Friday 28 May 2010
CPD and the role of technology in professional learning
Click here to hear the latest in a series of podcasts, this one on the theme of personal learning spaces (REfLECT) and the place of technology in CPD.
Tuesday 18 May 2010
Institute of Education: Diploma Discussion Document
Access the Diploma discussion paper from the IoE here.
This discussion paper, coming out of the IoE’s 14 – 19 Alliance, a network of organisations and individuals who share an interest and professional involvement in the provision of effective learning opportunities for all 14-19 year olds, seeks to build discourse and debate on government-led reforms designed to promote an alternative, more applied, set of awards for those whose needs are not well served by a curriculum based on established academic GCSE and A Level qualifications, principally the new Diplomas.
This discussion paper, coming out of the IoE’s 14 – 19 Alliance, a network of organisations and individuals who share an interest and professional involvement in the provision of effective learning opportunities for all 14-19 year olds, seeks to build discourse and debate on government-led reforms designed to promote an alternative, more applied, set of awards for those whose needs are not well served by a curriculum based on established academic GCSE and A Level qualifications, principally the new Diplomas.
The paper contests that, despite there being clear evidence that the Diplomas can motivate and enthuse young people and help them to develop the skills that will help them progress into work-related education and training, there are already signs that it is struggling to establish itself successfully alongside other better known and understood, and in many respects well-regarded, qualifications.
The paper presents a number of key concerns:
- An overly complex design, or model
- An absence of proper piloting
- Difficulties in providing a comprehensive offer
- Institutional collaboration
- Employer involvement
- Cost
And then goes on to examine the future of the Diploma in the context of other attempts to introduce ‘applied’ vocational learning within the national curriculum framework.
IfL would like to hear views from its members on the discussion paper or arising from personal experience of delivering the Diploma. Comment on this blog, join the discussion at our Facebook group, Facebook page or LinkedIn group or tweet us @IFL_Members (tag the discussion with #IoEDiploma).
Friday 23 April 2010
How does IfL listen to members and use the voice of the membership to influence policy?
As part of IfL’s focus on Member Voice, Tony Prideaux speaks to Sue Crowley, IfL Chair, Lee Davies, deputy chief executive and Sue Colquhoun, CPD strategic advisor about how IfL interacts with members.
Listen to what they said (MP3, 8MB)
This is the first of a series of regular podcasts that will focus on a range of aspects of the work of IfL and how members can contribute to this.
Listen to what they said (MP3, 8MB)
This is the first of a series of regular podcasts that will focus on a range of aspects of the work of IfL and how members can contribute to this.
Thursday 15 April 2010
To grow or not to grow, that is the question.....
Having spent far too much time considering transitive and intransitive verbs (not to mention ambitransivity), I thought I would open the particular issue I was pondering up to IfL members.
This follows on from feedback from a member pointing out that IfL had used the intransitive verb ‘grow’ in an inappropriate transitive way: “we aim to grow the range of third party special offers and discounts that we offer to members and we want these to reflect your needs.” Now I understand entirely that as a professional body for teachers and trainers, IfL needs to pay particular attention to ensuring that its use and style of communication is in keeping with the expectations of its members. Language, however, evolves and it is important that communication keeps pace with the way society adapts language to meet new and emerging contexts.
‘Grow’ is, of course, both transitive (the farmer is growing carrots) and intransitive (the carrots grew rapidly). The real thrust of this debate seems to be not the transitive or intransitive nature of the verb, but its restriction in the transitive sense to contexts such as agriculture, biology and horticulture. We accept that the farmer growing carrots, the gardener growing daffodils and the scientist growing bacteria as proper transitive uses of ‘grow’, but it seems harder to accept when the object is not organic; the entrepreneur grew his business from nothing.
Now I’m no linguist (I know, it shows) and my knowledge is limited to the research and reading I carry out, but I understand that use of ‘grow’ (growan: of plants) as an intransitive verb (old English) related first to horticulture/agriculture and has been used in its this sense since the thirteenth century to relate to human beings and animals. Interestingly the OED describes the first use of ‘grow’ as a transitive verb (with an object) in an agricultural or horticultural context as an 18th century innovation, meaning to cultivate or to produce. The literature seems to describe the transitive use of ‘grow’ in contexts such as business or politics as a 20th century innovation, often citing the early 90’s political campaigning of Bill Clinton, where he planned to “grow the economy”.
I’m always happy to receive feedback from members on IfL’s communication style and this particular issue not only made me revisit language learning long forgotten, it has also encouraged me to think more deeply about the traditions of language and the way language evolves. It would be very easy to respond to this feedback by changing the ‘offending’ text to “we aim to increase the range of third party special offers and discounts that we offer to members.....” and that may well be the right thing to do, but shouldn’t a professional body also reflect language as it evolves?
I’m really keen to hear the views of IfL’s members, those with expertise in linguistics and those with an interest in language.
This follows on from feedback from a member pointing out that IfL had used the intransitive verb ‘grow’ in an inappropriate transitive way: “we aim to grow the range of third party special offers and discounts that we offer to members and we want these to reflect your needs.” Now I understand entirely that as a professional body for teachers and trainers, IfL needs to pay particular attention to ensuring that its use and style of communication is in keeping with the expectations of its members. Language, however, evolves and it is important that communication keeps pace with the way society adapts language to meet new and emerging contexts.
‘Grow’ is, of course, both transitive (the farmer is growing carrots) and intransitive (the carrots grew rapidly). The real thrust of this debate seems to be not the transitive or intransitive nature of the verb, but its restriction in the transitive sense to contexts such as agriculture, biology and horticulture. We accept that the farmer growing carrots, the gardener growing daffodils and the scientist growing bacteria as proper transitive uses of ‘grow’, but it seems harder to accept when the object is not organic; the entrepreneur grew his business from nothing.
Now I’m no linguist (I know, it shows) and my knowledge is limited to the research and reading I carry out, but I understand that use of ‘grow’ (growan: of plants) as an intransitive verb (old English) related first to horticulture/agriculture and has been used in its this sense since the thirteenth century to relate to human beings and animals. Interestingly the OED describes the first use of ‘grow’ as a transitive verb (with an object) in an agricultural or horticultural context as an 18th century innovation, meaning to cultivate or to produce. The literature seems to describe the transitive use of ‘grow’ in contexts such as business or politics as a 20th century innovation, often citing the early 90’s political campaigning of Bill Clinton, where he planned to “grow the economy”.
I’m always happy to receive feedback from members on IfL’s communication style and this particular issue not only made me revisit language learning long forgotten, it has also encouraged me to think more deeply about the traditions of language and the way language evolves. It would be very easy to respond to this feedback by changing the ‘offending’ text to “we aim to increase the range of third party special offers and discounts that we offer to members.....” and that may well be the right thing to do, but shouldn’t a professional body also reflect language as it evolves?
I’m really keen to hear the views of IfL’s members, those with expertise in linguistics and those with an interest in language.
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Brilliant Teaching, Training and Learning in the 21st Century.
IfL and LSIS are working in partnership to find out your priorities for teaching and Learning in the next year. In the coming weeks we will be carrying out research to find out what you want so that we can shape the menu of opportunities for our members, that reflect their needs. We will be posting an online survey here and want as many of our members as possible to complete it. In the meantime, please let us know what you think:
Needs - evidence on where there is a need for improvement, whether from Ofsted reports, success rate data or learner feedback.
Wants - evidence on the aspirations and expectations of practitioners including feedback on CPD activities undertaken.
Capacity – evidence on ‘what works’ both in terms of what constitutes effective teaching and learning and in terms of effective CPD.
Please send us your feedback on the process and what has worked for you as well as your own views on priorities, separated where possible into needs, wants and capacity. It would be most helpful if you could let us have the source of evidence for your views, whether it is your direct experience or written material you could point us to.
Please send all your thoughts and feedback to lsisproject@ifl.ac.uk
Get involved.....
Needs - evidence on where there is a need for improvement, whether from Ofsted reports, success rate data or learner feedback.
Wants - evidence on the aspirations and expectations of practitioners including feedback on CPD activities undertaken.
Capacity – evidence on ‘what works’ both in terms of what constitutes effective teaching and learning and in terms of effective CPD.
Please send us your feedback on the process and what has worked for you as well as your own views on priorities, separated where possible into needs, wants and capacity. It would be most helpful if you could let us have the source of evidence for your views, whether it is your direct experience or written material you could point us to.
Please send all your thoughts and feedback to lsisproject@ifl.ac.uk
Get involved.....
February is technology month
Let us have your views on technology and your experience of using it in your practice.
Technology Month
Technology Month
QTLS/QTS and parity of esteem
Share your views with us via Blogger or Facebook on the issue of parity of esteem between QTLS and QTS. How important is this to you? If it is important, why is it so? Is the relationship between QTLS and QTS critical for all those teaching and training in further education and skills, or is it an issue just for those likely to move between the two sectors?
Let us know what you think about our response to the TDA consultation.
Let us know what you think about our response to the TDA consultation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
