Advertisement

Classroom Practice in a Faith-Based School: A Tale of Two Levels

  • Paul BlackEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The issue which this chapter explores is the extent to which, and the ways in which, the ethos of a faith-based school should include a commitment to particular qualities of the work in every classroom. The chapter discusses several innovations in classroom work, including interaction in dialogue between teachers and students, the nature of the feedback given to students about their written work, and the interactions between students themselves whether in whole-class discussions or in group exercises. The claim being made is that although work on the innovations which the chapter reviews have been aimed at all schools, faith-based schools should recognise that it has particular significance for them, in that their mission should be implemented in the day-to-day detail of the way every teacher respects and enhances the unique dignity of every pupil, thereby helping them to become autonomous and responsible learners, capable both of managing their own learning and of engaging in fruitful collaboration with others. Whilst on one level, this approach should be guided by the aim of building the personal capacity and the confidence of every pupil, it is also argued that on a second level, the commitment of each teacher to this aim should itself enhance the personal and spiritual development of teachers themselves.

Keywords

Dialogue Feedback Formative Summative Assessment Mindset Personal growth Spiritual growth 

References

  1. Adey, P. (2013). From fixed IQ to multiple intelligences. Chapter 12. In P. Adey & J. Dillon (Eds.), Bad education: Debunking myths in education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. (2006). Towards dialogic thinking: Rethinking classroom talk. York: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, R. (2008). Essays in pedagogy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Applebee, A. N., et al. (2003). Discussion based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baines, E. (2013). Grouping pupils by ability in schools. Chapter 3. In P. Adey & J. Dillon (Eds.), Bad education: Debunking myths in education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2001). Feedback in questioning and marking: The science teacher’s role in formative assessment. School Science Review, 82(301), 55–61.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–73.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: GL Assessment. (Also published in Phi Delta Kappan 80(2), 139–158).Google Scholar
  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). ‘In praise of educational research’: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Black, P., et al. (2002). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. London: GL Assessment. (Also published in Phi Delta Kappan 86(1), 9–21).Google Scholar
  12. Black, P., et al. (2003). Assessment for learning– Putting it into practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Black, P., et al. (2011). Can teachers’ summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance classroom learning? Assessment in Education, 18(4), 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Black, P., et al. (2013). Inside the black box of assessment: Assessment of learning by teachers and schools. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
  15. Blatchford, P., et al. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group-work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 750–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation; the effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Connolly, C., Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. M. (2011). Moderation and consistency of teacher judgment: Teachers’ views. British Educational Research Journal, 1, 1–22.Google Scholar
  20. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  22. Franchi, L., & McKinney, S. (2011). A companion to catholic education. Leominster: Gracewing.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, M. (1983). Introduction. In H. Giroux & D. Purpel (Eds.), Hidden curriculum and moral education: Deception of discovery. Berkeley: McCutcheon.Google Scholar
  24. Groome, T. H. (2005). Educating for life. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
  25. Groome, T. H. (2011). Will there be faith? Dublin: Veritas.Google Scholar
  26. Harrison, C. (2005). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Mapping teacher change. Teacher Development, 9(2), 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison, C., & Howard, S. (2009). Inside the primary black box: Assessment for learning in primary and early years classrooms. London: GL Assessment.Google Scholar
  28. Hayward, L., et al. (2012). Assessment at transition: A report produced for the Scottish government. Available on: http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/education/newsandevents/
  29. Hipkins, R., & Robertson, S. (2011). Moderation and teacher learning: What can research tell us about their inter-relationships? Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, D. W., et al. (2000) Co-operative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Downloadable from: http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html
  31. Kluger, A. N., & De Nisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, C., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Studying changes in the practice of two teachers developing assessment for learning. Teacher Development, 9(2), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lydon, J. (2012). Faith and the catholic teacher. Pastoral Review, 8(5), 36–41.Google Scholar
  34. McKinney, S. (2011). A rationale for catholic schools. Ch. 9. In L. Franchi & S. McKinney (Eds.), A companion to catholic education. Leominster: Gracewing.Google Scholar
  35. Mercer, N., et al. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milroy, D. (1992). Teaching and learning: What a child expects from a good teacher. Chapter 10. In Education: Putting the record straight. Stafford: Network Educational Press.Google Scholar
  37. Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2008). Teachers, schools and using evidence: Considerations of preparedness. Assessment in Education, 15(1), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, M., & Forgette-Giroux, R. (2000). Impact of a content selection framework on portfolio assessment at the classroom level. Assessment in Education, 7(1), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, F., et al. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the National Literacy and Numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stanley, G., et al. (2009). Review of teacher assessment: What works best and issues for development. Oxford University Centre for Educational Development; Report commissioned by the QCA. Available for down-load on: http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/assessment/publications.php
  41. Wiliam, D., et al. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Wyatt-Smith, C. M., & Bridges, S. (2008). Meeting in the middle–Assessment, pedagogy, learning and students at educational disadvantage. Evaluation for the literacy and numeracy in the middle years of schooling initiative strand A. http://education.qld.gov.au/literacy/docs/deewr-myp-final-report.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education and Professional StudiesKing’s CollegeSE1 9NH LondonUK

Personalised recommendations