When I first heard there would be a TeachMeet London on a bus, I'll be honest I was excited. I have no idea who had the idea in the first place but it was one of the most fun TeachMeets I have been to (and I've done a few!). The concept was brilliant, and the wine helped... it was also the perfect antidote to the stress of a Section 48 inspection happening the next day! Many many thanks to all those who joined in.
My presentation was called, "Cut the chat (+ have some fun) @ A-Level". During it, I talked about 3 ideas that I use in the classroom... two of which have come from other TeachMeets!
Thanks again to Ross, Martin and Paul for organising and sponsoring such a brilliant night. Also great to catch up with old friends and make new ones. Next time, when I don't have 3 observations the next day, I'll will drink ALL of the jelly shots!
So today I decided to try a new idea with my Y10/4 RE class. I said I wouldn't help them with this quite challenging Part C question: "Explain why abortion is controversial." (8 marks).
I just started writing, unannounced on the board. The chat started. I stopped. They were quiet, I kept writing. They were fascinated... I was doing exactly the task that I'd asked them to do.
We are still at the stage of lots of questions: Can you check this? Is this right? Can I write this? They want to do well, but need to now grow in confidence.
Once finished I went and sat down at the back, still offering no help. Students started reading and then writing. At this point, I was a little worried that I'd get 25 similar answers.
At the end, we looked at our answers. They said I had 8 out of 8, which was reassuring. We looked at why: 4 developed points, scripture, connective words etc.
I asked how theirs compared? Not sure, not willing to say. I asked who had copied anything directly, no one owned up. I got them to check one another's knowing they would easily dob on one another... No one! They said they had used the material but that it had been more useful to see HOW to develop rather than what.
So interestingly, despite me giving them a model answer, it was used for technique rather than content.
I wonder if I will have the same results with Y10/2. I fear some of them will take the easy option and just copy... I found it quite therapeutic, yet also proved to them "I still got it!", while not allowing them to ask for help, retaining independence.
Not sure I am ready to try this with an AS/A2 essay just yet...
Chris Waugh introduced me to student blogging a while back at #TMEssex. His passion for the authentic nature of blogging and the audience that it can create stayed with me.
It's taken a while but I have now managed to get my A2 students regularly blogging at:
I too want this to be authentic writing. I want my students to have an audience, and to interact with other students, teachers - and the world! I want their writing to be of a good standard. I want them to be asked questions. I want them to rework their argument if needed. I want them to change their mind if they are corrected.
The idea of a blogsync is that we will promote one another's blogs, read one another's blogs, comment on one another's blogs and ask questions about one another's blogs!
So how to do this?
Using the successful BlogSync and QuadBlogging models, I wanted to put together a more specialised RE blogsync. AS/A2 students, as well as potentially able GCSE students would commit to sharing, reading and commenting on one another's' blogs. This gives a fantastic connection and enables them to develop understanding and really push the boundaries of their understanding.
My students can blog about anything they like:
A topic from philosophy or ethics
A topic they found challenging (as revision)
RE in the news
A link between philosophy and ethics
Something from their wider reading
A question that has been left unanswered...
We just need an audience. Do you fancy joining us?
"Are religious experiences of any use in discussing God's existence?"
What I did:
I gave the teams the rules:
Once the debate starts, there is no talking or conferring.
You are either arguing YES they are or NO they are not.
Everyone must write at least twice.
Only one person may write at a time.
Think carefully before you write.
Try to keep it logical!
I split the class into two 'teams', each given a separate side of the argument. They had 10 minutes to prepare.
What happened:
We all gathered around the table, with 9 sheets of A3 stuck together. The question was in the middle.
Each team nominated their first scribe and we took it in turns as they got the hang of it. After a few goes each, they were allowed to both be writing at the same time. After about 10 minutes, we upped it to two people from each team. For the last two minutes we had a free for all to get the last bits of information down!
Throughout, there was absolute silence!
The Results:
The students really enjoyed it. On an Edmodo poll give the choice of role playing, speed dating or this, they all (bar one!) choose this!
The arguments started off all coming from the middle, in a random kind of way. However as they got more into it, the flow developed with people 'silently arguing' and literally bursting to get back to the table to write!
All students were fully engaged, even the weaker students found themselves able to add to comments or scholars to other students posts.
It was only possible to do it for as long as students already 'knew their stuff' on this topic. It was an excellent way to build confidence, share understanding, develop evaluation skills and ensure full engagement in the lesson.
The students keep asking, "when are we doing it again?"
A TeachMeet always inspires me to do new things and re-try exciting things I've done before. #TeachMeetRE was no different...
Leigh Almey (@LeighAlmey) shared her presentation on 'The Argument Tunnel' which you can watch <here>.
This prompted me to change my Y13 lesson P6 to do some Speed Dating!
I first heard of this idea at #TMEssex last year from a HE lecturer who used it with PGCE students. It creates a buzz in the room and generates a high intensity atmosphere in the classroom, it's also fun.
As the class arrived I gave students an EdExcel Developments AO2 question and told them to get planning...
(ii) ‘The religious experience argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12) - June 2010
They had 5 minutes to plan an outline to this question while I set up the room. Admittedly this is a reasonably hard question and I could see a number of students who had just set up a basic 'strengths/weaknesses' table which wouldn't allow them to rise to the demands of the question. Most ran out of ideas around the 4minute mark.
I then arranged them into two groups with a timer. One student instantly said, "This is like speed dating!". After all they sat in two rows, facing one another.
I then gave them a series of questions to talk about, carefully helping to develop understanding of this question and then reach some kind of conclusion:
What is religious experience? (1min)
What types of religious experience are there? (1min)
What conditions may lead to a religious experience taking place? (1min)
What does "probability of God" mean? (1min)
Is religious experience of value? (1min 30secs)
Is religious experience of little value? (1min 15secs)
What are your conclusions? (1min 15secs)
As you can see I altered timings and had each question appear on the board as it was covered. The timer and one side of 'the dates' moved after each go.
At the end I sent them back to their desks and told them to get writing... You could hear a pin drop as they furiously wrote away for the next ten minutes! I had to stop them writing as it was end of the lesson but they had plenty more than before the activity, yet essentially I had not imparted any new information to them.
The feedback was very positive: they learnt new things, they understood the terms better, they worked out what the question was asking... and they enjoyed it and were totally engaged!
