1 hour classes

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.