The Classroom Experiment

[diddl]

Anyone else see this last night?

Thought it was quite interesting.

Did no one else go to a school where pupils were asked questions throughout a lesson without anyone putting their hand up?

Or you might get asked even if your hand wasn´t up?

Can´t believe that they are talking about it as if it´s revolutionary!

Do teachers really only engage with the same few without involving others?

Agree saadia, there are lots of other strategies that can be used. The key to it all is the teacher's judgement and knowledge of the class. Dylan's random lolly stick method removes that judgement and knowledge factor, which is why I think it is a mistake, which can lead to bad consequences, some of which we saw when Emily and her friends, the brightest pupils in the class, decided to withdraw themselves from Dylan's experiment by removing their lolly sticks.

I agree Saadia and diddl - I hope that in mixed-ability classes the teachers are aiming questions appropriately, etc.

DD is quite a competitve child (especially in sport and with her DB ), but she is also very caring and understanding of others. I guess I was just very surprised that she felt like that. She is not mega-brainy like most of the DC of mumsnet posters, but is keen to learn.

I am a teacher, and am astounded that these techniques are considered to be new. sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. i wont be rushing out to buy lolly sticks personally.....

In answer to soemone's question early on in the thread - i do use 'emotional blackmail' with my students ;I will tell them if they have/are upsetting me,so that they realise I am another human being as well as a teacher. I dont consider it blackmail, and has helped me to build stronger relationships with my students. she was right to tell them she was upset.

I agree that the lolly stick method should be used with discretion. I missed the first prog, will have to catch up on it - did Emily withdraw right at the start?

"We saw what happened to Emily. She withdrew from participation. She removed her lolly sticks from the box of tricks"

Threw her toys out of the pram once she could no longer be the centre of attention?

If more of the class were engaged & participating I can´t see how that was a bad thing tbh.

If Emily hadn´t got so used to always being asked it would not have affected her as she wouldn´t have known any different.

I agree with olivo, emotional blackmail can work because the children then identify with the teacher and don't want to let the teacher down. The key is to get the pupils on the side of the teacher, then they will do anything. The danger is if they become demotivated and lose respect for the teacher, because then they will be disruptive.

Emily didn't withdraw right at the beginning, but being very clever, she soon circumvented the experiment by removing herself from it.

Of course techniques should be used to engage all the children, and I am sure that good teachers can do that without the blunt instrument of randomised lolly sticks, which had a demonstrable harmful effect on the highfliers.

Emily didn't throw her toys out of the pram. This is the key thing that Dylan failed to understand. He doesn't understand how a highflier thinks, he doesn't understand what makes a straight 'A' student. My guess is that he never was a straight 'A' student, which is why he doesn't understand it. He succeeded in killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and still he thought that he was correct and the methods needed to be pursued.

But my point is, had she not ever been placed in such a position of always being asked, it wouldn´t have bothered her so much.

And there are other pupils to consider.

And being a bitch here, but removing your stick so you never get asked in those lessons?-clever? OK!

I think this also raised questions about how we define intelligence - part of that is surely the ability to have an open mind.

she couldn't be bothered anymore. She'd let him get on with his experiment, but without her. He had succeeded in destroying her motivation.

She only ever put her hand up when she knew the answer, not all the time. When she didn't know the answer, she didn't want to be asked. She cares more about these things, because she is exceptional, she is a highflier. It was always up to the teacher to choose her to answer, just because she had her hand up, didn't mean that the teacher couldn't have picked a child who didn't have their hand up. It's not Emily's fault that she put her hand up, but it is entirely Dylan's fault that he totally destroyed any motivation that she had.

She was exceedingly clever and well-motivated, a model student, which is why I feel so sorry for her that she has been subjected to an experiment which destroyed her motivation, within a matter of weeks. And now they want to roll Dylan's experiment out to all the schools in the county.

I'm confused - I saw the end of yesterday's prog and all the able girls - including Emily - saw the value of the experiment and realised that just answering the questions that you already know the answer to does not amount to learning.

yes she did say that. But she also said lots of contradictory things throughout the program. What do you expect her to say when the cameras are on her? she tells the experimenters what they want to hear. The teachers were the same, near the end of the 12 week experiment, Dylan finally asked the teachers how many of them were using the "greatest development in education since the invention of the slate" (i.e. the mini whiteboards). There was lots of mumbling and murmuring and shuffling of feet, and we found out that hardly any of them had used them. If we were to ask the teachers off camera, down the pub, what they really thought, I suspect we might get a more truthful response.

The program was edited by the producers. I bet there were loads of failures of the system that they chose not to show us. They picked the excerpts that they wanted to show us. If we had been there throughout the entire 12 weeks as 'student observers' then we would really have seen what went on. the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Emily's behaviour and performance deteriorated. Whatever excerpts the producers decided to show, there was no escaping that fact.

I honestly think the experiement will benefit Emily and others like her from having to live up the label of the being the "cleverest". It's just so unhealthy for her to see herself this way because she feels that she can't make mistakes.

What this also implies is that in order for the more able to feel superior, the less able must be kept down.

"When she didn't know the answer, she didn't want to be asked."

But that applies to a lot of pupils, and how does it teach anything if you´re only asked when you know?

But no one else took their lolly stick out to prevent it happening.

All highfliers, like Margaret Hilda Roberts and Emily, have to bear the cross of being the 'cleverest'. It is their competitiveness and their perfectionism that make them highfliers in the first place. It is a two-edged sword and Dylan succeeded in blunting the sword. He thereby achieved his target of narrowing the attainment gap at the detriment of Emily. This will look good on presentations to politicians, who can then talk about the narrowing of the attainment gap, the improvement in education and standards, and the greater levels of inclusivity. But it is achieved by dumbing down exceptional students like Emily. But the politicians don't care, their kids are at private schools which don't ask Dylan to carry out his experiments. Diane Abbott's son is safe, he is at a top private school.
Emily is not as lucky, although she is probably every bit as clever as Diane Abbott's son. But she has the misfortune to be at a school that believes in these experiments.

"in order for the more able to feel superior, the less able must be kept down."

Sadly this is, I think, what underlies Dylan's beliefs. He probably believes that this is happening. his role is to correct it and overturn it by keeping the more able down in order to narrow the attainment gap.
He wants to eradicate competition and eradicate grades in order to equalise attainment. That's what i don't like about this pessimistic, progressive. pernicious philosophy. I believe in every child achieving the maximum that they possibly can and that no child should be limited. I believe in engagement for everyone and more competition to fire up all pupils to extend their boundaries and progress to achieve their full potential.

I want more children to have the ambition, competitiveness and perfectionism of an Emily or a Margaret Hilda Roberts. I want less pessimism, less policies that prevent progress and less "not up to the job" style defeatism.

"how does it teach anything if you´re only asked when you know?"

If you are asked to answer something that you don't know how does that teach anything except embarrassment or a "don't care" attitude.

Not everyone likes to answer in front of everyone else even if they do know the answer. I didn't all through school as I was teased for it.
I think it would be better to let the people who want to answer do the answering and leave it to the teacher's knowledge of their students as to who would benefit by being asked to answer regardless of whether they had put their hand up or not.

exactly right juule. These "experts" don't seem to understand human nature at all. They seem to have spent too long in ivory towers reading their research papers and making presentations to politicians. When the kids tell them exactly how they feel, they don't even listen to them. they know best, they are some of the "top educationalists in the country".

Diane Abbott must be laughing up her sleeve that she made sure her son was well out of it.

Diane Abbott told us that she would "go the wall for her son". The trouble is other people's children are up against the wall, and nobody does anything for them.

When you are asked something that you don't know, you are forced to consider the question and to use what you know to, to find links, in order to refine your thinking. This also tells the teacher your level of understanding so they are better informed about how to proceed with the teaching.

"If you are asked to answer something that you don't know how does that teach anything except embarrassment or a "don't care" attitude."

Well if you´ve listened you can probably have a good go at it tbh.

And of course teachers can use their discretion and not ask someone who might not have a clue, or ask in pairs.

Can I just ask what was the "secret student" all about?

The 'secret student' was effective. Each day one student was chosen by the teachers, unknown to teh students themselves, and this student earned points if they behaved well in lessons. I think this went on for 40 days and if the class earned enough points then they got the reward of going to Alton Towers. It was successful in improving their behaviour. If the scheme went on for a year, my guess is that the effectiveness of it would soon drop off, but it did work over the 40 day period.

diddl, if you missed part of it, you can watch episode 2 again at this link

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00v3fk1/The_Classroom_Experiment_Episode_2/

I don't think the bright kids have a right to constant ego-boosts at everyone else's expense, and if the lack of that is what's annoying them then they need to grow up and suck it up.
BUT I do think they have a right to stimulating classes which allow them to fulfil their potential, and I would question whether these methods, which seem to be slowing the class down in order to make sure the less bright kids haven't got left behind, are allowing them to progress at a suitable pace for them.

there are clearly benefits to this approach but there's going to be a trade-off; so I'd hope any reforms that close the attainment gap partly by bringing the top ones down would be accompanied by some consideration of what this has done to the brighter kids and trying to make up for it....

But if you've listened and not really understood, you might not feel confident enough to have a crack at it with the focus of the class on you. You might be afraid of getting it wrong. It's sometimes easier for some children to not try and tell they're peers they're not bothered rather than the alternative of trying and getting it wrong. You can't fail if you don't try. Not everybody likes to be outspoken in large groups particularly if they are unsure of what they are talking about.