3,201
edits
Teaching Approaches/Assessment: Difference between revisions
From OER in Education
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
SimonKnight (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
===Collaborative tools for orchestrating dialogue=== | ===Collaborative tools for orchestrating dialogue=== | ||
http://www.metafora-project.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=3 | Some research has explored the use of collaborative tools for structuring and orchestrating dialogue (on and offline) in constructive ways. The [[http://www.metafora-project.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=3|metafora project]] is exploring some possibilities here with respect to dialogic talk. The [[http://www.knowledgeforum.com/|Knowledge Building]] approach has also used software (paid) to engage students in structuring their claims collaboratively to construct new knowledge. Teachers may find that any resources which aid in 'argument mapping' and constructive turn taking (e.g. concept mapping software such as [[http://compendium.open.ac.uk/institute/|Compendium]] or many 'forum' based interfaces which may be preinstalled on a VLE). | ||
=Writing= | =Assessment for Learning and Writing= | ||
{{adaptedfrom|Improving Writing - Research Summary|Assessment|Since writing involves the integration of several processes, re-reading to revise is important (Norwood, Hayes and Flower 1980). Chanquoy (2001) shows the positive effect of returning to writing after the event. The time delay seems to help, but the techniques for revising need to be explicitly taught, that is modelled by the teacher. Glynn et al. (1989), behavioural psychologists researching in New Zealand classrooms, found considerable evidence that positive oral feedback has an impact on both motivation and the amount written. This was found to be more significant when errors were selectively targeted and when pupils were involved in error correction and praised for this. The research suggests that teachers’ comments should be organisational, encouraging, constructive, challenging and push pupils’ thinking. The work of Black and Wiliam (1998) and Black et al. (2002) looks at formative assessment and its relationship to raising standards in pupils’ learning. They comment that effective feedback needs to make explicit to pupils what is involved in producing high-quality writing and what steps are needed for improvement. They suggest that pupils should be actively engaged in the thinking and discussion involved.}} For further guidance on Improving Writing, refer to the document [[Improving Writing - Research Summary]]. | Assessment is often focussed on written assignments. While understanding the concepts one is writing about is important in this process, there are also specific skills related to conveying understanding and meeting assessment criteria in written forms. {{adaptedfrom|Improving Writing - Research Summary|Assessment|Since writing involves the integration of several processes, re-reading to revise is important (Norwood, Hayes and Flower 1980). Chanquoy (2001) shows the positive effect of returning to writing after the event. The time delay seems to help, but the techniques for revising need to be explicitly taught, that is modelled by the teacher. Glynn et al. (1989), behavioural psychologists researching in New Zealand classrooms, found considerable evidence that positive oral feedback has an impact on both motivation and the amount written. This was found to be more significant when errors were selectively targeted and when pupils were involved in error correction and praised for this. The research suggests that teachers’ comments should be organisational, encouraging, constructive, challenging and push pupils’ thinking. The work of Black and Wiliam (1998) and Black et al. (2002) looks at formative assessment and its relationship to raising standards in pupils’ learning. They comment that effective feedback needs to make explicit to pupils what is involved in producing high-quality writing and what steps are needed for improvement. They suggest that pupils should be actively engaged in the thinking and discussion involved.}} For further guidance on Improving Writing, refer to the document [[Improving Writing - Research Summary]]. Teachers should consider taking a range of approaches to assessing writing, and working with pupils to assess each other's writing. | ||
= | =Assessment for Learning and Reading= | ||
{{adaptedfrom|Improving Reading - Research Summary|Assessment|Over the last decade we have become increasingly aware of the importance of metacognition in learning to read (Baker and Brown 1984). One of the characteristics distinguishing younger readers from older readers, and poorer readers from fluent readers, is that younger and poorer readers often do not recognise when they have not understood a text (Garner and Reis 1981); that is, there is evidence that they are not actively aware of their own level of understanding and are therefore not able to make an autonomous decision to use a strategy to enhance their understanding. Other readers show a greater awareness of their own level of understanding for they will stop when a text does not make sense to them. Some will then go on to select from their range of strategies that which might help overcome their problem. | {{adaptedfrom|Improving Reading - Research Summary|Assessment|Over the last decade we have become increasingly aware of the importance of metacognition in learning to read (Baker and Brown 1984). One of the characteristics distinguishing younger readers from older readers, and poorer readers from fluent readers, is that younger and poorer readers often do not recognise when they have not understood a text (Garner and Reis 1981); that is, there is evidence that they are not actively aware of their own level of understanding and are therefore not able to make an autonomous decision to use a strategy to enhance their understanding. Other readers show a greater awareness of their own level of understanding for they will stop when a text does not make sense to them. Some will then go on to select from their range of strategies that which might help overcome their problem. | ||
In shared and guided reading sessions we can model for pupils how fluent readers monitor their understanding and use strategies to clarify their own understanding. These may range from semantic strategies to work out a troublesome word to sophisticated reflections on whether the meaning is deliberately obscure (as in a mystery) or perhaps challenging the author/text because the reader thinks they are incorrect. Such teacher modelling is an important part of the learning opportunities within reading sessions.}}. For further guidance on Improving Reading, refer to the document [[Improving Reading - Research Summary]]. | In shared and guided reading sessions we can model for pupils how fluent readers monitor their understanding and use strategies to clarify their own understanding. These may range from semantic strategies to work out a troublesome word to sophisticated reflections on whether the meaning is deliberately obscure (as in a mystery) or perhaps challenging the author/text because the reader thinks they are incorrect. Such teacher modelling is an important part of the learning opportunities within reading sessions.}}. For further guidance on Improving Reading, refer to the document [[Improving Reading - Research Summary]]. | ||
