Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Telly addicts

The Classroom Experiment

155 replies

diddl · 28/09/2010 07:56

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?

OP posts:
diddl · 29/09/2010 15:24

claig
Not in the UK, so can´t get it.

I think there were some good ideas, but like all things they need tailoring to the situation.

I did like the "no hands up" policy & the idea that anyone might be asked.

But again, it doesn´t have to be an all or nothing approach imo.

How did things work out for Miss Obi?

OP posts:
claig · 29/09/2010 15:27

The majority of the kids don't like being asked. tht's why they never used to put their hands up, because they thought they would get it wrong. Emily only put her hand up when she thought she would get it right. She hated getting it wrong, which was why she removed her lolly stick from the box. Forcing the kids to answer when they don't want to is a bad tactic and doesn't teach them to get it right, it just makes them nervous and embarrassed. That's why it should be used sparingly, so as not to demotivate the pupils. Emily ended up being demotivated by it. Dylan's aim was for them not to be afraid of failure, but Emily was so afraid of failure that she removed her sticks. In the end what happens is that the kids accept the failure, but that can have a negative impact, because they end up not caring anymore whether they get it right or wrong. That's what happened to Emily, which is why she started giving up.

claig · 29/09/2010 15:28

Miss Obi wasn't in the second episode.

diddl · 29/09/2010 15:52

But if you haven´t understood, then you should say so.

I think some didn´t put their hands up because they were never asked.

Also, it doesn´t always have to be a question with a correct answer.

We obviously disagree about Emily I just see her as pissed off that it was no longer the way she wanted it.
Most of us hate getting things wrong, but generally you discover that the world doesn´t collapse around you.

TBH, with Emily I would have thought it would make her more determined to do everything possible to prevent it happening again.

I think it´s good to include the reluctant ones tbh.

OP posts:
claig · 29/09/2010 16:01

Thinking about it more, I think Dylan was totally wrong in his premise and his aims.
His objective was to banish fear of failure. To do that he wanted to remove competition, get rid of grades, which are a mark of success, and to increase engagement to foster the attitude that there is no shame in failing. The problem with his system is that it is a one size fits all approach and certainly doesn't work for high achievers. He is not using any differentiation for the children.

The boy who had trouble with his behaviour never bothered trying, because he thought he would fail, so why try and then fail?, it's better not to even try. He's an adherent of the Homer Simpson philosophy "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."
Children like that need their confidence boosting and they need better individual teaching, differentiated to their level, so that they can see that it is possible to succeed by trying. They shouldn't be competing at Emily's level. Dylan's solution is to remove competition altogether, so that failure won't be so evident to this boy. This boy fails because he doesn't try and he needs individualised teaching that can help him to succeed in small steps.

But the most pernicious mistake in Dylan's experiment, is that he doesn't understand teh mentality of highfliers. He doesn't understand what makes them tick, what makes them successful. He's read the articles about failure and how people should overcome the feel-bad fear of failure. he doesn't understand that teh most successful people on the planet, the real highfliers, are precisely those who have the greatest fear of failure. read the biographies of the rich and famous and you will see it appear very often, they are driven to succeed through fear of failure. They are perfectionists like Emily, they hate and fear failure more even than the boy at the bottom of the class does. they will do anything to succeed, they will go the extra mile, because they don't want to fail. That's why it was the cleverest kids like Emily who removed their lolly sticks from the box, and not the other kids. Dylan was intenet on removing their fear of failure. He forced them to continue using lolly sticks and they got more and more questions wrong. They started getting more and more despondent and in the end they no longer cared if they got it right or wrong or if they arrived at class 15 minutes late. Dylan had succeeded in removing their fear of failure, he had extinguished the flame that drove them to succeed. the light had gone out and they didn't care anymore, they didn't try anymore, what was the point? He had diminished their ambition, lowered their aspiration, turned off their engine and dumbed them down.

The low achievers fail because they are afraid to try. The high achievers try because they are afraid to fail.

The solution is not to remove competition and grades etc., but to differentiate between the pupils and let them compete with children of a similar level.

Dylan's experiment is bound to fail because it is a one size fits all policy that doesn't meet the needs of high achieving kids. It is just more of the progressives' dumbing down policy dressed up in new clothes and armed with lolly sticks and mini whiteboards.

saadia · 29/09/2010 16:23

I don't really see how you get this idea that Emily is such a high-flier - did they actually mention her grades or show her work? She was top of her class but maybe that's because the others were working at a below-average level. I know she was on the school's G/T programme but that is relative to each school. And was she actually being challenged or was it all too easy for her? - because if she wasn't then she is not achieving her potential and that is a disservice to her

saadia · 29/09/2010 16:25

I would also say that there are many ways to be successful - you cannot say that all successful people have the same mindset.

diddl · 29/09/2010 16:25

"The high achievers try because they are afraid to fail."

But that doesn´t seem to apply to Emily who apparently gave up.

Well it seems to me that the experiment did have some positives.

But if it meets the needs of all but the "high achievers" then it is surely meeting the needs of the majority.

OP posts:
claig · 29/09/2010 16:33

Poor Emily, put her in the same school as Diane Abbott's son and she will give Abbott's son a run for his money. She will show what kids from working class estates can do when they get the same tuition as politicians' kids.

Emily is a highflier because of her character, in the same way that Margaret Hilda Roberts was, and in the same way that all highfliers are. Emily will rise to whatever level is required, because she has the mentality of a highflier, she is a winner, because she competes at the level required in order to win. That's why kids need competition and don't need Dylan's anti-competitive, "grades are bad" destructive policies. She is a champion and she competes at whatever level is necessary. It's an accident of birth that she is at the school where she is. If she was at St. Paul's, like Harriet Harman was, or at Diane Abbott's son's school she would excel. Instead, she is at a school that is trying an experiment. if she was at a grammar school, like a certain grocer's daughter was, then there would be no stopping her. But at her school, they wave lolly sticks around, remove competition and have a comments not grades policy. Sometimes you have to wonder if it is done on purpose to keep the hoi polloi in their place.

claig · 29/09/2010 16:38

diddl, this is the point that juule made. Kids don't want to be forced to answer and get things wrong. Particularly, the highest achievers. They develop at their own pace and they need to get things right one step at a time. Dylan wants to chuck them in the deep end and start getting things wrong. Well that's what happened, it sank Emily's chances and she started to flounder.

diddl · 29/09/2010 16:40

Well tbh, I thought that she perhaps thought that she was better than she was & when others who didn´t usually join in started to, she got quite a shock.

I would have thought that that would have made her up her game tbh.

OP posts:
claig · 29/09/2010 16:46

Kids have to believe that they are good, that's what gives them confidence. That's why all these entitled Hooray Henrys are full of confidence. We should build up all kids' confidence levels and you don't do that by forcing them to get things wrong.

There is a very fine line between encouraging children to up their game and in damaging their confidence.

jigglebum · 29/09/2010 16:52

I thought this programme made for an interesting comparison with the one on the private prep school - Sunningdale last week. I know they are catering for very different children - but at Sunningdale learning was considered fun and competition important. They all wanted to participate in the lesson and were more mature in many ways than the year 8s in the comprehensive (even the 7 year olds!)

I thought some of the ideas were interesting on The education experiment (though not that new really) but no techniques can really compete with the having parents who value education and encourage their children, having knowledable and enthusiastic teachers who are good practioners (ie compare the maths teacher with the english teacher - same kids, totally different atmosphere in the lesson) and working in smaller groups which need to be ability based. Classes of 30 pupils with such a wide ability spectrum is very difficult to accommodate. I suspect most of the best comprehensives set extensively.

diddl · 29/09/2010 16:59

"diddl, this is the point that juule made. Kids don't want to be forced to answer and get things wrong."

No, most of them don´t.

But children who are reluctant to participate need to be drawn in. It doesn´t have to be either always picking the ones who know or picking the ones who don´t.

"There is a very fine line between encouraging children to up their game and in damaging their confidence."

Yes of course, but you can´t keep on asking the same few who have their hand up because they are sure of the answer.

Likewise grades/comments-doesn´t have to be either or.

It seems that teachers/pupils get too stuck in a way of doing things & cannot cope with change which is ridiculous.

OP posts:
claig · 29/09/2010 17:02

thanks for that mention of the Sunningdale programme. I will watch that, as I think that competition is key. It will be interesting to see how successful they are.

claig · 29/09/2010 17:06

diddl, I agree with you. Kids do need to be drawn in, but subtly by skilful teachers, not by randomised lolly sticks. I don't think teachers should only ask children who have their hands up, but the lolly stick approach is an extreme in the opposite direction. I agree that you need both grades and extensive, helpful comments.

diddl · 29/09/2010 17:22

But I also think that picking randomly is OK-this can also be tailored to suit by for example not always asking yes/no questions.

And the lolly sticks-well, I know our teachers for example would just have a list pick randomly or otherwise.

I´m sure I remember writing out maths answers on the board in front of the class tbh.

The problem is that it was just a very small snapshot of the school & his ideas.

And some of the teachers seemed to do what was suggested just as suggested with no imagination for example.

OP posts:
claig · 29/09/2010 17:27

Yes an element of picking randomly is OK, so long as it is not overused, like the day in day out lolly stick approach in every class.

To be honest, I think that some of the teachers didn't really believe in the approach, which is why so few of them had bothered to use the "greatest development in education since the invention of the slate" (the mini whiteboard). If it was really that good, I think they would have been dying to try it out. Maybe they lost a little bit of faith in Dylan when he overegged the pudding with that piece of hyperbole.

diddl · 29/09/2010 17:43

I did think the whiteboard was a good idea for what was intended-getting everyone to hold up an answer.

I did feel sad that some of the teachers didn´t seem to want to even listen to things that might improve things for their pupils.

It´s like everything, the same old same old every day soon gets, well, old!

OP posts:
claig · 29/09/2010 17:47

It amazed me how the teachers could read the 30 whiteboards when they were stood at the front of the class. Some of the whiteboards had mini essays on them. By the time the teacher had managed to squint and read all of the whiteboards, I would have thought that half the class would be chatting and mucking around. But maybe they edited that out of the programme.

claig · 29/09/2010 17:50

Of course it was all scribbled in different size handwriting with thick marker pen and adorned with various extraneous drawings and witticisms. I wonder how much time was used up by each whiteboard session?

BadgersArse · 29/09/2010 17:51

has everyone said WE HAVE BEEN DOING ALL THIS FOR YEARS ITS REALLY NOT NEWS
OR NOT

BadgersArse · 29/09/2010 17:52

LOLly sticks - dont like
i just read off register.

no hands = do or " someone who hasnt spoken all lesson"

traffic lights - peopel do but i think is bollox and is much better for literal subjects liek maths

claig · 29/09/2010 17:53

I think Dylan should consider a University Challenge buzzer type system. That would increase the engagement and interaction. You wouldn't be able to hear yourself think, for buzzers going off and playing all sorts of tunes.

BadgersArse · 29/09/2010 17:54

re traffic lights i think its ALL down to the relationships with the teacher that i BORE Myself stupid saying is at essence the KEY to education

without that relationship oyu might as well go home

today i said to my class "if you are sitting there thinking " what on earth is she on about now i really dont get it and wonder whats for tea" put your hand up"

and they did adn i helped them

Swipe left for the next trending thread