Dark indigo paper under a watercolour night sky. A thin line of tiny pale grains, dust from the comet, drifts down the middle of the page. Small slips of torn, dark-washed paper hang from it, left and right, each tied to a single bright grain by a hairline: a short date, a picture or a few lines of writing. Month names in brush lettering mark the line.

lately

21 Oct, Wed
These were what stood out to me from my notes. In fact, they stood out enough to even make notes about. I'm primarily interested in understanding cognition and the human condition, and I find these to be relevant or at least tangential.
Thinking about purpose always comes first to me, like "what's the point". So what's the point in SS and what are we really trying to teach? I didn't care about it, so how should I convince my students? I would need to be convinced too. Next, who really benefits from this curriculum? Then how can all benefit? It should be a common skill that everyone can tap on. I didn't know whether first principles thinking can really be taught and internalised, but it seems to be a missing link. Then I learned about setting papers and marking, and it was a revelation because I saw how integral framing is to the LORMS. In certain schools, it can be really punishing to not follow templates in responses. And as a new teacher, what influence can I really make? What if I can't change the culture? That reinforced my belief in teaching skills that serve and transcend the curriculum. The way I would imagine teaching students to keep asking why also plugs the gap of interest. But alas, I would have to return to what the curriculum demands. If we have to follow templates, which students are we serving least? If those who are more intelligent have an advantage, is it really the fault of the curriculum or a natural phenomenon?
Each post is dated to when I had the thought, which is only possible because it is my own website.
tags
21 Oct, Wed
What did I previously think?
I never had any thoughts about what Social Studies was trying to test until I came to NIE, which was when I thought it was great that they assess critical thinking.
What changed?
I think it is not okay that intuitive answering is the key to scoring well, and an assessment cannot be such that an intuitive response beats a taught response. But what holds is that the critical thinking is indeed something essential to doing well in social studies and that applies as well to figuring out the intentions of the setter when reading the questions and sources. I am of the opinion that SS doesn't actually intentionally advantage those more intelligent, but it's those who are more intelligent that have an advantage anyway--applies to other subjects too. I don't believe in rote memorisation, however. I still firmly believe in teaching first principles thinking as an approach to all problems present and future. A reliable tool in one's toolbox.
tags
13 Oct, Tue
Insight
Since I learned about how different question types should be marked during tutorials, I tried hard to mark scripts by following the guides, and was strict about whether students answered the question or not based on HOW they answered.
Evidence
The assessment specialist talk helped me realise that "positive marking" is still in line with the purposes of assessment in #1, and reinforced that the difficulty that students have with expressing their thoughts should not be punished. It's not leniency for leniency's sake but getting the point of the script that may not have been well represented under examination pressure. My song makes a composite marker commit the same errors markers penalise students for: an inference the source doesn't support, a provenance-only comparison, a one-sided judgement. In several of my recent marking practices for the tutorials, I was surprised by the scoring given and took me time to accept that a student with much lower writing ability could score the same as one who had better writing ability.
Reflection
If they make their point across properly addressing the question and showing evidence of understanding, then that's more important than polished presentations. The irony transcends another layer, representing the current portfolio assignment. Will fun presentations like mine be marked more favourably when the content is the same?
Implications
Reading the script holistically first allows us to get a gauge on the student's intentions. With what I've learned and experienced as an SS student-teacher, in future, I will take samples of students' responses to find out how they are responding, what skills, and adjust how to teach. Not just teaching them to answer by template. Diss Miss
tags
13 Oct, Tue
Insight
I previously didn't even know about answering techniques as a student and did well, but I don't know how to teach because it came to me intuitively.
Evidence
I'm writing about IDE now as a new technique I've learnt that I can apply in teaching. As I have been taking this module, I have also learned about how to score students: it begins with backward design by thinking of what I want students to take away, and then assessing whether they have learned what they need to and not whether their answer looks like a model one.
Reflection
Remembering how I did as a student reinforces that teaching students have to fit answers into frames isn't the right way because it can be detrimental to their grades. IDE is still a useful technique even if I didn't understand it, and was what made the difference for me. How to think about answering the question and letting it be clear to the marker(s) is more important than memorising how to approach "surprise" or "comparison" questions.
Implications
I will apply backward design religiously because it's the principal foundation for creating good assessments where markers won't have to argue about the right way to mark. Write or Wrong
tags
16 Sep, Wed
What did I previously think?
I never had any thoughts about what Social Studies was trying to test until I came to NIE, which was when I thought it was great that they assess critical thinking.
What changed?
I think most education frameworks can be built from first principles, so first principles seems to me like the natural thing to teach. Lessons at NIE helped me realise that teaching students to think in first principles might be better, by principle, but different ways of thinking might make it too difficult for some. Thinking skills are inherited from what has been built in lower sec, primary school or whatever came before. So assessing critical thinking may also be assessing what students already brought with them.
Why is this significant?
If that is true, SS might ultimately be more advantageous for more intelligent students, and I wonder if SS exams, like other differentiated national exams, quietly discriminate level of intelligence. That is a question of validity and fairness: the setter is responsible for not setting exams that test intelligence rather than the skills and knowledge required of the subject.
How will it influence my future teaching?
Because I don't think I will have a clear perspective on this until I have sufficient experience, I'll pay more attention to how I and other teachers set papers.
tags
5 Sep, Sat
What did I previously think?
Before CA1, I couldn't picture what the top band of marks looks like, so I didn't know what a mark scheme was meant to describe.
What changed?
I think it's commonplace that setters do not consider enough just how varied responses can be. I attempted multiple contrasting exemplars for the CA1 and I knew I could not cover every valid answer. I was also thinking for the marker and thought that they would need the aid. As the setter, I was responsible more than they are, I believed.
I thought up different angles I could have taken the question then followed other LORMS as much as I could to craft the correct structure. I didn't really know how to do it but I thought about the purpose of the LORMS and figured there's definitely more than one angle that the marker should know about and consider valid
Why is this significant?
A student who can't express their thinking well, or who organises it unconventionally, can still show understanding. Whether the marker can credit it depends on what the setter allowed for. That is why broad levels matter.
How will it influence my future teaching?
make it a practice to collect articles and sources so I have more flexibility to afford students with flexible questions and sources. Keep levels broad to enable marking flexibility. If the source doesn't meet the desired goal then should change the source.
tags

lately

settings

by month

2026