It’s no secret that I’m a big advocate of knowledge
organisers. However, over the last few months I have a read a number of blogs
by influential edu…tweeters(?) who, taken on their title alone, appear to
criticise their use. However, on closer inspection, I complete agree with the
common line of argument from almost all of them: knowledge organisers
themselves are not a bad thing per say, so long as they are written and implemented properly; fail
to do so, and they become a time-consuming, workload-expanding bolt on or fad
with very little impact.
If knowledge organisers aren’t working for you, ask yourself
the following questions:
Why are you using them?
Roughly 4 years-experience of knowledge organisers within my
current school has shown us that the format, content and use of knowledge
organisers will and should differ vastly from department to department: while
history has knowledge organisers which focus on the narrative and key events within
a particular period, languages has developed “knowledge grids” in KS3, which
focus on key phrases and sentences for pupils to memorise which can then later
be manipulated. Practical subjects, such as music, have relatively short
knowledge organisers which focus on memorising key terms and symbols.
Knowledge organisers should be developed over time by
individual departments, giving them sufficient time to consider what a
knowledge organiser should look like for them and to allow them to be written
properly.
How are you using them?
When I first used knowledge organisers, I gave every child a
copy and gave them the homework task of “learn about *topic* using your
knowledge organiser. You will be quizzed on it next lesson.” This did not go
well: A few pupils read the knowledge organisers fastidiously and were able to
easily commit the content to memory with their own, independent work. Most
pupils read the knowledge organiser, did nothing else with it, and, as a
result, learned very little (and didn’t know why). Their lack of success in
their starter quizzes at the beginning of the lesson appeared to demotivate
many and, over time, engagement with knowledge organisers decreased.
We now give every child a set of questions about each
(numbered) section of the knowledge organiser which they answer at home and we
check in class. These sets of questions and answers then become retrieval
practice which is also set as a homework task. This has proven much more
effective.
Research shows us that novices often cannot differentiate
between activities which they find easy and activities which are effective. If
pupils are given the knowledge organiser with little instruction other than to “learn”
it, the majority will opt for ineffective methods or will not bother at all. This
new approach appears to work because it not only forces pupils to closely read knowledge
organiser, but it is based around methods which have been proven to be
effective, such as retrieval practice.
How were they written?
I regularly post up pages from my knowledge organisers onto
my twitter and my Dropbox has a number of examples of knowledge organisers
which I have written. This may be something which I should stop doing…
I have had the “revision guides/textbooks vs. knowledge
organisers” discussions with many people and my argument always comes down to
this: if a textbook was completely in line with the specification, how/what I
teach, and principles of cognitive science (and if every single child had a
copy which they could take home and keep), I would be more than happy to use
them instead of knowledge organisers. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a textbook
or revision guide which meets these lofty standards.
Following on from this argument, I believe that knowledge
organisers are most effective when they are an integrated part of a topic,
rather than being a bolt on about the same topic which has been downloaded from
the TES. This approach inevitably caused an initial increase in workload. However,
as a department, we now find that knowledge organisers are now being tweaked
year on year, rather than having to be rewritten (or redownloaded) annually.
When were they written?
A friend of mine told me that, at their previous school, SLT
decided that knowledge organisers were a good thing and so should be written
for every subject within or two or three week deadline in the middle of a
school year. Equally, when I first started writing knowledge organisers I
produced them on a lesson by lesson basis according to what I was planning to
teach for that particular lesson. Both of these approaches are fundamentally
flawed.
Knowledge organisers are not and should not be an easy thing
to write; significant time should be ensuring that they are carefully
sequenced, presenting the information in the clearest and most succinct way
possible and deciding both what should be left in and (arguably more
importantly) what can be left out. This can only be achieved if knowledge
organisers are written when the unit is being planned (as Ben Newmark suggests,
after the schema and scheme of work has been defined) and well before
it is taught, to allow sufficient time for it to be organised, planned, written
and revised.
Comments
Post a Comment