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.
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
Speedwell wrote: » or the first part of the class for auditory learners and the second for visual learners,
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
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.
acequion wrote: » Yep. Got the impression that they must really suit management as they're trying to push them.
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.
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.
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.
judeboy101 wrote: » Teachers teach for 22hrs? You might want to check some recent circulars and inform yourself properly.
Regina Pitiful Tinderbox wrote: » We already do 80mins with them for doubles.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
