Skip to main content

Sharing resources

A few times recently I have come across colleagues online who feel they do not have access to adequate resources in their schools. A colleague who I used to work with has moved to a new school where they do not have any established resource bank or protocols for sharing resources they make.

I find it surprising there there still seem to be departments which are not efficiently set up with this in mind.

One job of a Head of Department is to ensure his or her colleagues have access to all the resources they need and that there is a culture of sharing. If there is healthy discussion going on within the department, then sharing resources follows naturally.

It appears that some teachers are reluctant to share what they have produced because they resent the fact that their colleagues are not doing the same. Why should they also get the fruits of my labours? Whilst I understand this sentiment, I do not support it. If the goal of a department is to get all students to achieve their best, then any means are good and teachers should be happy to disseminate their resources. If you willingly share over a period, the practice may even catch on.

Having said this, if a department is well resourced already (probably with good textbooks and online content), there should be no great need to produce a large number of new materials. Even so, some teachers like to tailor-make resources for their classes or simply enjoy the creative experience of writing new materials. I certainly do.

How can resources be shared within a department most effectively? Here are some thoughts:

  • Every time you write a new resource leave a hard copy in your colleagues' pigeon holes/lockers.

  • Every time to write a resource send it by email to all your department members .

  • Have a clear and comprehensive physical filing system, strategically located. A good filing cabinet costs about £70.

  • As a performance management target encourage colleagues to produce a set of resources with a specific purpose in line with the department's wider goals. Make it their target.

  • Create a website to which you can upload resources for your colleagues (and the wider world) to use. That's how I started frenchteacher.net and it soon became a standard departmental resource bank.

  • Store resources digitally on your school's intranet, if they have one.

  • Devote some regular meeting time to sharing what you have created. This may encourage less confident or willing staff to join in. Talking about resources is far more useful and interesting than talking about Ofsted or targets.

  • Join the MFL resources Yahoo forum.

  • Every time you find a resource online (e.g. via TES) download it and share it by the means above.

  • Use Google Sites, Google Docs or Dropbox to share resources.

  • Create ring-binder files for each department member in which they can store copies of worksheets etc for each year group. Include unit assessment materials.

  • Get A-level or very good GCSE students to create worksheets themselves, which you can then correct, adapt or just share. They will learn from the process.

  • Have a small departmental library of books on pedagogy from which colleagues can get ideas.

  • Go and talk with a department in another school to see what they do. This could be a performance management target too.


A happy, successful department should be creative and willing to share.


Comments

  1. I love these ideas. Especially the suggestion to put copies of resources in colleagues' pigeonholes. My colleagues have previously said they were 'overwhelmed' by the number of resources I shared (either by email or by linking them from our schemes of work) so I stopped sharing. It may have been better to share resources on paper - easier for them to glance at.

    I found that my 'virtual colleagues' on Twitter are much more receptive to new resources! I now put all my favourite resources on my website resourceaholic.com (maths) which has benefited me and others.

    I also like your suggestion about performance targets. I've previously had a performance target to organise my department's card sorting activities - it really helped to get things in order and make these resources more accessible to all.

    Thanks for all the good ideas!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your feedback. I didn't know maths teachers read my blog!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw this post through the Echo Chamber! :)

      Delete

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

Delayed dictation

Image: pixabay.com What is “delayed dictation”? Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music. It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too. Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating. In our language teaching case, though, the

Using sentence builder frames for GCSE speaking and writing preparation

Some teachers have cottoned on to the fact that sentence builders (aka substitution tables) are a very useful tool for helping students prepare for their GCSE speaking and writing tests. My own hunch is that would help for students of all levels of proficiency, but may be particularly helpful for those likely to get lower grades, say between 3-6. Much depends, of course, on how complex you make the table. To remind you, here is a typical sentence builder, as found on the frenchteacher site. The topic is talking about where you live. A word of warning - formatting blogs in Blogger is a nightmare when you start with Word documents, so apologies for any issues. It might have taken me another 30 minutes just to sort out the html code underlying the original document. Dans ma ville (in my town) Dans ma région (In my area) il y a (there is/are) des banques (banks) des cafés (cafes) des

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can