Hi Stuart, thanks for sharing your post with me. 

I agree that we shouldn’t use LOs in a didactic way, nor should we be aiming to please Ofsted. However, I don’t believe that this is either/or. I think that LOs are valuable for both learner and teacher. Where and when they are shared however is a different matter. As I indicated in my post, I believe it is about variety – creating a range of scenarios that empower learners to take ownership of their learning. 

Moreover, having a defined LO, does not in my view give away the ending or set a firm outcome. It is merely a suggestion. Limits can only come from the teacher themselves. The teacher who believes that their lesson plan must be stuck to rigidly, who believes that there is only one outcome – they are the limitation themselves. Many excellent teachers set out with a clearly defined LO but they are not rigid, they have the skills and ability to adapt, to weave learning, to allow organics to happen in the classroom, allowing learner to lead and thrive. 

Besides, it’s useful to have something to aim at, doesn’t it?

http://www.sjeducation.co.uk/2012/04/learning-objectives-or-not.html

I agree, there is a place for routine in learning and the use of LOs. As I said in response to Kevin above, if a teacher finds that sharing them in a particular way, at a particular point works for them in creating an effective learning ethos in their classroom, then this should be encouraged. But as you imply, there is more than one way to share them. And that’s the point. This is not about not sharing learning objectives. It is about not playing lip-service to sharing them simply to tick a box. LOs have purpose, they are part of a wider AfL strategy NOT just a bullet on a list of ‘successful lesson criteria’.

I like the way that you have approached success criteria. In my view, SC are the most important aspect of sharing LOs. If used correctly they provide a framework for effective formative assessment – particularly when trying to develop meaningful peer/self assessment with your students. 

I am also, particularly, impressed with your commitment to AfL by removing levels at KS3. I think this is something we should be doing here at CCC but I’m not sure how it would go over. As a number of us have completed MA modules in AfL, I do think we have the expertise to affect such a change however, I think there would be significant resistance from SLT.

I would be more than happy for you to come in and visit. Lots of exciting work happening in the Media department at the moment. Particularly with production work, independent learning strategies and the teaching of ‘Postmodern Media’ at A2 level. Check out the blog to see what we have been doing. Student production blogs are in the sidebar on the right. 

Media @ CCC: http://www.chalfontmediablog.blogspot.com/

Regards,
James.

It is the indoctrination that concerns me too. The underlying discourse of “this is how we do it because that is what Ofsted want to see” is inherently wrong. Having been through a HMI visit and two Ofsted inspections I can categorically state that this is not what Ofsted want to see. A lesson can be outstanding with the LOs being written on the board, in the same way that a lesson can be outstanding without five mini-plenaries. Ofsted want to see learning happening in the classroom. They want to see children progressing in their learning. Following a strict lesson structure (LOs included) is not a guarantee to even a satisfactory lesson, let alone an outstanding one. 

We need to experiment with, reflect on, and evaluate a variety of strategies and approaches to engaging students in a discourse about their learning. Find what works and build on it. If that includes sharing LOs on the board at the start of your lessons then that is fantastic, but we must not restrict their lessons to uninspired conformity. Our students, simply, will not thank us for it.

You’re welcome Gareth, I hope that you are successful.

In fact I think the ‘reductionist’ approach you talk of Pat is counterintuitive. In teaching Media Studies we often analyse a text on both the macro (representational) and micro (technical) level. The macro analysis always comes first as it centres around perception. Whereas, the micro analysis is useful in underpinning conclusions drawn at the macro level but certainly not as useful when engaged with inside a microcosm. You may be able to discuss the cinematography in terms and structure but to form meaningful analysis it needs to be considered with the wider-macro-context.