I attended my second ResearchEd conference on Saturday 5 September 2015. I am very glad I did. As an ex London Head now living in very rural North Wales trips down to the smoke are few and far between. My own school was a couple of miles for the ResearchEd venue but for those who know Cricklewood is rather different from Hampstead!
The usual relaxed arrival with tea and biscuits and then the job of making the final decision about which presentations to choose. I tried to copy the choice of a fellow participant but she covered up her choices! The presentations are first come first served and many could be very oversubscribed. I made the assumption that the presentations in the first row would all be captured on video so I could watch them on YouTube. Even so there were at least two presentations that I wanted to see that clashed for each session. Choices made and the mass welcome given by Tom Bennett and <SH> the head of SHHS.
Then off to session 1 to see presentation 1 which was by Laura McInerney. This was, for me, the best. It prompted the most thought as it was an area I had not considered in such detail before. Nor did i realise that the research evidence around how groups and teams operate would be applicable to groups being taught in school. Of course, once someone points it out it is very obvious!
Laura explained that the power structure in a classroom could be formally classified and that structure would affect how well a group, including the while class as a group, would work. She contrasted the research on how an individual learns and how that could be affected by the nature and dynamic of the group. She said she had based her presentation around a chapter in a book called Group Dynamics. On Amazon it costs £85.99! Even so I am very tempted to buy it.
Session 2: I had decided to attend 2 sessions where I thought I might disagree with the speaker. I was not wrong for this session. It was about the speaker’s contention that we were asking the wrong question when we asked if the use of technology in the classroom improve attainment.
The first statement made was that there was indeed no evidence that the use of tech, computer tech etc, improved attainment. That statement ought to ring alarm bells for all but the most ardent supporter of the use of devices such as iPads, tablets, mobile phones as aids for students in the classroom. But great that we started with some honesty. There are lots of reports, costly, that show a correlation but none that show causation. There is I am told a strong correlation between the appointment of a new Pope and the rise of illegitimate births in South America. Makes you think…
I waited to see what the right question was or what other evidence we should be seeking but, for me, that answer did not come in any satisfactory manner. Let me restate my position which is that we should not be spending the vast sums we have spent unless there is some evidence that tech in the classroom has some positive effect. I am convinced that tech used by teachers to plan, research, present etc has been a real boon and that will improve with time.
What we got was a quite entertaining diatribe on how we needed to rethink how we used IT in the classroom. How would we reuse it? No real idea. I do not think we were given any suggestions. We were presented with an almost evangelical belief that IT/Tech would be great for 21st Century learners. No rationale but a very strong belief. One could almost call it inspirational but in the same way as some well know YouTube presented educationalist inspire. Words but little evidence.
Session 3: This was a presentation on how the school, SHSS, was introducing Carol Dweck’s Mindset ideas to students, staff and some other stakeholders. As a process it looked fine. Not a rushed implementation and the school had a little anecdotal evidence of its positive impact on some of the students and on the staff. Be interested to see how this progresses.
I was able to stay in the same room for this. A plus. This was about how the brain copes with reading and was presented by <Prof K >. It was presented clearly and straightforward statements were made. It made a great deal of sense. I do think phonics is the way to go to teach children decoding and then reading. Prof K said that academics were in no doubt that phonics worked. She said the evidence was as strong as it ever gets in science, and that is pretty strong. She then explained the link between letters & sounds and sounds & meaning. This diagram is critical.
Letters/sounds link is systematic Letters/meaning is not systematic
Children come to school with a vocabulary so for that vocabulary sounds and meaning are well linked. The sound made by the word ‘tractor’ is close;ly associated with the thing we would all call a tractor.
Phonics allows the link to be made between letters and sounds. We MUST teach this, in the majority of children, so that they can sound out a combination of letters and associate this with the sound they recognise as a word they know. This is very complex and it is a tribute to our brains that we can manage this. It is made possible because there is a systematic link between letters and sounds, for about 85% of words in English. For other words the majority are only not systematic for one letter.
The link we want to make, which we would call reading is between letters and meaning. The letters t r a c t o r will, in a reader, immediately trigger the meaning of the word. This happens, not well understood, by repeatedly running the letters – sound – meaning loop until the required linkage is made. We can see in fMRI imaging the areas of the brain lighting up when these links are fired.
This may well be old hat to most of you but not to me, and a number of people in the room.
Her plea was for secondary schools to continue the work on literacy mainly by working on the recognition of morphemes. COST, COSTly, COSTing etc so that words can be understood by reference to their family. Perhaps this is the clue for secondary school literacy coordinators.
Session 5: Was about mindsets.There is a small pattern here! This was meant to have been given by 2 psychologists but one could not make it. I think this might have affected the presentation. Psychologist number 2 was less convinced by mindset aka Carol Dweck, that number 1 (missing) was. So I am not sure we got as balanced a view as possible. The cautions seemed to be around the issue of a too simplistic way of presenting mindsets. The suggestion was that some school were giving out mindset information in one assembly and that was it. Perhaps a visit to session 3 might have reassured a little! The other feature that affects mindset is the emotional response of children to learning and the learning environment.
It is clear that mindset work, growth and fixed, is not a simple, solves-all solution. But there is mileage in the approach.
Session 6: This was a fast paced and somewhat dense run through some aspects of cognitive science. The presenter favours the Unified Learning Model. Essentially this is working memory, knowledge and motivation. This model is fully explained in a book of the same name. This only costs £117 on Amazon!!! Most of the presentation I knew about and agree with. The shock was at the end when this fairly traditional teacher showed a YouTube video of Kieran Egan and how take on a project where a child works to become an expert in their chose subject. A few emails clarified the idea which is needing, in my view, a great deal of further work. Anyone want to try it out for a year? Probably one hour per week.
I was booked for a final session but by now and with a 3+ hour drive home I was ready to go.
A super event which I thoroughly enjoyed. Many thanks to the school for hosting and to the little army of gnomes who helped Helene (sorry, no accents) and Tom (sorry very Scottish accent). And especial thanks to ALL the presenters who gave their time and energy to making the latest ResearchEd such a positive experience.