1 hour classes

FrannoFan

I am just wondering does anyone out there have experience with 1 hour classes.

our school is toying with the idea and curios about the experiences of other schools with it.

Benefits would be longer time particularly with senior students with less time lost with students moving between classes.

disadvantages would be with junior cycle classes where you would go from maybe 3 x 40 min periods to just 2 x 1 hour classes. Less frequency of contact etc.

this would particularly affect language classes where less frequency of classes would not help with a language.


anyones experiences/ thoughts greatly appreciated

Speedwell

We did this in a school I went to in the US. In practice each class evolves to two parts with a five-minute break, which is necessary no matter what age the students are (I was later to become a corporate trainer, and I made sure there were breaks in adult classes and even longish meetings). There are creative things you can do with that class structure that make learning more useful... say, the first part of the class for presentation and the second for reinforcement, or the first part of the class for auditory learners and the second for visual learners, or the first part for explanation and the second for activity, or the first part for small group and the second for large group, or the first part for reading and the second for discussion.

When I moved from that school to a different school that used shorter class times, it felt very chaotic and disorganised. Well, it was chaotic. Yes, attention spans can be short, but we had seven classes per school day (dropping one in rotation each day, so six actual class periods) and it was maddening.

happywithlife

Speedwell wrote: »

We did this in a school I went to in the US. In practice each class evolves to two parts with a five-minute break, which is necessary no matter what age the students are (I was later to become a corporate trainer, and I made sure there were breaks in adult classes and even longish meetings). There are creative things you can do with that class structure that make learning more useful... say, the first part of the class for presentation and the second for reinforcement, or the first part of the class for auditory learners and the second for visual learners, or the first part for explanation and the second for activity, or the first part for small group and the second for large group, or the first part for reading and the second for discussion.

When I moved from that school to a different school that used shorter class times, it felt very chaotic and disorganised. Well, it was chaotic. Yes, attention spans can be short, but we had seven classes per school day (dropping one in rotation each day, so six actual class periods) and it was maddening.

But in the U.S. extra curricular is catered for in a structured way. One of my bug bears is you are constantly missing the same students for games etc here
Factor that in and less contact time and suddenly you can be in big trouble trying to get a course done with certain classes/students
And yes they should catch up but many don't

FrannoFan

happywithlife wrote: »

But in the U.S. extra curricular is catered for in a structured way. One of my bug bears is you are constantly missing the same students for games etc here
Factor that in and less contact time and suddenly you can be in big trouble trying to get a course done with certain classes/students
And yes they should catch up but many don't

See this is part of the problem. if one of your 2 1 hour classes a week was with a group on a wednesday you could find them always going early for away games and the like.

i am not too worried about teaching these groups as occasionally we have double classes or whatever so adjusting the teaching isn't a big problem.

more curious to hear of any school wide problems that could arise

spurious

I had hour long classes for a number of years. I quite liked them, lots of time to do different things, or if I had a double to go out and do fieldwork or a trip.

My class had project work for their Junior, which was also easier to get done in the longer clases. I preferred the longer format.

SligoBrewer

Speedwell wrote: »

or the first part of the class for auditory learners and the second for visual learners,

There is no such thing as auditory or visual learners.
There really isn't

Noccy_Mondy

Have hour classes. They have their pros and cons.

First off you're more than likely losing contact time (depends on subject) despite the fact the course content has remained the same. You see the kids less (twice a week mostly in my case), so it takes longer to know your students and built any sort of a rapport with them (only now have I a grasp on most of them). Another big one is a lot of students might be gone training, matches etc, if they miss one of your classes you'll only see them once a week - it's difficult enough for them to recall stuff they did a week ago!!

In some of the more theory based subjects I hear teachers go on about how first years in particular get tired towards the end of the hour, it's a bit long for them (not so much an issue in the more practical based subjects)

Few positives - they get a lot done in the hour, it's easier for you to plan as opposed to planning out doubles. 40 min or 35 min classes - it's a standard 1 hour template to work with regardless.
It works quite well with the likes of MTW where you can interweave the theory and practical - explanations, take a few notes etc first and put the theory into practice then, such as using the different hand tools or sampling glue types - fits quite well into the hour.
You have 6 classes as opposed to the 9 - less moving about and faces to see each day. Day seems to run smoother and faster with 6 classes.
That's just a few points I picked up on so far.

GarIT

Noccy_Mondy wrote: »

Another big one is a lot of students might be gone training, matches etc, if they miss one of your classes you'll only see them once a week

This seems to make sense on paper but statistically, you won't lose any time with anyone. If you have 3 classes with someone instead of 2 they are 50% more likely to miss a class, but they miss 50% less time. On average over the course of a year, you will see each student for the exact same amount of time. The argument of the frequency of classes being an issue is a valid consideration though.

acequion

Thanks OP for opening this thread. It's very relevant for me also as my school is now toying with the idea.

I have mixed feelings but am leaning towards being against. I'm a language teacher and I completely agree with the poster who said that a greater frequency is much better in that case. I just can't see how two one hour classes would work with first and second years. I think it would overwhelm them even with a 5 minute break. You need to drip feed a language over several days.

Why are schools changing anyway? Is this more of the "change is good" philosophy? Because 40 minute classes over several days have always served both teacher and pupil well so why change? I know that subject time provision is changing with the new JC but hour long classes?

Pang

As a Home Economics teacher, I find the one hour classes a nightmare in terms of attempting to implement a practical cookery class. It's very difficult especially as I'm in a school where a lot of the students don't have measuring scales at home, so they can't measure at home.

The subjects that seem to love the one hour classes in my school are mostly Maths and Science.

Management will tell you that the one hour classes are fantastic because you can implement all these active learning methodologies and do lots of project work etc... In my experience, however, one of the main reasons they have kept the one hour timetable is due to the massive reduction in the amount of ill-discipline and incidents on the corridors between classes.

acequion

Pang wrote: »

As a Home Economics teacher, I find the one hour classes a nightmare in terms of attempting to implement a practical cookery class. It's very difficult especially as I'm in a school where a lot of the students don't have measuring scales at home, so they can't measure at home.

The subjects that seem to love the one hour classes in my school are mostly Maths and Science.

Management will tell you that the one hour classes are fantastic because you can implement all these active learning methodologies and do lots of project work etc... In my experience, however, one of the main reasons they have kept the one hour timetable is due to the massive reduction in the amount of ill-discipline and incidents on the corridors between classes.

Yep. Got the impression that they must really suit management as they're trying to push them.

evolving_doors

acequion wrote: »

Yep. Got the impression that they must really suit management as they're trying to push them.

Less to timetable

FA NG

Where students are concerned its far too long for them, depending on the style of teaching too.. if the class is purely banking style with no group work or group discussion or engagement i'd imagine a number of students zoning out, finding it difficult to keep concentration. It's very difficult to listen to someone talk about anything for an hour straight, classes are timed at 40 minutes because that's generally how long someone can realistically pay full attention, after that you stop taking in as much information, particularly if it's a subject or class that some students might find quite boring at the best of times.
It will suit some students but won't suit all of them which excludes learners. Education should be inclusive and this may go against that but that's also depending on the teacher/style of teaching and structure of the class.
I'd imagine it could potentially leave students who are already struggling running for the hills.
This works for practical subjects like art, wood work or cookery as students tend to engage with each other and can stand up/walk around but expecting teenagers to sit for an hour in a maths or geography class sounds like absolute torture for them. As a teacher i'd be very against this.
I suppose it benefits the teacher as it gives you more time to get through curriculum/tick boxes but it's not learner friendly unless the class is structured to allow time for students to engage with each other. The problem is many teachers arent bothered doing this and expect total silence and obedience from the learners.
In theory one hour classes sound beneficial but in reality I dont see much good coming from it. It doesn't feel very learner friendly or inclusive of students who may not benefit from such long classes.

judeboy101

I can't find any peer reviewed research that definitely shows that block beats trad in terms of class periods. Most of perceived benefits revolve around management and scarily about saving money (less classes less teachers needed). In fact when introduced in Chicago back in the day, block classes resulted in teacher job loss, savings to the state, after which when the state had removed a load of teachers they removed blocks and made remaining teachers pick up the slack.

Nanana

I don't see how it would save money or require fewer teachers. Teachers teach for 22 hours, students attend classes for 28 hours. It is just a case of dividing that number into periods of 40 minutes or periods of 60 minutes.

acequion

FA NG wrote: »

Where students are concerned its far too long for them, depending on the style of teaching too.. if the class is purely banking style with no group work or group discussion or engagement i'd imagine a number of students zoning out, finding it difficult to keep concentration. It's very difficult to listen to someone talk about anything for an hour straight, classes are timed at 40 minutes because that's generally how long someone can realistically pay full attention, after that you stop taking in as much information, particularly if it's a subject or class that some students might find quite boring at the best of times.
It will suit some students but won't suit all of them which excludes learners. Education should be inclusive and this may go against that but that's also depending on the teacher/style of teaching and structure of the class.
I'd imagine it could potentially leave students who are already struggling running for the hills.
This works for practical subjects like art, wood work or cookery as students tend to engage with each other and can stand up/walk around but expecting teenagers to sit for an hour in a maths or geography class sounds like absolute torture for them. As a teacher i'd be very against this.
I suppose it benefits the teacher as it gives you more time to get through curriculum/tick boxes but it's not learner friendly unless the class is structured to allow time for students to engage with each other. The problem is many teachers arent bothered doing this and expect total silence and obedience from the learners.
In theory one hour classes sound beneficial but in reality I dont see much good coming from it. It doesn't feel very learner friendly or inclusive of students who may not benefit from such long classes.

I don't think you're being very fair re the emboldened bit. Group /pair work is the new IN THING. Now while a certain amount of group and pair work is indeed an excellent methodology and when used properly is a useful and enjoyable learning tool for the students, it's not the B all and the end all and doesn't necessarily suit every subject and in fact doesn't suit any subject ALL the time. So assuming teacher laziness is simplistic and smacks of always blaming the teacher. Like every new fad group work is being done to the death and once the teacher is doing it it's assumed the teacher must be marvellous. Nothing further from the truth as group work must be done judiciously. I did a foreign language course abroad last summer where the group work was done almost like musical chairs. It was utterly ridiculous, very unsettling, the groups very ad hoc and I learned very little which I made clear in my review at the end. Now I don't want to drag this thread off topic, however there is no doubt that another reason to push the hour classes is to crudely force teachers to do the new IN THING so that all boxes can be happily ticked in offices.

However I fully agree with everything else you say.

acequion

And what about inspections? Are teachers expected to endure the presence of an inspector for the entire hour? That's far too much pressure on a teacher in a job already rife with pressures.

r93kaey5p2izun

acequion wrote: »

And what about inspections? Are teachers expected to endure the presence of an inspector for the entire hour? That's far too much pressure on a teacher in a job already rife with pressures.

We already do 80mins with them for doubles.

judeboy101

Nanana wrote: »

I don't see how it would save money or require fewer teachers. Teachers teach for 22 hours, students attend classes for 28 hours. It is just a case of dividing that number into periods of 40 minutes or periods of 60 minutes.

Teachers teach for 22hrs? You might want to check some recent circulars and inform yourself properly.

Nanana

I am very sorry judeboy.
Of course we teach for 21 hours 20 minutes. I was just looking for an explanation as to how 60 minute classes save money or require fewer teachers. Sorry again for the mistake.

judeboy101 wrote: »

Teachers teach for 22hrs? You might want to check some recent circulars and inform yourself properly.

acequion

Regina Pitiful Tinderbox wrote: »

We already do 80mins with them for doubles.

Yes we do. And I like doubles, I have them in both my subjects and get a lot done in them.

But "doubles" is a totally different story. Doubles are only once weekly with all other classes being single. So that in effect you get the best of both worlds. Now I don't have doubles for all my classes as no teacher will but where I have them they work.

But if every single class becomes like a double as it's an hour duration,what then? Does the inspector stay in the room for the entire duration? I would very much like to hear from somebody would some experience of that. Perhaps with the drive bys they may not stay the full hour in order to see a maximum of classes in a day. But subject or whole school, what happens or would happen there? Personally I've never had an inspector stay for a double or heard of that happening to anybody else. But if all classes are one hour??

I'd really like to know.

judeboy101

Nanana wrote: »

I am very sorry judeboy.
Of course we teach for 21 hours 20 minutes. I was just looking for an explanation as to how 60 minute classes save money or require fewer teachers. Sorry again for the mistake.

Not all subjects divide evenly into 60 min slots, sub 1hr blocks allow for part time teachers to get a few classes so schools could easily lose some part time teachers as timetables "tighten up". Hence saving dept money.

judeboy101

acequion wrote: »

Yes we do. And I like doubles, I have them in both my subjects and get a lot done in them.

But "doubles" is a totally different story. Doubles are only once weekly with all other classes being single. So that in effect you get the best of both worlds. Now I don't have doubles for all my classes as no teacher will but where I have them they work.

But if every single class becomes like a double as it's an hour duration,what then? Does the inspector stay in the room for the entire duration? I would very much like to hear from somebody would some experience of that. Perhaps with the drive bys they may not stay the full hour in order to see a maximum of classes in a day. But subject or whole school, what happens or would happen there? Personally I've never had an inspector stay for a double or heard of that happening to anybody else. But if all classes are one hour??

I'd really like to know.

It's hard enough to prep, perform and clean up in 80mins of a science dbl. Hw that can be done in an hr is beyond me.

r93kaey5p2izun

acequion wrote: »

Yes we do. And I like doubles, I have them in both my subjects and get a lot done in them.

But "doubles" is a totally different story. Doubles are only once weekly with all other classes being single. So that in effect you get the best of both worlds. Now I don't have doubles for all my classes as no teacher will but where I have them they work.

But if every single class becomes like a double as it's an hour duration,what then? Does the inspector stay in the room for the entire duration? I would very much like to hear from somebody would some experience of that. Perhaps with the drive bys they may not stay the full hour in order to see a maximum of classes in a day. But subject or whole school, what happens or would happen there? Personally I've never had an inspector stay for a double or heard of that happening to anybody else. But if all classes are one hour??

I'd really like to know.

Well as a Science teacher I have two doubles a week for juniors and two doubles and a single for seniors - and that's the same for all options in my school. A change to hour long classes would mean the majority of my classes, and all option classes, would get shorter.

I'm not personally in favour of hour classes (in my subjects it's too short for practicals and too long for anything but HL Maths) but duration with the inspector just doesn't seem an issue to me since they already stay for doubles. In my experience of drive by, subject, JCSP and MLL inspections, inspectors will definitely stay for a whole double.

Behind the Fence

We have introduced 1 hour classes since September. Personally I'm torn, I love the 1 hour classes with my Maths classes. Previously it was a mad scramble to check and correct homework, revise previous topic briefly, introduce new topic, attempt examples, check for understanding and set homework. Now , I can do so much more like groupwork, peer assessment, peer teaching, videos etc and I am ahead of where I was last year with the curriculum.
I don't think students missing class is an issue as with Google classroom (I know you all won't have this) all the work is updated each day and it is easier for students to catch up.

My other subject is PE and its a disaster. One hour class turns into 40 minutes class time after changing. Now we recently had a MLL and one of the recommendations is that PE has 2 hours in one of the JC years and 1 in each of the others. And 2 in 5th year and 1 in 6th year. If this is implemented from next year then maybe it will sway my opinion.

Having the kids on the corridor less is a definite plus, less books required by the kids is a plus too (2 instead of 3 classes in between breaks).

For teachers used to teaching doubles it hasn't been too much of an issue. In fact I think the majority of them are happy. English and other teachers who haven't taught a double have struggled a little. Home Ec teachers are also like PE not impressed with the 1 hour.

Having one hour off is great too, you can get so much done

Last point, and I appreciate the post is a little all over the shop. In a lot of primary schools students days are broken up in one hours, in university students days are also broken up in one hours.

Nanana

I don't think one hour classes are a fad or the latest thing for teachers/schools to do. Internationally they are the norm. There must be some research based evidence behind that.
Also would it not make the day more manageable for a student? Homework more spread out. Reduce the size and weight of the school bag. Give them time to reflect on and absorb the information given. Would it not be good for their wellbeing? Calm the day down a bit for them, less movement from class to class, teacher to teacher, room to room.
Would the classes not be more engaging? Teachers would have to use active learning methodologies. You couldn't use direct instruction for the hour. Is this not meant to be a good thing? Is this not the way the Junior Cycle is going?
Also would it not be good for differentiation of learning? The second half hour you are walking around helping the students or doing AFL. Particularly when there is no ordinary level exam in most subjects and less streaming of class groups.
Also wouldn't you be able to give more effective feedback to students? Less written feedback which might not be understood. The feedback would be verbal and live. The most effective kind surely?
I would love to hear from teachers who have experience of one hour classes on the above. Thanks

judeboy101

Nanana wrote: »

I don't think one hour classes are a fad or the latest thing for teachers/schools to do. Internationally they are the norm. There must be some research based evidence behind that.
Also would it not make the day more manageable for a student? Homework more spread out. Reduce the size and weight of the school bag. Give them time to reflect on and absorb the information given. Would it not be good for their wellbeing? Calm the day down a bit for them, less movement from class to class, teacher to teacher, room to room.
Would the classes not be more engaging? Teachers would have to use active learning methodologies. You couldn't use direct instruction for the hour. Is this not meant to be a good thing? Is this not the way the Junior Cycle is going?
Also would it not be good for differentiation of learning? The second half hour you are walking around helping the students or doing AFL. Particularly when there is no ordinary level exam in most subjects and less streaming of class groups.
Also wouldn't you be able to give more effective feedback to students? Less written feedback which might not be understood. The feedback would be verbal and live. The most effective kind surely?
I would love to hear from teachers who have experience of one hour classes on the above. Thanks

Plenty of research, all agree it does no harm to students, helps management but no concrete proof it improves results across all subjects.

judeboy101

Behind the Fence wrote: »

We have introduced 1 hour classes since September. Personally I'm torn, I love the 1 hour classes with my Maths classes. Previously it was a mad scramble to check and correct homework, revise previous topic briefly, introduce new topic, attempt examples, check for understanding and set homework. Now , I can do so much more like groupwork, peer assessment, peer teaching, videos etc and I am ahead of where I was last year with the curriculum.
I don't think students missing class is an issue as with Google classroom (I know you all won't have this) all the work is updated each day and it is easier for students to catch up.

My other subject is PE and its a disaster. One hour class turns into 40 minutes class time after changing. Now we recently had a MLL and one of the recommendations is that PE has 2 hours in one of the JC years and 1 in each of the others. And 2 in 5th year and 1 in 6th year. If this is implemented from next year then maybe it will sway my opinion.

Having the kids on the corridor less is a definite plus, less books required by the kids is a plus too (2 instead of 3 classes in between breaks).

For teachers used to teaching doubles it hasn't been too much of an issue. In fact I think the majority of them are happy. English and other teachers who haven't taught a double have struggled a little. Home Ec teachers are also like PE not impressed with the 1 hour.

Having one hour off is great too, you can get so much done

Last point, and I appreciate the post is a little all over the shop. In a lot of primary schools students days are broken up in one hours, in university students days are also broken up in one hours.

What happens to the extra 20 mins you are supposed to be teaching?

What happened to all your 5 period and 3 period classes?

Did you lose options and or teachers (part timers/super subs)?

Behind the Fence

We do a four minute tutor class in the morning to make up the 20 minutes.

No class loses time except for PE, Religion and SPHE. It is just spread over 2 or 3 years. If a subject previously had 4 40 mins. 160 min a week. They will have maybe 120 in first year but 180 and 180 in 2nd and 3rd. 480 total either way over 3 years.

As wellbeing time increase most subjects are going to lose time anyway. In fact must subjects are already receiving more hours than is recommended under the new JC.

No teachers or options lost

spurious

Following WSEs it wasn't unknown for one of the suggested options to provide the 28 hours contact (if it wasn't already there) to be hour long classes.

judeboy101

spurious wrote: »

Following WSEs it wasn't unknown for one of the suggested options to provide the 28 hours contact (if it wasn't already there) to be hour long classes.

Management has a habit of selectively implementing wse's, to suit their own agenda.

Delphinium

Home economics is disaster area for one hour classes. I've been using the half hour before school starts to allow students to set up and weigh ingredients etc. and the same at lunch time. So I am doing unpaid hours and the children are missing lunch. It would be fine if my students came from homes where they could weigh ingredients and prepare veg for class, but many just don't have the support or the facilities.
Sewing is a disaster too as the time is too short to give attention to each person's work and often allowing them to bring home work means it is never seen again. Love it for the theory classes, especially senior cycle.
If we had technicians to help prepare and clean up it might be more manageable.
I know the art department are finding it hard going also and very wasteful of paints as they have just begun when it's time to tidy.

judeboy101

Behind the Fence wrote: »

We do a four minute tutor class in the morning to make up the 20 minutes.

No class loses time except for PE, Religion and SPHE. It is just spread over 2 or 3 years. If a subject previously had 4 40 mins. 160 min a week. They will have maybe 120 in first year but 180 and 180 in 2nd and 3rd. 480 total either way over 3 years.

As wellbeing time increase most subjects are going to lose time anyway. In fact must subjects are already receiving more hours than is recommended under the new JC.

No teachers or options lost

Is tutor voluntary in your school? What happens to teachers who don't do it?

happywithlife

Delphinium wrote: »

Home economics is disaster area for one hour classes. I've been using the half hour before school starts to allow students to set up and weigh ingredients etc. and the same at lunch time. So I am doing unpaid hours and the children are missing lunch. It would be fine if my students came from homes where they could weigh ingredients and prepare veg for class, but many just don't have the support or the facilities.
Sewing is a disaster too as the time is too short to give attention to each person's work and often allowing them to bring home work means it is never seen again. Love it for the theory classes, especially senior cycle.
If we had technicians to help prepare and clean up it might be more manageable.
I know the art department are finding it hard going also and very wasteful of paints as they have just begun when it's time to tidy.

Completly agree. We are following international practice but without the international support. I'm working with an NQT who worked for a year in UK & was spoiled by having a technican prep everything for her & tidy up afterwards - I'm at my wits end with the way she leaves the kitchen . She cannot keep on top of the cleaning and I spend many extra hours tidying up after her - it's getting to the point where I need to say it to mgt as she hasn't improved and subtle and not so subtle hints haven't helped.
I also come from very disadvantaged DEIS and agree about students not preparing at home - 2 out of 22 1st yrs have weiging scales at home for example
Also a huge problem in our school is discipline & from a teachers mental health point of view the thoughts of 1 hr classes are terrifying - we have kids with massive problems and while it's great they are in school they can have really **** days where it all goes pear shaped and sometimes you end up buying your tongue thinking ok hold on its only 40 mins - 30 by the time they come in from the "toilet" which they always seem to need between classes ;-)

acequion

Nanana wrote: »

I don't think one hour classes are a fad or the latest thing for teachers/schools to do. Internationally they are the norm. There must be some research based evidence behind that.
Also would it not make the day more manageable for a student? Homework more spread out. Reduce the size and weight of the school bag. Give them time to reflect on and absorb the information given. Would it not be good for their wellbeing? Calm the day down a bit for them, less movement from class to class, teacher to teacher, room to room.
Would the classes not be more engaging? Teachers would have to use active learning methodologies. You couldn't use direct instruction for the hour. Is this not meant to be a good thing? Is this not the way the Junior Cycle is going?
Also would it not be good for differentiation of learning? The second half hour you are walking around helping the students or doing AFL. Particularly when there is no ordinary level exam in most subjects and less streaming of class groups.
Also wouldn't you be able to give more effective feedback to students? Less written feedback which might not be understood. The feedback would be verbal and live. The most effective kind surely?
I would love to hear from teachers who have experience of one hour classes on the above. Thanks

With respect Nanana I have a problem with much of what you say.

Firstly, the kids. Yes you're right that it may well be better for them. But everyone these days is championing the kids. With the result that we have the snowflake generation which could well be to their undoing when they reach adulthood and the real world. Few to nobody champions the teacher. Therefore I'll always take the teachers' side. And I feel that in an era where teacher morale is at an all time low, where teachers are leaving the profession or not taking it up, where class sizes are at an all time high, hour long classes where there may be big discipline issues and /or an inspector sitting there for the whole duration is just heaping more on the overloaded donkey.

Secondly, you ask, "Is that not the way the new JC is going"? Yes. Right again but that doesn't make it good. Remember that the majority of second level teachers consistently voted against its introduction and for very good reason.

Thirdly, all your terminology smacks of the JC jargon. Active learning is good but it must be used wisely as I said in an earlier post. There is nothing wrong with direct instruction,in fact there is overwhelming evidence that traditional methodologies work best all round which is why they are returning to that in the UK. And the jury is well out when it comes to the use of AFL. My very bright third year students feel insulted by this two stars and a wish stuff,they say it makes them feel they're back in junior infants.

Lastly. Differentiation. Yes you've a point there. The hour long classes might help but certainly not in a foreign language where streaming is vital.

So call me cynical but hard not to see this as part of the new fads. Just because they use hour long classes abroad doesn't mean we have to ape them.

And for all that I do recognise the advantages. But in my subjects, English and French, I don't think it would work well.

Nanana

Acqueion, thank you for your thoughtful reply and for focusing on the issues. I am not certain that one hour classes are better than 40 minute classes. I guess you would need to experience them to be properly able to judge that but I think it is good that schools are thinking about this issue.
With regard to teacher welfare, I take your point. It could seem like an other initiative to burden teachers with. I do think there are benefits to one hour classes from a teacher point of view also. You will only have to plan for and teach 21 classes in the week. You will only have 4 or 5 classes the following day as opposed to 7 or 8. Over the course of your career you will teach thousands of fewer classes. I think I would be better prepared for my classes if I only had 21 or so of them in the week. Better prepared would possibly lead to less stress and pressure.
Also when you do get a break, it would be a proper one. Each free class coming either before or after a break. You will be off for a minimum of 70 minutes every time you have a free period.
I would imagine that you would have fewer corrections to take home. For the second half of the class, while they are "actively learning," which might simply mean 'writing' you could go around the class, correcting copies. It would be far more effective to give verbal feedback on the spot, than have the copies clocking up mileage at the back of the car, to be handed back three or four days later.

As regards having an inspector in the classroom. I have been inspected for two class periods in 15 years.

You are right to have a healthy cynicism about some of the active learning methodologies being promoted. I share your scepticism as to the educational merits of some of them. I too am a proponent of direct instruction but I do see that I need to mix it up a little and include different strategies, at times, to keep them engaged and thinking for themselves.
I would be more certain, or confident, in the merits of assessment for learning. I think it makes sense to constantly test students for understanding and to adjust your lessons accordingly. Now, of course you can do that very well in 40 minute classes too.

I also understand the points raised about discipline issues in some schools or in some classes in all schools. I understand the thought of adding 20 minutes to those classes would fill teachers with dread. One hour classes would not the best solution for every school.
Also, I understand the Home Economics or practical subject issue. I am surprised that schools have not come up with a creative way of managing this. I have no clue about the logistics of creating a timetable but could you not place the optional subjects up against science on two days of the week and work outside of the regular school timetable for those classes. For example on Monday at 9 have Junior Cycle optional subjects be followed by science at 10. On Tuesday at 9 have science to be followed by optional subjects. On alternate days science and optional subjects would take 20 minutes from each other, creating one class of 80 minutes and one class of 40 minutes. That would give science and practical subjects one double period per week.

Again, I would be interested to hear from schools that have adopted one hour classes on the above points.

happywithlife

Nanana wrote: »

Acqueion, thank you for your thoughtful reply and for focusing on the issues. I am not certain that one hour classes are better than 40 minute classes. I guess you would need to experience them to be properly able to judge that but I think it is good that schools are thinking about this issue.
With regard to teacher welfare, I take your point. It could seem like an other initiative to burden teachers with. I do think there are benefits to one hour classes from a teacher point of view also. You will only have to plan for and teach 21 classes in the week. You will only have 4 or 5 classes the following day as opposed to 7 or 8. Over the course of your career you will teach thousands of fewer classes. I think I would be better prepared for my classes if I only had 21 or so of them in the week. Better prepared would possibly lead to less stress and pressure.
Also when you do get a break, it would be a proper one. Each free class coming either before or after a break. You will be off for a minimum of 70 minutes every time you have a free period.
I would imagine that you would have fewer corrections to take home. For the second half of the class, while they are "actively learning," which might simply mean 'writing' you could go around the class, correcting copies. It would be far more effective to give verbal feedback on the spot, than have the copies clocking up mileage at the back of the car, to be handed back three or four days later.

As regards having an inspector in the classroom. I have been inspected for two class periods in 15 years.

You are right to have a healthy cynicism about some of the active learning methodologies being promoted. I share your scepticism as to the educational merits of some of them. I too am a proponent of direct instruction but I do see that I need to mix it up a little and include different strategies, at times, to keep them engaged and thinking for themselves.
I would be more certain, or confident, in the merits of assessment for learning. I think it makes sense to constantly test students for understanding and to adjust your lessons accordingly. Now, of course you can do that very well in 40 minute classes too.

I also understand the points raised about discipline issues in some schools or in some classes in all schools. I understand the thought of adding 20 minutes to those classes would fill teachers with dread. One hour classes would not the best solution for every school.
Also, I understand the Home Economics or practical subject issue. I am surprised that schools have not come up with a creative way of managing this. I have no clue about the logistics of creating a timetable but could you not place the optional subjects up against science on two days of the week and work outside of the regular school timetable for those classes. For example on Monday at 9 have Junior Cycle optional subjects be followed by science at 10. On Tuesday at 9 have science to be followed by optional subjects. On alternate days science and optional subjects would take 20 minutes from each other, creating one class of 80 minutes and one class of 40 minutes. That would give science and practical subjects one double period per week.

Again, I would be interested to hear from schools that have adopted one hour classes on the above points.

So pitch those practical subjects AGAINST science? That would do wonders for their numbers 😒 it would solve the situation I suppose because you'd quickly eradicate those subjects for good.
The only "creative solution" I've seen principals come up with is to timetable before/after break times which means students & teachers miss their breaks - i know one schoolwho dies this and the teachers write those breaks off against their s&s slots - ok for the teachers I suppose but it totally flies in the face of wellbeing for the students concerned.

Nanana

Followed by science, not opposite science. It was just a suggestion. Possibly not a practical one.

happywithlife

Nanana wrote: »

Followed by science, not opposite science. It was just a suggestion. Possibly not a practical one.

Sorry misunderstood- your post said up against science
Can't see it working though as too many logistic problems - especially as timetables seem to be outsourced now. What happens science students of they don't do option blocks and what the heck do you tell inspectors the morning of a drive by?!

deiseindublin

I'm teaching in a disadvantaged setting and there is no way the general cohort would cope with a 1 hour class.

juneg

deiseindublin wrote: »

I'm teaching in a disadvantaged setting and there is no way the general cohort would cope with a 1 hour class.

I'm a primary teacher for 20 years. Concentration and ability to focus among students is getting worse with each passing year. Our world is fast with information delivered instantly and they are used to classes and lessons being varied, short and sweet, little and often. For this reason I wouldn't agree with dragging a lesson out for an hour, but practical subjects would be an exception for me too. Sorry folks.