More marking needed, not less.

The NCETM has just published guidance on marking and feedback for secondary mathematics teaching. I think this should be read alongside OFSTED’s work on marking in their report Mathematics: Made to Measure (para 88 onwards) which goes into much more detail and outlines potential problems, for example with peer or self marking.

Some points about the guidance;

Firstly, many, many schools use online tools for marking homework and classwork. I have sat watching a class working away on an online system, headphones on, in complete silence whilst the teacher did something else at the front. Whether much learning was going on, or whether it was ‘crowd control’ is not to be discussed here. But their work was definitely marked.

However, the NCETM report does not mention the use of technology for marking and feedback at all, which is odd given the prevalence of such services and the effect they have on the learning of mathematics. The OFSTED report does — see paragraph 90 — and is critical of much of it.

Some guidance on the use of technology for practising maths would probably be appreciated by many teachers, students and parents.

Secondly, the NCETM is responsible for co-ordinating the work emanating from the visits to Shanghai. Increasingly, riders are being attached to any discussion of the recommendations for schools that whilst teachers in Shanghai teach for maybe 30% of the school day, this just is not possible in the UK for obvious reasons. I have seen someone say that this is a ‘cultural’ issue.

It is FAR from cultural. Teachers in Shanghai get so much non-contact time because they are given the time to do work deemed essential for success.

Which is providing timely marking and feedback to the students, preparing and planning next lessons and working collaboratively.

The book “How Chinese Teach Mathematics and Improve Teaching” quoted this teacher from Shanghai about marking homework in particular

Note that it is not just about helping the students, but also helping the teachers in their preparation and planning. It also (and importantly for a body working with the CPD of teachers) contributes to the teachers’ CPD.

If the NCETM promote doing LESS marking, all with the laudable aim of removing workload, it may be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am sure the guidance will be welcomed (if only to avoid multiple coloured pens and other ridiculous policies) and less will be done. Less will also be available for the students and teachers to learn from.

In Shanghai though, they do MORE marking and feedback.

Because they have the resources.

Which (inevitably, you will probably groan) brings me back to technology.

If the technology exists that will

— reduce teacher marking workload,

— increase the amount and quality (this is also important, no inbuilt prejudices when a computer marks work) of marking and formative feedback presented to students (and teachers and parents)

— make all this information available at the touch of a button for collaboration and professional development.

Then shouldn’t it be at least mentioned?