From: Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca>

Date: March 4, 2010 5:39:52 AM PST

To: Matthew Lynn <mlynn@uvic.ca>

Subject: Re: Data Analysis AfL

Hi Matthew, begins to look great. Here some feedback on one section. Then you can go back and check the other section for similar issues.

Effects of Combining ‘Traffic Lights’ and a ‘No Hands up Policy’

This final section evaluates the effect of combining ‘traffic lights’ and the ‘no hands up policy’ on students demonstrating initial knowledge of material. At the start of class, students held up their individual ‘correct’ answers identifying the degree of knowledge they had on lesson material using traffic lights. Their upward hand gestures reaffirmed that they were able to input a ‘correct response’ in response to the teacher’s request to ‘show me’ in

Img 1.1

Img 1.2

Img 1.3

Img 1.4

Img 1.5

Img 1.6

relation to first impression of material. In turn 02 and 03 the teacher again confirmed that ‘looking’, ‘showing’ and ‘seeing’ related to generating ‘right’ and ‘correct’ answers. For example: “look at this, see part one..k…Right…25.73 to correct to…” This teaching technique confirms that as a student showing equates to knowing. This concept was fully engaged by the class in ‘showing’ their knowledge of what their ‘first impressions’ (turn 01) were of the material. In the following screenshots, Students #2 through #9 held up a green or yellow traffic light and in succession held up their hands to show their knowledge on questions posed by the teacher. These students ignored [[we don't know whether they actually ignored it. The data you have that they do not enact behavior consistent with it, so that after the fact we can say that what they do is not consistent with the rule. Remember, we do not behave by following rules. We are not cultural dopes, who machine-like implement rules or make conscious decisions to avoid or implement them]] the ‘no hands up policy’ and as the teacher identified in turn 06 these students ‘were dying to speak out’, ‘find it boring if they can’t and become ‘frustrated’ which evolved into visual inattentiveness in green and yellow lights student evidenced in the following images for students #1 through #9. Compounding the disengagement [[it would be good if you used the term before, then "compounding" would be given weight]]], the teacher only praises students that she selected to answer questions in a ‘no hands up environment.’ [[this is good because you base it on observation]] The majority of student feedback was in the form of scolding for raising hands (with 5 incidences of scolding for having hands up, versus 2 incidences of praise which were confined to teacher choice) with no opportunity to access praise unless specifically selected by the teacher or passed on third party by another student. The lesson became a carrot and stick environment [[I would want you to build up to this statement, show how it becomes a carrot-and-stick environment by building up from the analysis]] where the carrot is ultimately praise and the stick represented questions[[why not develop this in a couple of sentences prior to saying, "because praise follows when the students did . . . we can think of this by means of the analogy to a carrot-and-stick environment. [[[explicate]]] The carrot was kept unattainable unless determined by the teacher (or a pass it on by an unconfident student) adding to green and yellow student dissatisfaction. This aided student disconnection to the lesson with 7 students playing with traffic lights instruments in img 2.27.[[[Because you are building on this, you want to clearly build a foundation that takes you to the analogy

Traffic lights use in conjunction with no hands up disengaged students on three levels. First, Traffic lights reinforced a show-to-know gesture-based ‘hands-up policy’ which was reinforced by teaching style. [[[when you say "reinforced," then it sounds that the students behaved like machines following something the teacher says. The students contribute actively in producing the phenomenon. Think about everything you observe as requiring the collaboration of teachers and students Second, traffic lights restricted access to praise for students who indicated being able to answer questions. Third, and lastly, it promoted disengagement through student frustration leading to inattentiveness which was directly caused by a ‘no hands up policy’ in 9 of 18 students. Further in 7 of 18 students the application of traffic lights compounded inattentiveness through misuse of traffic light instruments by students. [[Always be careful that you do not get into a causal language, because we always have choices, human beings are not machines that work on the push of a button; it always can be otherwise.

This is great. I hope my comments allow you to go back and work through the entire piece. You have done an enormous and important piece of the work. 

Cheers,

Michael