Group items tagged

"Meaning is made in ways that are increasingly multimodal – in which written linguistic modes of meaning are part and parcel of visual, audio, and spatial patterns of meaning. Take for instance the multimodal ways in which meanings are made on the World Wide Web, or in video captioning, or in interactive multimedia [e.g. mobile phones], or in desktop publishing, or in the use of written texts in a shopping mall. To find our way around this emerging world of meaning requires a new, multimodal literacy. "

The positive impact of an integrated culture of literacy – taking an integratedapproach across the curriculum• effective writing strategies; for example, ensuring that boys understand thetechnical skills of writing and understand the meaning and purposes of writing• effective cooperative experiences – making reading a socially constructedactivity by giving the students the opportunity to discuss between themselvesthe relevance of the text to other texts and to their lives• the importance of oral language in improving in writing• the value of explicit teaching of reading and writing – providing clearobjectives, a variety of text types, content that engages the interest of boys andquestions that promote understanding• the value of teacher feedback – effective assessment and constructive feedbackfrom teachers• the need for high but realistic expectations• the positive impact of the integration of ICT• linking literacy to boys’ experiences and popular culture• multimodal texts and boys’ interests• the dangers of generalizing content for boys• boys and critical literacy.

The reason for my inclusion of that particular Dilbert cartoon at the top of this post is that I reckon most UK teachers couldn’t differentiate between a Level 4b and 4a in their subject. In fact, the distinction’s pretty meaningless. I’ve seen some schools use the sub-levels as following: Level 4c – some work at Level 4 standard Level 4b – most work at Level 4 standard Level 4a – all work at Level 4 standard In that case, why use the sub-levels in the first place? It’s my belief that  Assessment for Learning, that buzz-phrase from a couple of years ago, has been hijacked and contorted into something it’s not. I’m certainly not arguing against students knowing where they’re at in a subject and how to improve. It’s just that using National Curriculum levels as a means for doing this smacks of laziness to me. Instead, professional teachers should be able to convey the key skills, processes and subject knowledge students need to be able to progress. That’s just good teaching.