Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Education news' started by captain_picard, Jun 13, 2019.
What on Earth does this mean?
Surely using Bloom’s taxonomy knowledge is one of the lowest skills but one of the easiest to test. Multiple choice testing and computer marking lends itself well to this.
Probably my last post on the subject:
Knowledge of terminology
Knowledge of specific details and elements
Knowledge of classifications and categories
Knowledge of principles and generalizations
Knowledge of theories, models, and structures
Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms
Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods
Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures
Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge
I was asking what "knowledge rich has nothing to do with facts" means
Exactly what I said, knowledge rich is about all the domains of knowledge that can be seen within Blooms Taxonomy. But there again, as I have said knowledge rich currently means different things for different people. We could probably start a new thread to discus people's understanding of the term and many will say something different. There are educationalists out there that talk about skills based curricula, and knowledge rich and I even found research in to different models of curricula. But again even they mean different things to different people. I have my idea based on my reading, but then again, I read so I can understand, and much of it still passes me by because there are no hard and fast rules with curricula that I can see. As far as OFSTED is concerned if you read the framework the only actual curriculum that they say "exemplifies" their idea is the National Curriculum, so if schools are following that there is no problem how you write it. You have asked me to explain something that I do not fully understand, that doesn't mean I shouldn't discount it, only that I need to read more, I am hoping that the Masters in Teaching and Learning that I start in September will help me to understand it more so that we can have a better conversation about the topic later.
This is where we are in UK education currently, and it is not a good place.
If people still do not know what these things mean, there is going to be a lot of trouble ahead.
There is a lot of nonsense being talked about this by people who are keen to be seen saying what they think are the right things.
If every school is making up its own version of something that hardly anyone can agree on, and many do not even understand, it's time to slow down and take stock before a real mess is made.
Scrap Ofsted. Toxic. negative, self- perpetuating, totally useless.
A fair and succinct summary.
I saw Ofsted have posted this blog today, clarifying what they mean by 'Intent'
Oh my days.
Trust Ofsted to mangle something so simple as "curriculum" and turn it into "intent", which everyone then interprets in their own way.
However, statements like this will prove troublesome...
If your school is not doing so well in reading, mathematics, geography or religious education, then how strong is the curriculum in each of these subjects? Does it contain the right knowledge in the right order?
Right knowledge in the right order?
Could be interesting
The revised Ofsted framework (September 2019) has a focus on the National Curriculum: introductory note 3.1. I believe the DfE and Ofsted regard the NC as a collection of curricula rather than a collection of syllabi.
In KS1, KS2 and KS3, within the confines of the NC, teachers are free to design a curriculum, and 'knowledge' (the facts that we want children to understand and absorb) should underpin that design but teachers cannot teach skills or knowledge exclusively because they complement each other.
I think this revised framework is evidence that Ofsted have finally woken up to the news that in KS1 and KS2 the curriculum is narrowed in the year leading up to SATs where non-core subjects are sacrificed for English and mathematics lessons.
I have no experience of teaching in KS3 or KS4, and please forgive my ignorance, but it would seem sensible to conclude that as external examinations dominate the teaching in KS3 and KS4 then there is very little room for tinkering with the exam boards' curricula/syllabi and it is for them (the exam boards) to ensure that knowledge underpins what is taught.
While KS4 is as you say, dominated by GCSE exams, KS3 is much more open to interpretation. There are questions such as when should students start narrowing down their subject choices (some schools select options in Year 8) and, for non-core subjects, what content should be selected for KS3.
I tend to find things like this are presented in a much too abstract way which just causes confusion about what is meant and panic that someone will disapprove of what you do.
Too often it seems to boil down to using different adjectives to describe what people have been doing for years anyway.
To me it just sounds like linking concepts together better so students can use what they have learned more often, rather than concepts being isolated and focused on specifc exam questions.
Students understand what they have they have been taught can use it in different contexts as opposed to remembering answers to exam questions.
So in Maths for example that would be a student understanding that the squaring symbol is power 2, so you multiply two of the number together. Then seeing power 4 and being able to multiply four of the number together. As opposed to remembering that squaring is multiplying by itself and being puzzled when the squared symbol changes into in different number.
Oh, hello snowy! Where've you bin?
Here and there. Mostly there.
I think we all seem to agree that if a school is obliged to follow the National Curriculm then no other curriculum is needed. Everything that feeds into that is planning - whether that be a full scheme of work or short term (weekly) planning. Having said that there are probably very few secondary schools that follow the NC which leads me to conclude that Ofsted will be on your case come September.
Surely the current anti-knowledge sentiment we find in some schools (and also from the unions and OfSTED until recently) is the fad?
From the dawn of time until the 90s, education was all about delivering knowledge. I visit a lot of students in their homes, and it's immediately apparent to me that their parents and grandparents were much better educated and are better at things like calculations with fractions, despite not having needed to do them for decades.
I've been teaching the science GCSE syllabus for many years. It's always been full of knowledge.
Can you provide some examples of teachers who are anti-knowledge and show the extent of the problem?