Standard 1:
Know students and how they learn
'All students deserve and should have teachers who understand them as learners, who have high and appropriate expectations of and for them and who have strong pedagogical content knowledge' (Pantaleo, 2016, p. 90).
Vygotsky, observing that 'the child develops not just as an individual, but as a member of a particular society and culture', proposes that students learn best within a 'zone of proximal development' (Duchesne & McMaugh, 2016, p. 102). This means the right level of challenge occurs when the student can master a task with the assistance of a more experienced person.
Given the right scaffolding, anyone can learn. Of course the cognitive dimension of learning is only one piece of the puzzle. Students enter the classroom as whole beings, with histories, home lives, emotions and bodies, all of which affect cognitive functioning. The implication of Maslow's (1943) hierarchy is that students' physiological, safety, love and esteem needs precede their cognitive needs.
I believe it is the teacher's duty to ensure students' lower order needs are met before their higher order needs.
Much of learning is intrinsically connected to students' identities, therefore teachers are in the business of doing identity work (Pirbhai-Illich, 2010). This involves reinforcing positive self-concepts, setting achievable goals, and providing opportunities for students to explore and express identity.
I believe in the efficacy of UDL (universal design for learning) principles to include diverse students. This means designing programs and tasks where choice--of topic, of action, of representation--is central (Hall et al, 2012).
Teachers teach people, not just content. My classroom is a space which caters for diversity, including cultural, socio-economic, gender and linguistic diversity, as well as making provisions for students with learning difficulties and disabilities.
Keep scrolling to view evidence of my proficiency in relation to Standard 1.
Scroll Down
Evidence 1: Learning Profile Survey
Evidence 1: Theoretical knowledge about how students learn is important. However, getting to know each student and how they learn best requires time and one-on-one interaction. To show students I'm interested in their personal preferences, at the beginning of term, I use SurveyMonkey to garner information from students about their interest in and enjoyment of the subject, their personal passions, and what they would like to learn more about. I also include an open-ended question: "Is there anything Ms Young needs to know about you as an English student? (i.e. interests, strengths, weaknesses, learning difficulties, learning preferences, etc.)" The data I receive from this Learning Profile survey allows me to differentiate my learning activities and classroom discourse to students' interests and needs (focus areas: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 5.1).
Evidence 2: Differentiated Unit Plan, Implementation and Reflection
Planning
Inclusion is ‘set of processes concerned with identifying and removing barriers for groups and individuals who are at risk of being marginalised or excluded’ (Jarvis, 2013, p. 55). Planning for inclusive teaching programs and activities means planning according to student readiness, interests and learning profiles (Tomlinson, 2008).
The differentiated unit (above), “Emoji and Language”, was designed with UDL principles in mind for a specific Yr. 7 class at my final placement school. The aim of the unit was twofold: to analyse the relationship between emoji and language in the digital age, and use emoji to explore how writers create tone, represent body language and generate meaning through traditional writing (focus area: 2.1, 2.5.).
The two formative exercises and summative task were all differentiated according to readiness using a three-tier model. Additionally, the summative task was differentiated according to interest and learning profile (focus areas: 1.3, 1.5). A pre-assessment at the beginning of the unit was intended to place students according to their readiness tiers. Students would be grouped according to readiness and assigned relevant formative exercises, with extra scaffolds for the lowest tier and added challenge for the highest. The formative exercises would be used to gauge students’ proximity to learning objectives and guide future teaching decisions leading up to the summative task (focus areas: 2.3, 5.1).
I had constructed what I thought was an ideally differentiated unit. But then, of course, reality incurred upon my program.
Implementation
I used a PowerPoint presentation to scaffold the concepts and activities in the unit, as well as to convey the history of emoji (pictograms) and examples of their multivalent usage (see below).
A technical error meant that I couldn't do my Plickers pre-assessment. Time was against me, so I scrapped the pre-assessment and got students started on the first exercise. This exercise was straight-forward. Helps were made available to everyone, though only a few students used them: students with learning disabilities, which was not surprising. A few students did not answer one of the more abstract questions, telling me more scaffolding around the concept of language was required. The formative assessments effectively highlighted the lacunae in understanding (focus area: 5.1).
The second exercise was more difficult and there were three different versions of the task. I had intended to group students according to readiness, but what I discovered was that students work at very different paces. Students were finishing Exercise One and I had to get them doing something—it had to be Exercise Two.
The good thing about getting individuals started on Exercise Two ad hoc was that I could direct students to a version of the task depending on what I thought they were ready for. For low tier students, I advised them to start with the standard exercise but opt for the exercise with helps if they were struggling.
As I circulated the room, I found that no-one was choosing the highly scaffolded version. Most went straight to the standard task, with only several students choosing the challenging task. In the few cases where students were struggling with the standard exercise, I advised them to open the document with helps, but found that I also had to verbally coach them along. This raised the question of whether the pre-prepared written ‘helps’ were effective at all. Perhaps what these students need is verbal, one-on-one help from the teacher. Vygotsky's 'zone of proximal development' was becoming a lived experience (focus areas: 3.3, 3.6).
I was learning a few things about classroom learning and differentiation by now: always have an anchor task; students work at very different paces; students finishing tasks at different times can have the unintended benefit of allowing the teacher to steer students in the right ‘readiness’ direction; and perhaps having a low-tier version is not all that beneficial.
Once students had finished their exercises it was time for the Summative Assessment. I was particularly proud of this one. Students had a choice of three different tasks, each with helps by way of exemplars and sentence starters; each with extensions and enrichment opportunities. What I found, however, was that 90% of the class went for the same option: the creative task.
Students were highly engaged. They enjoyed creating their own emoji and explaining how it would benefit digital communications. I found that most students took on my extension and enrichment opportunities—indicating that my criteria could have been more rigorous from the outset, with only a handful of students needing help. But what they needed help with turned out to be entirely unanticipated.
I had not considered that Yr. 7 students might need scaffolding around what an ‘explanation’ is. I had assumed that writing an explanation was self-explanatory. I was wrong. Indeed, I found myself doing explicit teaching around concepts I had not planned for, clarifying unforeseen issues, coaching students despite all the exemplars and sentence starters I made available. I found myself working hard to ensure every individual was on track to succeed at the task (focus areas: 2.5, 3.3, 5.1).
I learned that in the future I need to plan less but plan more intelligently. I need to have quick, reliable methods of pre-assessing readiness; I need to set more rigorous criteria from the outset and adjust these criteria for struggling students; I need to consider ways to create more challenge for gifted or advanced students (other than vocabulary lists); and I need to anticipate misconceptions when planning a unit (focus area: 3.6).
It was pleasing to see students create emoji which expressed their individual identities. See the carousel below to view student work samples (note that written explanations attended these creations). The YouTube Emoji (third one along) is the work of a student with ASD, whose passion for YouTube found an outlet in this unit. In a subsequent Public Speaking unit, I also allowed him to make a YouTube video rather than deliver a live speech to the class (focus areas: 1.5, 1.6).
Please respect the intellectual property of these students by not reproducing these images
Evidence 3: Differentiated Lesson Plan and Liaison Feedback
Evidence 3: Differentiating learning involves actively planning classroom activities tailored to the range of readiness levels and the needs of a specific cohort. My lesson plan (above left) demonstrates my consideration of two ASD students when planning a class activity.
Having spent a couple of weeks getting to know the class, I was able to predict that this activity--a Chinese Whispers writing task--might prove too overwhelming for the ASD students, both of whom had low literacy and struggled with fast-paced, writing-heavy tasks (focus area: 1.1). I planned to involve the two students at first, monitor their engagement, and change tack if required. My back-up plan was to involve them in Education Perfect tasks targeted to their English language needs (focus area 1.5, 2.6).
As per my liaison's feedback (above right), I did have to change tack with the ASD students, and they were content to get on their laptops and complete the Education Perfect tasks. My liaison's comments regarding the content and management of this lesson and these students were largely positive (focus areas: 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 4.2).
While I did consider the ASD students in my planning, upon reflection I ought to have devised a learning activity where the learning objective--to practise persuasive writing skills--was the same as the rest of the class, but required less written output from the ASD students. Having common learning goals is a key principle of differentiation (Tomlinson, 2008) which I overlooked in this case but endeavour not to in the future (focus area: 3.6).
Evidence 4: Indigenous Heroines
Evidence 4: On my first placement I taught an integrated Yr. 9 History/English unit, called 'Making a Nation', where the emphasis was on Indigenous resistance and perspectives (focus area: 2.4). In previous iterations of the unit, there was no female representation. One of my innovations was to research, include and valorise the stories of Indigenous women from history, namely Fanny Cochrane-Smith and Truganini, figures who the students had no previous knowledge of.
My decision to include Indigenous women was driven, in part, by the fact that two Indigenous girls were in my cohort and I felt it was particularly important for them to learn about Indigenous heroines/role models (focus area: 1.4). For the summative assessment, students had to represent a non-European historical figure's experience of early colonial Australia, and it was pleasing to see one of the Indigenous girls opt for Truganini.
Standards Covered:
1.1 Physical, social and intellectual development and characteristics of students
Proficient: Use teaching strategies based on knowledge of students' physical, social and intellectual development and characteristics to improve student learning.
1.2 Understand how students learn
Proficient: Structure teaching programs using research and collegial advice about how students learn
1.3 Students with diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds
Proficient: Design and implement teaching strategies that are responsive to the learning strengths and needs of students from diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds
1.4 Strategies for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students
Proficient: Design and implement effective teaching strategies that are responsive to the local community and cultural setting, linguistic background and histories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students
1.5 Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities
Proficient: Develop teaching activities that incorporate differentiated strategies to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities
1.6 Strategies to support full participation of students with disability
Proficient: Design and implement teaching activities that support the participation and learning of students with disability and address relevant policy and legislative requirements.
2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area
Proficient: Apply knowledge of the content and teaching strategies of the teaching area to develop engaging teaching activities
2.2 Content selection and organisation
Proficient: Organise content into coherent, well-sequenced learning and teaching programs
2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting
Proficient: Design and implement learning and teaching programs using knowledge of curriculum, assessment and reporting requirements.
2.4 Understand and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians
Proficient: Provide opportunities for students to develop understanding of and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories, cultures and languages.
2.5 Literacy and numeracy strategies
Proficient: Apply knowledge and understanding of effective teaching strategies to support students' literacy and numeracy achievement
2.6 Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
Proficient: Use effective teaching strategies to integrate ICT into learning and teaching programs to make selected content relevant and meaningful.
3.1 Establish challenging learning goals
Proficient: Set explicit, challenging and achievable goals for all students
3.3 Use teaching strategies
Proficient: Select and use relevant teaching strategies to develop knowledge, skills, problem solving and critical and creative thinking
3.4 Select and use teaching resources
Proficient: Select and/or create and use a range of resources, including ICT to engage students in their learning
3.5 Use effective classroom communication
Proficient: Use effective verbal and non-verbal communication strategies to support student understanding, participation, engagement and achievement
3.6 Evaluate and improve teaching programs
Proficient: Evaluate personal teaching and learning programs using evidence, including feedback from students and student assessment data, to inform planning
4.1 Support student participation
Proficient: Establish and implement inclusive and positive interactions to engage and support all students in classroom activities
4.2 Manage classroom activities
Proficient: Establish and maintain orderly and workable routines to create an environment where student time is spent on learning tasks
5.1 Assess student learning
Proficient: Develop, select and use informal and formal diagnostic, formative and summative assessment strategies to assess student learning.
References:
Duchesne, S., & McMaugh, Anne. (2016). Educational psychology : For learning and teaching (5th ed.). South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage Learning.
Hall, T.E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D.H. (2012) (Eds.). Universal Design for Learning in the Classroom: Practical Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Jarvis, J. (2013). “Differentiating learning experiences for diverse students’. Learning to teach in the primary school, edited by Hudson, P., Port Melbourne, Vic., Cambridge University Press, 52-70.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Pantaleo, S. (2016). Teacher expectations and student literacy engagement and achievement. Literacy, 50(2), 83-92.
Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2010). Aboriginal Students Engaging and Struggling With Critical Multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(4), 257-266.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). The Goals of Differentiation. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 26-30.