Essay: Assessing strengths & weaknesses in a scheme of work (Approaches in Psychology)

Introduction
This assignment has been written in relation to a scheme of work (SOW) covering ‘Approaches in Psychology (including Biopsychology)’. It covers seven topics that were spread over fourteen lessons and taught to students on a Year 1 A Level course.
The assignment will consider the different factors that were taken into consideration when designing the SOW for e.g. educational reform, school context, pedagogy and ICT provisions. A reflective commentary is provided in the final section, which will critically evaluate the effectiveness of the SOW in practice.
1. Educational Reform
In 2012, the Secretary of State for Education initiated a programme of reform for A Levels. This was done with the intention of making courses a better preparation for higher education (Ofqual, 2012). Under the new programme, A Levels moved from a modular to linear structure, with exams taking place at the end of the two-year course. Changes were also made to curriculum and content – particularly in Psychology. As these changes were implemented in 2015, it is still a relatively new system that both students and teachers are adjusting to. Therefore, the effect this will have on the teaching and learning of Psychology will be discussed.
Under the new linear system, students no longer sit January exams nor do their summer AS exams contribute to their final A Level grade (DfE, 2012). There are many benefits to this approach, one being reduced exam pressure in year one (both for teachers and students).  The absence of year one exams provides teachers with the benefit of time and allows topics to be explored in further depth. In my own lessons, I found that I was able to dedicate more time to real life applications to help bring the subject to life. When studying the Social Learning Theory, students were shown an excerpt from the documentary of James Bulger to explore how violent media can lead individuals to commit horrific crimes. With more emphasis on activities as such, students gain a deeper understanding of the subject, which coincides with the government’s aim of preparing students for higher education and employment (BPS, 2014).
Secondly, with the new changes to the linear system, the all-inclusive approach to learning Psychology has meant that many topics are connected and taught in a way that requires critical thinking. This has been done to encourage students to understand the topic in more depth. Consequently I arranged a lunchtime film club that explored psychological films such as …. that made connections to the topic we were teaching in class. This stimulated many discussions about topics and promoted a rich understanding of what students were learning.
Equally, the removal of exam pressure in year one can lead to increased exam pressure in year two. Psychology is a content-heavy subject and relying on students to retain the many concepts and approaches from year one could be met with some difficulty. Therefore, I have devised a Scheme of Work (SOW) that will be complimented with a unit revision booklet. The booklet (see Appendix *) is compiled with structured topic worksheets to be used in lessons. Students are given this booklet at the beginning of a unit studied and expected to make notes throughout. This can be a useful tool in year two, where they can revisit topics for revision. In addition to this, exam questions are regularly embedded in my SOW; these compile a folder at the end of the unit that students can again refer back to. Therefore, the linear changes have had an impact on my planning.
1.1 Changes in Curriculum and Content
The reforms also extend to curriculum and content. Upon Michael Gove’s announcement for educational reform, The British Psychological Society (BPS) commissioned a report in June 2012 in which they discussed the future of A Level. The report focused on the current curriculum and content (at the time of writing) and the ways in which a new system could facilitate the transition to higher education. As a result, in 2015, exam boards released a new Psychology specification in which content had been revised and edited. This was done in collaboration with universities to ensure content continuity.
The current AQA Psychology specification (2015) comprises largely of prior content with the addition of new topics such as ‘Approaches in Psychology’ in year one. The issue that arises with new specifications is the lack of available resources to aid teachers when planning. However, since it’s release, AQA has approved a number of textbooks and released exemplar materials to support teachers. During my own planning I relied heavily on “Year 1 and AS Teacher’s Companion for AQA Psychology” by Michael Griffin and Rosalind Geillis. The book had been edited to meet the demands of the new specification and includes a range of lesson ideas, worksheets as well as extensive differentiation. Also, as the topic had been taught before at my placement school, there were lessons that I could refer to as a basis for my planning.
The exam structure has also changed with all three papers containing a variation of question styles. The inclusion of multiple choice, short answers questions and 16 mark extended essays has pushed exam practice to the forefront of my planning. The lessons in my SOW (see Appendix 1) include a minimum of two exam questions per 100 minutes; each varying in style (i.e. 3 mark question paired with a 12 mark question). Students are also introduced to examination skills in the first lesson taught of the SOW (see appendix *) where they preview the mark scheme and familiarise themselves with the assessment objectives (AO1, AO2 and AO3). As students have no prior knowledge of Psychology, it is critical that they are made aware of the demands of the specification. The new syllabus has also meant that there is limited access to past papers, therefore practicing, reviewing and reflecting in class is increasingly important (TES).
Under the current specification, there has been a significant shift in the way in which research methods is assessed. The AQA specification states that students will be assessed in the following areas: arithmetic and numerical computation, handling data, algebra, and graphs. They must demonstrate these mathematical skills throughout all three papers which contributes to 10% of their final mark (ref). To meet these requirements, mathematical skills have been integrated into the SOW. In lesson 3 (Appendix *) students were instructed to ‘sketch’ a graph displaying the results of their experiments. Once produced, they were shown a success criterion in which they were able to independently map their progress.
As well as maths, literacy skills have been equally promoted. The new specification dictates that, students must show evidence of specialist key terminology in order to achieve high band marks (ref). Therefore, year 12 students each received a glossary in their first lesson of the SOW. Each time a novel word was revealed, students were required to summarise the meaning and add to their glossaries. At the start of lesson * and *, a ‘Wordle’ was shown incorporating key terminology mentioned in the previous lesson (see appendix *). Students were chosen at random to select a word and provide a verbal explanation for it. This is a great way to promote literacy and an opportunity to recap on previously learnt content.
The changes to the A level curriculum are on-going and yet to be completed. It is intended that by 2018 psychology will also eliminate the current grading system in favour of the new 1-9 system (The Guardian).
1.2 The English Baccalaureate
The English Baccalaureate (EBacc) is an additional school performance measure that was introduced in 2010 (DfE). It was a consequence of the Conservative government’s aim to raise the international ranking of the English education system (Andere, 2008). The way in which it works is it publishes the percentage of pupils who achieve a grade A* to C across what are deemed ‘the core academic subjects’, i.e. English, Maths, Science, Geography and History (ref). Notably absent are subjects such as Psychology and Sociology which indicate the current government’s view of the Social Sciences. In 2015, the government strengthened its EBacc agenda further, by making it a compulsory GCSE requirement for students who had started secondary school in September 2015.  The government claims that by doing so, it will ensure that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are not deterred from pursuing academic subjects (DfE, 2015). However, Christine Blower, General Secretary at the National Union of Teachers (NUT) criticises the model as a “blantant two-tier system”. She suggests that it can risk alienating students who may underperform in these subjects and consequently miss out on a formal qualification and employment opportunities. Such a system could be divisive and also create a hierarchy within the curriculum.
Since it’s inception, there has been a rise in the number of schools entering their pupil’s for Ebacc qualifications. The Department of Education (2013) found that 23% of state school pupils were entered for the EBacc in 2012, with the figure rising to 47% the following year. As the Government has excluded Social Sciences from the EBacc criteria, it is likely have a declining effect on the uptake of subjects such as Psychology. More schools are encouraging students to take up the EBacc pathway instead, thereby excluding non-EBacc subjects – this is known as the ‘EBacc effect’ (ref). Tina Isaac, a lecturer at the Institute of Education suggests that this effect will likely continue into post-16 education, as students are prone to continue studying the subjects they did so at GCSE (ref). This may well have an effect on the teaching and learning of Psychology. For instance, it may result in a higher percentage of low-ability students choosing to study the subject as more academic students may be inclined to study Ebacc electives instead. Consequently, if there are a higher percentage of low ability students, lessons would need to be scaffolded and tailored to suit the needs of the students.
2. School Context
School A, in which the SOW was applied, is a comprehensive 11-18 girls school with a large intake of 1,422 pupils. It is an inner-city school situated within the London borough of Tower Hamlets – one of the most deprived areas in the country (ref). The location of the school means that there are a large percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals with the pupil premium rate being fittingly high (include percentage). The demographic of the school largely consists of students from a Bangladeshi background thus most speak English as an additional language (EAL). The proportion of students with special educational needs (SEN) is above the national average (include percentage) with most students having moderate learning needs including behavioural, emotional or social difficulties (Ofsted, date).
Ofsted inspected the school in 2011 and again in 2016 during which I was placed at the school. However, the recent inspection findings are yet to be published, therefore the 2011 report will be referred to. The report concluded that the school sixth form was “good” in the following areas: outcomes for students, quality of provision and leadership and management. It went onto state that teaching was good in most subjects and “…characterised by good subject knowledge”. The report recommended that the school could improve through better checking of learning in lessons and the addition of more challenging activities. Therefore, implementing Assessment for Learning (AfL) and stretch and challenge was a priority when planning my SOW.
Although not mentioned in the Ofsted report, there is a consensus amongst teachers that there is a culture of passive learning within the school. From my own observations, I found this to be correct, with students seeming unmotivated and unwilling to engage in activities or class discussion. It appears the school has taken heed of this and implemented successful whole school initiatives such as ‘talk tokens’. These are given to encourage ‘passive’ students to make contributions to lessons by instructing them to be  ‘spent’. I found that although ‘talk tokens’ were not widely used by 6th form teachers, a method of using ‘no hands-up’ to invite contribution was preferred. It is also the method that I adopted regularly in my own lessons (see Lesson plans in appendix *, *, * and *). Moreover, I used a random name generator in lessons * and * to ask targeted questions to pupils under the guise of random selection. This is another effective way to encourage students to participate.
Active learning is characterised by a learner taking responsibility for the development of an activity (Capel et al). This can be through reading, writing, listening or even using different materials as long as learners are personally involved in the discovery process (ref). Therefore, in order to encourage the transition from passive to active learner in School A, I carried out a range of activities. For instance, in lesson * (see appendix *) as part of the starter activity, students were shown a series of scenarios on the board as they were stood. They were then required to demonstrate whether they believed the scenarios to be a product of nature or nurture by moving to the left or right side of the room. Research has shown that creating a multi-sensory atmosphere as such, enhances the learning of students (ref). Therefore this type of activity is a common feature in the SOW.
Secondly, the prominence of EAL students has meant that literacy has been very much a focal point within the lessons. In each lesson students are shown a list of keywords alongside the learning objectives (see lessons *, *, *,*). Throughout the lesson when each key word is mentioned they are instructed to write the definition into the glossary that was provided at the beginning of the unit (see appendix *). In addition, students are given access to higher-level texts beyond their age range to broaden their reading, writing and comprehension skills. This not only is a great way to promote literacy but it challenges students, which is in line with Ofsted’s recommendations.
In build up to the schools most recent inspection, much preparation was undertaken to ensure that the lessons were challenging learners. In response, I implemented a variety of challenge activities to be carried out both independently and collaboratively. For example, lesson * (see Appendix *) saw students conducting their own experiment followed by a group presentation. Each pupil was given a different role and was instructed to combine their efforts into one cohesive presentation.  This independent research component of the task requires higher order thinking skills and meets the ‘create’ criteria of Blooms Taxonomy.  The encouragement of answering exam questions in class was an effectively way to measure AfL. It gave a good indication within classes of what topics needed to be revisited.
Lastly, the prominence of SEN students in the school does not necessarily extend to the sixth form (according to data). However, the entry requirements for psychology are lower than expected in when compared to other institutions. As a result, there are a large number of low-ability students enrolled on the course. To overcome this, I have applied a seating plan to each class in which low-ability and high-ability students are paired with each other. This is in accordance to Vygotsky’s theory of pairing a low-ability individual with a mastery learner to catapult their progress (Galloway, 2001). (Vygotksy’s research is discussed in more detail in section 3.1.) The seating plan has also played an integral role in class management. From early observations, I was able to determine friendship groups and identify potentially ‘challenging’ students. As a result they were later seated strategically in the class.  This is also a great way to ensure that students remain actively engaged in lessons.
3. Pedagogy
Watkins and Mortimore (1999) defined pedagogy as “any conscious activity by one person designed to enhance learning in another”. The term has been used synonymously in education with ‘teaching styles’ but it is important to stress that the definition is far more complex (Capel et al). It refers to teaching that has been shaped by cultural norms, personal values and the interpretation and application of learning theories (Robin Alexander, 2009). Hence, teachers should adopt a well-informed approach to encourage their students to achieve their full potential.
In regards to my SOW, the culture of School A (‘passive learners’) has influenced my choice of pedagogy. Much of pedagogical research has been informed by a number of learning theories that I have taken inspiration from. Instead of focusing on a singular theory, I have decided to implement a multitude of techniques influenced by the works of Lee Vygotsky and Howard Gardner.
3.1 Social Constructivism
Social constructivism dictates that a child’s developmental cognition can only be formed through interaction with external bodies (Vygotsky, 1980). According to the zone of proximal development (ZPD), there are two levels to learning. The first is the ‘actual’ development level, which refers to tasks that a child can perform without assistance. The second refers to ‘potential’ development. Vygotsky suggested that in order to close the gap between the two levels, students are to develop higher mental functioning through the guidance of a ‘more-knowledgable other’ (MKO). This interaction with the MKO facilitates the child’s shortcomings and gives appropriate assistance until the child is able to complete the task by themselves (Vygotsky 1987). In practice, this requires a great deal of support from peers and teachers.
Social constructivists advocate social interaction to support learning; therefore I have attempted to facilitate this in my planning. I devised a seating plan for my classes in which students are placed in mixed ability groups. This allows students of low ability to be seated with students of higher ability, otherwise recognised as a ‘MKO’.  According to the Vygotskian framework (date), communication is effective in facilitating this peer-peer interaction; hence discussion was at the forefront of my lessons. For example, ‘think, pair, share’ was consistently applied in every lesson to promote dialogue between the pairings. This allows more competent students (MKO) to impart their knowledge to a less able student, enabling them to progress within the ZPD. Research has shown that the intersubjectivity between the two students also benefits the more competent student as through dialogue, they are able to articulate their ideas in a more proficient way than if they were alone (Swain et al, 2002).
In 1966, Jerome Bruner built on Vygotsky’s ideas and developed ‘scaffolding’. The term refers to learners receiving necessary support, which steadily decreases as they move towards task mastery (Salkind, 2008). Since it’s emergence, scaffolding has been applied to education in several ways. A widely used example is modelling. This is when a teacher takes on the role of encouraging students to imitate any expected behaviour that supports their learning (Bandura, 1986). To implement this, in lesson 2 (appendix *) students were introduced to the topic of classical conditioning (with reference to Pavlov’s study). They were instructed to create their own examples of conditioning; a task students generally struggle with as it requires application of knowledge (AO2). To provide guidance, I modelled a culturally appropriate example of classical conditioning in which I referred to conditioning my niece to become excited every time she received a ‘kinder surprise egg’. This not only engaged students, but they were able to understand how to apply the theory to real life and reproduce their own examples. I also found that by showing further examples to less-able students, I could address their misconceptions, allowing them progress to the same level. Therefore a teacher’s role is critical to facilitate scaffolding. However, it is important to note that Bruner suggested that scaffolding should decrease in effort based on the progress of the learner (ref). Too much scaffolding may not necessarily encourage any thinking for students. Rather, students become over reliant on the scaffold, which I experienced with some of my students. Therefore, knowing the right amount of scaffolding to promote learning is vital.
3.2 Multiple Intelligences
A pupil’s academic achievement has in the past been linked to their level of “intelligence” (ref). This notion of intelligence has been widely attributed to linguistic and logical mathematical reasoning; two capacities commonly measured by most intelligence tests. However, Howard Gardner (1993) attempted to diversify the definition by proposing his ‘theory of multiple intelligences’. In it he identifies nine difference types of intelligences, as shown on the table below: It is thought that students have different learning styles based on these that determine how they process information and affects their learning outcomes (Emmiyati et al, 2014).  Therefore, when planning for my SOW, I was mindful of how to adopt Gardner’s principles to accommodate the learning preferences of my students.
In order to identify the students’ learning styles, they completed an inventory measuring what type of intelligence/s they preferred (see appendix *). After the data had been collated, I decided to focus on the most predominant of the nine, which were linguistic, spatial, kinaesthetic, and interpersonal. For example, lesson * (see appendix *) saw pupils engage in kinaesthetic learning where they carried out a role-play demonstrating different types of reinforcement. This allowed students to apply their understanding of operant conditioning. In lesson * (see appendix *) students adopted a spatial approach by recreating a comic book style sketch of the Bobo doll study. In lesson * (appendix *) students took part in a nature vs. nurture debate which demonstrated their interpersonal skills. Lastly in lesson * (appendix *) students were instructed to create an acronym representing the four meditational processes as identified by Bandura.  These are just a few examples of the different types of activities that were used to explore the intelligences. Not only did it cater to students’ different needs but it was also an effective method of promoting active learning.
However Gardner’s theory is not without criticisms. According to extensive literature, there appears to be a lack of empirical evidence supporting the existence of nine autonomous intelligences (ref). Instead, it is argued that there is one general model of intelligence (the ‘g’ factor) that encompasses a number of different abilities (Gottfredsson, 2004). However, despite its criticisms, the theory is still favoured by practitioners and widely used in educational settings.
4. The Role of ICT
In an increasingly digital world, where most students have access to hand-held devices, it is critical for teachers to integrate technology within the classroom. Research has shown that, when used correctly, technology can help enhance student learning (ref). Therefore, in my SOW, I have attempted to make use of the schools ICT provisions.
The sixth form building is relatively new therefore is equipped with state of the art ICT suites. Nonetheless, the psychology classrooms were only fitted with a presentation projector. For that reason, in every lesson in my SOW, I created PowerPoint presentations including images, videos, gifs., to complement the content being studied. Moreover, to assist visual learners further, in lesson * (appendix *) I included a step-by-step animation in the PowerPoint to demonstrate how classical conditioning occurs and to allow students to familiarise themselves with the key terminology. There is supporting literature that argues animations are more effective than static images when teaching dynamic events/processes (ref). I also used YouTube clips in a number of lessons (Appendices ****) to encourage engagement and demonstrate real world application (see appendix *).  The versatility of PowerPoint’s encourages creativity when planning lessons and can arguably facilitate a range of multiple intelligences (ref). However, apart from the ICT suites, the classrooms in the sixth form did not include interactive whiteboards (IWB). According to research, IWB’s can promote creative teaching and motivate students into absorbing information. For example, teachers can use it to model a task or involve pupils and have them model tasks that would
The school does however provide each faculty with an iPad trolley that teachers can book for use. Research has shown that the use of mobile devices in the classroom can provide outstanding opportunities to enhance pupils’ learning. Therefore, I used iPads in lesson *, *, * of my SOW. As technology in schools evolve, there are a range of technological apps widely available to supplement learning. For example, apps like ‘Kahoot!’ and ‘Socrates’ which were used in lesson * and * are quiz based apps that can be a great tool to measure progress in the plenary of a lesson. During my time at School A, I also attended an optional CPD on how to use ‘Nearpod’. Nearpod is an instructional app that allows teachers to synchronise their lesson to all the students in the class via mobile devices. In lesson * (appendix *) I decided to implement this during essay feedback. Pupils were given an iPad each and shown a pupil response to an exam question. They were then asked to identify ‘WWW’ and ‘EBI’ features of the exemplar answer before writing their own response via their iPads. Once students had completed this, I was able to share an example of a student response in real time, so it appeared on every students’ ipad. This allows students to interact with an activity as in this particular lesson we compared different answers based on feedback.
The use of iPads and mobile devices in the classroom has received pedagogical support, particularly  in the form of social constructivism. It is thought that ICT and technological apps can be used to facilitate collaboration and interaction as mentioned in regards to the Nearpod lesson (appendix *). However, there have been some concerns surrounding e-safety and child protection when using iPads and devices that provide easy access to the internet. However, the teacher interface does allow you to monitor what students are doing. Also, it can help monitor progress to ensure all students are on task.
5. Reflections
Taking into consideration educational reform, school context, pedagogy as well as ICT provisions within the school, I have created a scheme of work to reflect the research. Whilst it was straightforward implementing research-led techniques, it did not always result in the expected outcomes. Therefore this will be discussed further below.
I designed my SOW based on the topic, ‘Approaches in Psychology’. As it is a new topic that was added to the specification in 2015, it had only been taught once before at school A. As mentioned previously, I created a booklet made of structured worksheets that would accompany every lesson within the unit (see appendix *). Although, this was a great revision tool for students, which they can access in year 2, it did not allow me to personalise students’ learning. For example, as students received the same booklet, it was not differentiated to cater to their diverse needs. In hindsight, low ability students would have benefitted from having scaffolded worksheets within the booklet that were easily accessible to them. Nevertheless, I did provide scaffolded evaluation worksheets to students separately during the lessons (see appendix *). In the future, I aim to use student data to create personalised booklets that include scaffolded worksheets for low ability and extra stretch and challenge activities for G&T students. This could be a great way to differentiate in a discreet manner.
To explore Vygotsky’s theory, I did group students according to ability to ensure low ability students were paired with a ‘more-knowledgable other’. However, one Y12 class were initially particularly resistant to the seating plan as it was not a routine within the sixth form. Initially, this did lead to some students being unwilling to actively engage in activities. However I persevered and upheld my expectations until they were cooperative; thus there was minimal disruption. I am hoping that in future, as I will be teaching students from September rather than November, they will be familiarised with my expectations from the outset. Secondly, when pairing individuals, there was an imbalance in the ratio between G&T students and low-ability students, with there being more of the latter. Hence, some pairings were initially not very successful. To overcome this, I made use of AfL (i.e. verbal questioning and exam questions) to determine if there were students brighter than their GCSE data suggested. For example, in lesson *, I assessed students using two different types of exam questions carried out in timed conditions. Through the results, I found that students who were deemed G&T in secondary school were not necessarily G&T in psychology. I identified the high attaining pupils and re-adjusted the seating plans in accordance to this, to make for more accurate pairings.
To scaffold students’ understanding, in every lesson, I began with teacher-led activities to allow students to construct their baseline knowledge. For example, in lesson *, I introduced the content by discussing the main assumptions of the biological approach. Through questioning, I checked students’ understanding to ensure that they could move on to the more student led activities such as the carousel task. The carousel activity (lesson *, appendix *) saw students collaborating their ideas with each other through peer-peer interaction (Vygotsky, 1981). To provide teacher support, I also added questions within each section to help facilitate the discussions. I found that although student-led activities enabled collaboration and discovery learning, if the activity was too long, students became off task. Therefore, to maintain engagement, I altered the activity in the following lesson to ensure there was more teacher-voice throughout. For example, in lesson *, before each group had moved onto the next activity within the carousel, I asked pre-planned targeted questions to check understanding.
Having said that, I found that there are some difficulties that I encountered. First, not all students interacted well with their pairs and often lost interest when having peer-to-peer discussions. Gaining knowledge through social interactions was sometime inadequate because of the unrelated discussions or the lack of wanting to help from the high ability students otherwise known as the MKO. A. Sullivan Palincsar (1998) suggests that having an intersubjective attitude is particularly challenging for Western societies due to its individualistic nature and traditions. He gives an example where he compares two different sets of children and found that social interaction amongst European-American children were more often in giving “unrelated lines of instructions”(Palincsar, 1998, 355) and lost interest when paired with lower ability students compared to Navajo Children who were more likely to build on each others comments. This was quite prevalent in my classroom with the students of School A as the higher ability students were reluctant to help and were more focussed on completing tasks for themselves. In hindsight, students may not have participated as much as I expected due to the passive culture of the school. Nevertheless, peer discussion and pairing students with different abilities did bring about some good discussions and debates, which I think students benefitted from.
In order to promote active learning and explore Gardner’s MI theory, there were a variety of activities embedded in the SOW such as: carousel tasks, debates, group work, whole class exam practice, interactive games, videos, role-play etc. Using this pedagogy worked particularly well in  School A. Certain activities that were useful were adapted and used again. For instance, in lesson *, I developed the carousel task from the previous lesson and placed posters with a different evaluation point around the room. In groups, pupils circulated the room attending to each poster and made notes. This proved to be a great way to engage students, and facilitated kinaesthetic learning. Also, some activities required a number of the intelligences, such as the comic book strip activity in lesson *. Students watched a video of the original bobo doll study. They were then required to draw the sequence of events and write underneath the boxes a sentence explaining what had occurred. This activity tapped into a number of the intelligences such as visual, spatial and linguistic. Students enjoyed this type of learning better than the didactic traditional approach. It allowed students to discover their own style and preferences as learners. They are equipped with the skills to make better choices, become more independent and take responsibility for their own learning (Bell, 2010). This was definitely prevalent in the classroom.
Bell, S., 2010. Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), pp.39-43.
In regards to the use of ICT, I regularly used iPads in my SOW. Research has shown that the use of mobile devices in the classroom can help facilitate collaboration and engagement when used correctly (Dhir et al, 2013). As I had not used technology in the classroom before nor received training, I began by using iPads as part of my plenary through apps such as Kahoot. I found that the students particularly favoured this type of app and it encouraged friendly competition. I also introduced prizes too encourage active participation and it certainly had a positive effect on the students. However, student typically participated in Kahoot by sharing an iPads amongst a group of four. All though this encouraged collaboration with their peers, it made it difficult to pinpoint the individual progress of students. I found that in lesson *, when I did not have iPads available students carried out the quiz on their own mobile phone devices as a single user. I found that this was a more beneficial way of tracking individual progress.
Dhir, A., Gahwaji, N.M. and Nyman, G., 2013. The role of the iPad in the hands of the learner. J. UCS, 19(5), pp.706-727.
6. Evaluations
As this was my first SOW, I explored a range of techniques, ideas and resources when creating it. Through the process, I found which techniques were successful, which required improvement and which were not useful for my classes. This has allowed me to become reflective in my practice and also improve on a lesson-by-lesson basis. Below are statements indicating what went well and what could be further improved:
Strengths:
– Variety of activities used to promote active learning and maintain engagement
– There was constant opportunity for collaboration, i.e. through group work, ‘think, pair share’ tasks, debates etc.
– Teacher circulated the room regularly to provide support.
– Opportunity for peer/self assessment which encouraged students to be reflective and familiarise themselves with the mark scheme.
– SOW was informed by pedagogical research
– SOW incorporated ICT, multimedia and technological apps
Weaknesses:
– Student led activities became quite chaotic, need more teacher voice in between to ensure that students are on task
– Use scaffolded worksheets to ensure that low ability students are supported as peer support alone is not sufficient
– Use of ICT in individual work rather than collaboratively to provide some variation and make it easy to assess individuals progress
– To add more structure to student-led activities by assigning different roles to different group members.