I am trying to write an academic paper.
I have been trying to write an academic paper for two years.
What's stopping me? (In truth, I am writing at the moment and aim to have it submitted by Christmas.) But what has been stopping me is not the writing, which I like, but the hoops I see me having to fall through to be published in a refereed journal.
I read this in the TES at the weekend:
"... most educational research is not written up in a way that is designed to meet teachers' needs. (...) the teacher doesn't want something generalisable. They want something for their context and their pupils." ( TES 11 November 2016, 'TES talks to Philippa Cordingley')
The interview talks about making research 'particularisable' and suggests ways we might do this when using research in CPD sessions (start with the outcomes, then tell the story of the findings and finish with the methods). Philippa Cordingley talks sense. My problem is that in order for my article to be accepted I have to not only write the other way around (method, story, findings) but generalise my language and formalise my style. But I am writing about a small case study that, I am told, is strong on detail and presents a carefully analysed case.
"Your academic writing style is probably perceived to be too informal, writing in the first person can be mis-construed as being subjective."
Hmmm, subjective. Surely in order for any of us to hear and act on anything, it has to be subjectified? I need to hear a voice. If I hear the voice I can reach a decision about what this might mean to me.
For me, a major problem with many research papers I read is that they try too hard to speak generally, and in this I am unable to see my particular; and try too hard to speak 'objectively' (whatever this means), and in this I am unable to hear a voice that might speak to me.
I'll have another go, I guess.
And I wish Philippa Cordingly would contact BERA (many other research organisations are of course available)
Tuesday 15 November 2016
Wednesday 26 October 2016
Just because they can does that mean they should?
I sent the following email about the KS2 arithmetic SATs paper to some people and it was suggested I blogged about it. So here it is, as my opener as a novice blogger.
Thank you Justine Greening for calling a temporary halt to the indecent rate of change in primary assessment. However, as I ponder the fallout from this summers' KS2 tests, I would like to share this small piece of anecdotal evidence from Ben, a Y10 pupil (15 years of age) in the "top set" for maths, reported to be working at "level 8" (?) and on target to achieve A* in maths at GCSE. He last week volunteered to sit this summer's KS2 arithmetic paper for 11 year-olds: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524052/2016_ks2_mathematics_paper1_arithmetic_PDFA.pdf
Thank you Justine Greening for calling a temporary halt to the indecent rate of change in primary assessment. However, as I ponder the fallout from this summers' KS2 tests, I would like to share this small piece of anecdotal evidence from Ben, a Y10 pupil (15 years of age) in the "top set" for maths, reported to be working at "level 8" (?) and on target to achieve A* in maths at GCSE. He last week volunteered to sit this summer's KS2 arithmetic paper for 11 year-olds: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524052/2016_ks2_mathematics_paper1_arithmetic_PDFA.pdf
This is Ben's feedback.
It took him 1 minute off the full allotted half an hour to complete the paper. He thinks he got one question wrong. He started confidently but as the paper went on he felt "quite depressed". At the end he felt "demoralised". He wondered:
1. What was the point of asking so many questions that tested the same thing: "It's the same stuff over and over, what is the point of that?" The first few pages were particularly depressing he said and he quickly became demoralised.
2. Why you would even need to do most of the calculations without a calculator: "It's a complete waste of time".
In terms of the Select Committee's inquiry into assessment (deadline this Friday!: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/education-committee/news-parliament-2015/primary-assessment-launch-16-17/
And Greening's recently announced consultation on assessment in the New Year, I think the following points are pertinent.
The length of the arithmetic paper is unreasonable and contributes nothing to useful assessment. If we must have an arithmetic paper (and the question remains as to why we do, as no evidence-based answer has been put forward to support this) then it should consist of a few, well-chosen questions to assess not simply an arithmetic procedure, or something that is better done with a calculator, but the pupil's ability to reason through an answer. The current paper, by asking a pupil to repeatedly reproduce similar procedures, smacks of trying to catch an 11 year-old out. Currently the KS2 arithmetic paper tests stamina and not mathematics.
Finally, if a high-attaining Y10 pupil, who is successful at maths and intends taking this at A level, is demoralised by this paper, we must ask what it is doing to everyone else.
It took him 1 minute off the full allotted half an hour to complete the paper. He thinks he got one question wrong. He started confidently but as the paper went on he felt "quite depressed". At the end he felt "demoralised". He wondered:
1. What was the point of asking so many questions that tested the same thing: "It's the same stuff over and over, what is the point of that?" The first few pages were particularly depressing he said and he quickly became demoralised.
2. Why you would even need to do most of the calculations without a calculator: "It's a complete waste of time".
In terms of the Select Committee's inquiry into assessment (deadline this Friday!: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/education-committee/news-parliament-2015/primary-assessment-launch-16-17/
And Greening's recently announced consultation on assessment in the New Year, I think the following points are pertinent.
The length of the arithmetic paper is unreasonable and contributes nothing to useful assessment. If we must have an arithmetic paper (and the question remains as to why we do, as no evidence-based answer has been put forward to support this) then it should consist of a few, well-chosen questions to assess not simply an arithmetic procedure, or something that is better done with a calculator, but the pupil's ability to reason through an answer. The current paper, by asking a pupil to repeatedly reproduce similar procedures, smacks of trying to catch an 11 year-old out. Currently the KS2 arithmetic paper tests stamina and not mathematics.
Finally, if a high-attaining Y10 pupil, who is successful at maths and intends taking this at A level, is demoralised by this paper, we must ask what it is doing to everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)