Jocelyn Seamer: 'The Value of a Quality Program' and other reviews

This is the hub of the site and the place to post queries, start discussions and join in the conversation!
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Jocelyn Seamer: 'The Value of a Quality Program' and other reviews

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:16 pm

At the time of starting this thread, Assistant Principal Jocelyn Seamer has just recently started a new blog, The No-Nonsense Educator. Already her posts are showing great promise at making a valuable contribution to the reading debate - in particular addressing the 'research to practice' needs of teachers. As a programme writer myself, of course one might accuse me of being biased with regard to the role a quality, systematic phonics programme can fulfil for improved teaching and learning. Having said that, however, you will find me first in the line for promoting the measuring of effectiveness of teaching and learning - for example, I work hard to promote the use of a universal phonics check such as the one used in England (better still, use England's materials which are freely available following their implementation in England).

I am personally constantly calling for teachers to be able to 'evaluate and compare' literacy programmes (particularly systematic synthetic phonics programmes) and so it is really refreshing for me to find a post which is so sensible and rational in outlining the need for teacher knowledge and professionalism (which includes awareness of research findings and the capacity to evaluate provision) alongside the potential benefits of a quality programme - a 'body of work' to support teaching and learning.

In the interests of transparency, I would add that the SSP programme chosen for the schools in Northern Territory is not a programme I am associated with. It is the points raised by Jocelyn which are so important and with which I completely concur:

The Value of a Quality Program


https://nononsenseeducator.home.blog/20 ... y-program/

...I actually think that a program can be an eminently useful and valuable tool in our schools. The problems arise when we rely on the program to be the answer to our educational issues rather than building our own knowledge and capacity to understand quality research and its implications for our practice. Education sectors do indeed need to build capacity of teachers to understand pedagogy, be data-literate and invest the time to critically evaluate research. When we choose a program based on the ‘good vibes’ of other schools or flashy promotions by publishers, we are missing the opportunity to make a wise decision that will impact significantly on our students. Worse still, we may well be choosing a program that promotes practices that hinder progress or result in long-lasting damage to learning and self-esteem.


Jocelyn summarises (after much specific detail included in her post):

So, what is the value of a quality program? As far as I’m concerned, if a program can help my team deliver high quality reading instruction that results in children becoming skilled and confident readers AND help us all get home to eat dinner with our families on time, then I will gladly embrace it.


I have been accused of 'vested interests' on a number of occasions regarding my promotion of systematic synthetic phonics, and I have despaired when academics and others glibly state that 'teachers don't need a programme' (for their phonics teaching), but knowing how supportive and helpful and effective a good phonics 'body of work' (programme) can be, my response is to suggest that:

1) A school's in-house phonics programme and provision should at least match, or be better than, the various (quality) 'off the shelf' programmes that are readily accessible and varied in cost and nature of their resources (in other words, there are good, varied choices).

2) Should teachers even be expected to create a phonics programme, or body of work, as part of their professional duties - and is that likely to match or be better than purpose-designed programmes by phonics/literacy specialists?

3) Do researchers/academics need to build on research findings to date by investigating specific phonics programmes, their results and their similarities and differences to move the reading debate forwards?

4) Are researchers neglecting what is happening in the classroom using different programmes and practices - in other words, is it possible that 'leading-edge practice' is ahead of the research community? Do we have a current 'practice-to-research' neglect? Now, there's a thought!!!

Finally, a well-designed programme is far better used mainly based on the guidance of the author. It is well-known that a good programme can be very badly, or wrongly used, but this in itself can be highlighted through measuring. One good example of this is when a school uses a programme and results rise, but a change of staff, or a two-stream school which compares the effectiveness of provision in parallel classes, or wash-out of use of the programme begins to show through that measuring.

The International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction strongly advises the use of a phonics check for a quick and simple way of measuring teaching-effectiveness and programme-effectiveness:

https://iferi.org/resources-and-guidance/
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Jocelyn Seamer: 'The Value of a Quality Program'

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:35 pm

Jocelyn has written yet another very important post - this time about the phonics resources pinned via Pinterest - which reflect a worrying array of different types of phonics and also activities which are really busy-work and not the best use of time:

A Review of Online Teaching Resources – Pinterest


https://nononsenseeducator.home.blog/20 ... pinterest/

What a very practical and important blogger Jocelyn is turning out to be!
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Jocelyn Seamer: 'The Value of a Quality Program' and other reviews

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:52 pm

Jocelyn is continuing with her fantastic, fair and very important reviews:

A Review of Online Teaching Resources – Teachers Pay Teachers


https://nononsenseeducator.home.blog/20 ... -teachers/

Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests