taken out of top-set year seven.” I was mortified for the child.
Child A is a bright pupil and clearly needs something changing in the classroom for him to be stimulated by the learning environment. The primary goal of an inclusive education is to “ensure pupils with disabilities the opportunity to learn alongside their peers in ‘regular’ classes, with supports and assistance for both students and teachers” (Peterson, Feathers, & Beloin, 1997). The support in my first placement school is failing Child A. The teacher’s lessons are not differentiated to ensure all pupils can take part in the work. If Child A was in my classroom, I would have never singled him out. I would ensure instructions are repeated and test understanding, giving him specific orders, give tasks in a sequential order and have extra time for the child complete the task. I would also ask the school for an independent education programme. Sobel (2016) writes: “There is often an expectation in schools that students are naturally able to read information from a whiteboard, absorb and then regurgitate it as evidence that they have understood a given task. For some SEN students this is not the case, causing them great anxiety and frustration.”
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
The second theme in my manifesto is using positive reinforcement in the classroom. It is against my personal philosophy for a child to feel negatively toward themselves, therefore I prefer to use reward to condition behaviour. However, I understand on some occasions if necessary and behaviour was unacceptable I would use sanctions. Skinner’s (1948) operant conditioning coined the phrase ‘reinforcement’ where behaviour which is reinforced is repeated or strengthened, and behaviour which is not reinforced will be extinguished or weakened (McLeod, 2016). I have observed in my lessons a number of teachers using the school’s reward system of Vivo Points to encourage the pupils to aim for perfect behaviour, attendance, punctuality and continued effort in classrooms. This is known as Token Economy. I have also witnessed instant rewards such as praise in the classroom for good work, and physical rewards e.g. sweets. The teachers in my first placement school feel it is important to address bad behaviour straight away. In terms of context, the school is currently under special measures for the behaviour of pupils and in terms of results. It is being taken over by another school in the Diocese.
I have noticed in lesson observations that pupils respond differently to the way in which teachers either praise or punish pupils. The minute the class are disruptive, Teacher B will draw an unhappy face on the board and write whichever pupil is being disruptive. That is their warning. If they disrupt again, a tick is placed next to their name, counting as five minutes gone of their break time and each corresponding tick is another five minutes gone. This happens in every lesson I observe this teacher. Very rarely is the smiley face drawn on the board for good work, even though when I support the children, most of the children are working hard. Teacher B also shouts at the top of her voice in order to get the children to listen to her. Bandura (1977) said “behaviour is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning”. This classroom is an example of how children imitate behaviour which is more likely to get a rise out of a teacher, especially if positive behaviour is rarely rewarded. If this was my class, I would pull the focus out from negatively reinforcing behaviour, to reinforcing the children who are modelling fantastic behaviour and effort in lessons.
I believe pupils learn better when they understand that there is a reward at the end of their hard work. For KS3 pupils, this may be a lollipop or Vivo Points, however for KS4 and 5 pupils, teachers like to inform these pupils that the ultimate reward is fantastic exam results. I have noticed that The Big Picture is used in my placement school as a way of positively reinforcing revision and classwork. However, this isn’t immediate and can be hard for pupils to visualise.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
Some criticise the implementation of rewards-based reinforcement in the classroom. Kohn (1993) believes rewards are “no more helpful at enhancing achievement than they are at fostering good values … People expecting to receive a reward for completing a task (or for doing it successfully) simply do not perform as well as those who expect nothing.” Ash, (2007) agrees, stating that rewards: “prompt students to produce shoddy work--and worse, they can cause students to actually like school subjects less. The important guidelines are these: Don't use rewards unless you have to, use rewards for a specific reason, and use them for a limited time.” However, Campbell (n.d.) describes: “By using rewards, we encourage the students to put aside some of their home problems and find a reason to apply themselves in school". As a trainee teacher, I would take the advice of Ash (2007) and gradually increase the amount of work needed to earn rewards throughout the year so that pupils are continually challenged. At the end of the child’s secondary education, be rid of a reward system, so they may start to see their education as a reward unto itself.
The next section of my manifesto is related to student-centred learning, a key idea which has the student at its heart. This resonates highly with me as a trainee teacher and is very progressive. This is a complete 180-degree turn to the attitude I held when I started this programme. Although this is more common in relation to Higher Education learning, I believe collaboration with pupils, rather than instruction can allow them to take responsibility for their own learning. This theme also relates to my previous themes as student-centred learning can make way for better inclusion of pupils, and can promote positive behaviour.
Peer assessment is a part of student-centred learning, as the pupils measure their progress from day-to-day. In the classroom, mind-mapping success criteria on the board and modelling work which I consider to be good and then pupils can mark their peers work. I have observed this in my current placement, and the children write WWW (what went well) and EBI (Even Better If) i.e. a positive point, and a point to reflect upon. This student-centred approach makes the children reflect on their work and how it can be improved. Moreover, student-centred assessment takes away workload for a teacher to mark books daily and to constantly give marks out to pupils. This adds unnecessary pressure on minds that are still forming, as this could give them the impression they are not good enough. This also links back to my first theme of inclusion.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
A successful teacher is comfortable with changing their leadership style from a directive practitioner to consultative one; “from ‘do as I say’ to ‘based on your needs, let’s co-develop and implement a plan of action’” (McCarthy, 2015). One of the main reasons why studentcentred learning is in my manifesto is because it could bring about a more positive education. Rogers (1965) is regarded as the founder of student-centred education, and he stated that with this method, pupils: “Adopt more realistic goals for himself, he becomes more the person he would like to be, he becomes more self-confident and self-directing, and the learner comes to see himself differently” (p. 280). Moreover, it allows for a completely different type of learning and assessment compared to a traditional, didactic style. For example, children would sit together instead of in rows, they could speak openly and honestly to each other, listen respectfully, have joint decision making, and the freedom to participate (Brandes & Glinnis, 1996).
It may be extremely difficult to implement this progressive education in a school which is going through special measures and under a great deal of pressure to succeed, or it may be shut down. It could be argued that this flipped-learning style may save the school, and its children’s education. Student-centred learning can also be a way of ensuring all children are included and have equal opportunity to learn in the classroom. There are some criticisms, however, to student-centred education. “One of the most common arguments … is that they require learners to ‘reinvent the wheel’” (Brandes & Glinnis, 1996) as it is a complete upheaval of the traditional style of teaching the National Curriculum we have become accustom to. This may be a result of education being in stuck in a rut for a long period of time, and where vast change is thought of as negative.
I have discussed three key themes in this manifesto: ensuring that each child has equal opportunity to learn and grow in the classroom, implementing rewards rather than sanctions and student-centred learning. In relation to student-centred learning, my approach to teaching has differed greatly since I started this programme. I would like to see if I can implement my ideology in my future placements, but it may be sensible to suggest a middleway between didactic and student-centred learning. Implementing it where it can be agreed upon in school and only teaching didactically when it is the most effective way of conveying information. For example, lectures can help skills such as listening, comprehension and discussion (Brandes & Glinnis, 1996). Engaging student-centred learning can also aid pupils with their behaviour, and I will continue to encourage pupils through a rewards-based system. My key belief of keeping the pupil at the heart of learning hasn’t changed at all, and working with children and helping them develop will always be a central philosophy of mine.
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513 References:
Ash, K. (2007, December 19). The pros and cons of rewards. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/motivation/2007/12/the_pros_and_cons_of_rewards.htm l Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning and personality development. London: Holt,Rinehart & Winston of Canada. Bennett, N., Jordan, J., Long, G., Wade, B., Entwistle, N., & Entroistle, N. (1976). Teaching styles and pupil progress. London: Open Books Publishing. Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, Constructivism, and Socratic Pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6), 713–722. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2006.00226.x Brandes, D., & Glinnis, P. (1996). A guide to student-centred learning. Hemel Hempstead, England: Simon & Schuster Education. Bruner, J. S. (1977). The Bruner: Process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Campbell, K. Classroom Rewards Reap Dividends for Teachers and Students. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr300.shtml D’Angelo, C., Touchman, S., Clark, D., O’Donnell, A., Mayer, R., Dean, D., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2009, December 23). Constructivism. Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http://www.education.com/reference/article/constructivism/ Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary edition (60th ed.). West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books. Garlikov, R. (2011, November 7). Should Educators use the Socratic Method of Teaching? Retrieved from Concordia University, http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/curriculuminstruction/should-educators-use-the-socratic-method-of-teaching/ HM Government. (2014). Teachers’ standards guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/301107/Te achers__Standards.pdf Kohn, A. (1993, December 3). The risks of rewards. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from Article, http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/risks-rewards/ Lam, F. (2011). The Socratic method as an approach to learning and its benefits. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=hsshonors
PR7101 – Steven Tones
J34513
McCarthy, J. (2015, September 9). Student-centered learning: It starts with the teacher Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-centered-learning-starts-withteacher-john-mccarthy McLeod, S. (2016). Skinner - Operant conditioning. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/44186702/Skinner.pdf?AWSAccess KeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1478461701&Signature=hz5AcxhAmPUT b6rjprBuPR3G4V8%3D&response-contentdisposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DSkinner_-_Operant_Conditioning.pdf Peterson, M., Feathers, K., & Beloin, K. (1997). Inclusive literacy learning. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from http://www.wholeschooling.net/WS/WSPress/ArtInclLitLrning.html Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Viking Press. Piaget, J., Marjorie, & Gabain, R. (1997). Language and thought of the child (4th ed.). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. Sobel, D. (2016, March 15). Differentiation for SEN students: Tips for boosting attainment. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacherblog/2014/apr/09/special-educational-needs-tips-boosting-attainment Tyson, C. (2015, January 27). Applying the work of philosopher John Dewey to our school. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from http://www.innovatemyschool.com/ideas/item/1241applying-the-work-of-philosopher-john-dewey-to-our-school.html Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.