Tuesday October 3rd PGCE English

John Keenan

John.keenan@newman.ac.uk

Notices Salina - rep Tuesday Oct 3rd from 16.00 to 17.00 in DA112 SKE Enrolment 1401185 CAROLINE BRADY 1700184 HOLLY GARRATLEY 1703238 SALINA HIRANI 1401400 ZEHRAN RAFI 1201512 REBECCA THOMPSON 1400198 EMILY TREACY

Tutorials: 12 Salina; 12.30 Zehran

The Teacher Standards Lesson Observation Form Mid and End-point Reviews

Mark me Lesson Objectives

• You will learn what Growth Mindset is

• You will understand the differences between Entity v Incremental, Performance v Learning and Helpless v Master

• You will understand more about how to structure a Level 7 essay

• You will learn criticisms of Mastery

Mark me Lesson Outcomes

• You will be able to explain what a Growth Mindset

• You will be able to compare features of Entity v Incremental, Performance v Learning and Helpless v Master

• You will know 3 criticisms of Mastery

Take

2 Wotsits

1 Million

1 surname

1 number

1 date

1 pea

2 cashews

Arrange them any way you like on the page.

If it is correct you will be rewarded

Guess What I am Thinking…

Harvard Referencing

https://youtu.be/J_D_9A8u2pc

5.30

(Cormack 1994: 32) (Cormack 1994: p.32)

(Cormack, 1994: 32) (Cormack, 1994, p.32)

Tick which is correct Harvard referencing after a direct quote

http://www.worcest

er.ac.uk/ils/docume

nts/Harvard_refere

ncing.pdf

Parenthetical referencing

1881

(Cormack, 1994, p.32) (Cormack 1994: p.32)

(Cormack, 1994: 32) (Cormack, 1994, 32)

Which is correct Newman University Harvard referencing?

Referencing

1. When referring to an author’s work but not quoting you just use Name and Date:

As Surname (Date) stated/wrote/argued/considered etc

Summary of idea (Surname, Date)

Author agreement (surname date; surname date;)

E.g.

Crystal (2010) has shown that...

Quotes

After the quote in the essay

(Surname, Date, Page)

E.g.(Thompson, 2009, p.24)

In the Bibliography

Surname, Initial. (Date) Title of Book. Place: Publisher

E.g.Cruttenden, T. (1998) An Introduction to the English Language. London: Routledge

Websites

In the essay – (Author, date)

In the bibliography

Repeat term date: available at

full URL (Accessed date)

Eg

Language 2012: available at http://www.cmu.edu/lang.html (Accessed 3.11.17)

Institute for Learning 2012: available at http:www.ifl.org.uk/learningtyles.pdf (Accessed 7.11.17)

(Language 2012)

Or (Institute for Learning 2012)

Name of site e.g.

Harvard Referencing

You must cite the SOURCE

Hattie (2010, quoted in Lewis, 2014, p. 43) provides an excellent survey...

Secret learning objective • You will learn more about Harvard referencing Secret learning outcome • You will be able to state correctly how to reference a book

Level 7 Writing

• Voice

• Critical dialogue

• Epistemology

• Problematisation

• Fiona – Zehran

• James – Emily

• Rebecca – Sam

• Salina – Steve

• Caroline – Ian

• Holly – Dave

• Naomi - Ross

Voice

While I can see the dangers of any evangelical education movement, there is value in a ‘growth mindset’ (Dweck, 2011) approach.

• https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175439/NCR-Expert_Panel_Report.pdf

This psychological theory is aligned to other ways of viewing how people think including social learning theory (Bandura, 1974) and self-concept studies (Rogers, 1956) which help to shape education and its policy. The National Curriculum Review (DfE, 2011) called ‘growth mindset’ a ‘classic work’ (DfE, 2011, p.47) and a desire to see it ‘replicated’ (DfE, 2011, p.47) in England.

Critical Dialogue

In so-doing, they have put another theory of psychology at the centre of National Curriculum reform and promote ‘mastery’ (see Dweck, 2011; Black and Wiliam, 2010) as a way of improving education.

Freud

Adopting psychological models has its dangers….

Problematisation

phrenology

IQ Test genetics Eysenck

Race

Dweck’s ideas refute earlier psychological theories which were once also enthusiastically adopted by education policy makers including Eysenck’s (1994) work in intelligence quotient, Freud’s (1904) studies of deep human drives and earlier phrenological models of how the brain functions (Fowler, 1887). (Perhaps the maleness of the concept of ‘master’ (why no mistress?) reveals something of the need for humans to dominate and control, something Fowler (1887), Freud (1904) and Eysenck (1994) would fully understand). Dweck’s ideas also seem to replace the more up-to-date psychology-in-the-classrooom - the Gifted and Talented agenda - which has driven policy for over a decade (Gov, 2008).

It may be hard for teachers to make the change from over a decade of teaching the ‘gifted’ (and its implications of genetic ability) and Dweck’s (2011) theory of ‘malleable intelligence’ (p.3). Instead of a ‘gift, intelligence is viewed as the ability to ‘master’ certain skills in their present states and ‘everyone, with effort and guidance can increase their intellectual abilities’ (Dweck, 2011, p.23).

Application

Carol Dweck

1. Students with high ability are more likely to display master-oriented qualities.

2. Success in school directly fosters master-oriented qualities. 3. Praise, particularly praising a student’s intelligence encourages master-oriented qualities. 4. Students’ confidence in their intelligence is the key to master-oriented qualities.

The helpless group quickly began to denigrate their abilities and blame their intelligence for the failure, saying things like “ I guess I’m not very smart”, “ I never did have a very good memory”, and “I’m no good at things like this”. Not only do the children loss faith in their ability to succeed at this task in the future, but they also lost perspective on the successes they had achieved in the past. The master-oriented group did not blame anything. They began issuing instructions to themselves on how they could improve their performance. They were not seeing failure as an indictment of themselves.

Helpless v Master

When children are focused on measuring themselves for their performance, failure is more likely to provoke a helpless response. When children are instead focused on learning, failure is likely to provoke continued effort.

There are two goals: Performance goals - positive judgments of competence (praise for being ‘smart’). Learning goals - increasing competence with a desire to get smarter.

Performance Goals v Learning Goals

Entity - pursuing a performance goal and eager to show high ability. High effort necessary for success on the task spells low ability

Entity Theory v Incremental Theory

Research found that the more students held an entity theories of intelligence the more likely they were to choose a performance goal, where the more they held an incremental theory, the more likely they were to choose the learning goal.

When Am I Smart? Entity Theory: When I don’t do mistakes. When I do the work quickly. When I get easy work. Incremental theory: When I don’t know how to do it and it’s hard and I work it out without anybody telling me. When I’m doing schoolwork because I want to learn how to get smart. When I’m reading a hard book.

It is becoming common practice in much of our society to praise students for their performance on easy tasks, to tell them they are smart when they do something quickly and perfectly. When we do this we are not teaching them to welcome challenge and learn from errors. We are teaching them that easy success means they are intelligent and, by implication, that errors and effort mean they are not. What should we do if students have had an easy success and come to us expecting praise? We can apologise for wasting their time and direct them to something more challenging. In this way, we may begin to teach them that a meaningful success requires effort.

What appears to be important here is not the confidence you bring to a situation, as the ability to maintain a confident and non-defensive stance in the face of obstacles. Training that gave students just success experiences did not help them to cope with failure, even though they showed confidence and enthusiasm while that success lasted. They still interpreted failure as an indictment of their ability and showed a clear helpless response.

Application time: Task – go away somewhere for 30 minutes. 1. Apply some of the theory of Dweck to a critical incident you have.

Write it, photograph it, email to john.keenan@newman.ac.uk 2. Read the given articles (or some of them) and think of how they might lead to critiques of Dweck. 3. Think through the epistemology of the views. Fiona – Zehran James – Emily Rebecca – Sam Salina – Steve Caroline – Ian Holly – Dave Naomi - Ross

Critiques of Dweck feedback

Working with a pair

Mark me Lesson Outcomes

You will know how to reference a book and have access to other referencing

You will be able to explain what a Growth Mindset

You will be able to compare features of Entity v Incremental, Performance v Learning and Helpless v Master

You will know 3 criticisms of Mastery

http://www.classtools.net/education-games-php/fruit_machine

There is now increasing evidence for [the] dilution effect of praise on learning. Kessels, Warnet, Holle & Hannover (2008) provided students with feedback with and without praise; praise led to lower engagement and effort, Kamins and Dweck (1999) compared the effects of praising a person as a whole (for example, “You’re a clever girl”) with the effect of praising a person’s efforts (“You’re excellent in putting in the effort”). Both led to zero or negative effects on achievement. The effects of praise are particularly not when students succeed, but when they begin to fail or not to understand the lesson. Hyland and Hyland (2006) noted that almost half of teachers’ feedback was praise, and that premature and gratuitous praise confused students and discouraged revisions. Perhaps the most deleterious effect of praise is that it supports learned helplessness: students come to depend on the presence of praise to be involved in their schoolwork. At best, praising effort has a neutral or no effect when students are successful, but is likely to be negative when students are not successful, because this leads to a more ‘helpless or hopeless’ reaction (Skipper & Douglas, 2011). John Hattie, Visible Learning for Teachers p 121

Hattie – praise does not work.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Self-Esteem-Key-Your-Childs-Education/0717124843

At the same time, it is really about self-esteem and self-efficacy which have long been considered central to academic success (Humphreys 1996)

Self-esteem is nothing new

https://www.salon.com/2015/08/16/the_education_fad_thats_hurting_our_kids_what_you_need_to_know_about_growth_mindset_theory_and_the_harmful_lessons_it_imparts/

Alfie Kohn – change the system

http://www.progressfocusedapproach.com/alfie-kohns-critique-on-praise-which-differs-from-carol-dwecks/ http://www.progressfocused.com/2015/08/alfie-kohns-misleading-critique-on.html

Alfie Kohn Critique

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/09/23/carol-dweck-revisits-the-growth-mindset.html

False growth mindset