| Focus area 1.1 Physical, social and intellectual development and characteristics of students Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of physical, social and intellectual development and characteristics of students and how these may affect learning. Focus area 1.5 Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of strategies for differentiating teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities. |
I had the pleasure of teaching a Year 10 mathematics class while on my most recent placement. The class was “core mathematics”, with most of the students achieving C’s and D’s. They saw their inclusion in a “core” class as being reflective of their mathematics ability and potential, which negatively impacted their self-efficacy and maths anxiety (1.1). Understanding the psychosocial, cognitive and physical development of the students is essential in tailoring a suitable pedagogy (1.1), and informing suitable strategies to cater for the specific needs of every student (1.5).
Maths anxiety negatively impacts performance up to 34%, so I wanted to ease anxiety by connecting with the students first, to build a safe, positive and trusting environment (Hiller et al., 2021; Goss et al., 2017) (1.1). I used a class list with photos to practice students’ names and engaged in conversation with students before and after class to show my interest in them as individuals (1.1). Students participated in a “get to know you” activity (Artefact 1a), writing or drawing 3 things about themselves. I modelled this activity by sharing information about myself, to cater for students who learn best through demonstration (1.5) and to gain students’ trust (1.1). Evidence shows that creating trust and connections at the beginning of learning leads to improved behavioural engagement (Goss et al., 2017; Duchesne & McMaugh, 2019).
I combined my knowledge of the students with their assessment results and OneSchool data, to tailor the lessons to meet their individual needs (1.1) (1.5). At the start of each lesson, I used varied resources to gain students’ attention and provided clear learning goals (1.1) (Duchesne & McMaugh, 2019). I positioned the learning goals in the wider learning context (Artefact 1b) by using a concept map to show the relationship between, and progression of, the main learning areas. Students that needed extra support, were provided with scaffolded supports such as formulas written on the board at the start of each lesson, and steps on how to approach a question. I utilised the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to create alternative ways of communicating information, through verbalising, text and demonstrations (1.1) (Cast, 2018). I taught a strategy for remembering how to convert units of measurement, by organising information in a drawing and provided opportunities for practice, so the strategy moved from working memory to long term memory (1.1) (Duchesne & McMaugh, 2019). Students ready to engage in higher-order thinking, were catered for with background information on why the conversion worked, with links to metalanguage to help with remembering (1.1) (Goos et al., 2017). Knowing that more than half of the class struggled with maths, I used multiple and varied experiences, as identified from Information-Processing research (Duchesne & McMaugh, 2019), such as videos, photos, diagrams, and real-life examples.
I included a collaborative activity for it’s evidence-based effectiveness for this age group and value in reducing maths anxiety (1.1) (Duchesne & McMaugh, 2019; Koch, 2018; Pendergast & Main, 2017). It involved students pairing with a partner to create a design of their choice, with their partner calculating the area (Artefact 1c). The freedom of choice allowed students to enter the activity at a level suited to their need (1.5), which is supported in the UDL framework (Cast, 2018). Introducing a collaborative activity resulted in significantly more emotional engagement (Duchesne & McMaugh, 2019), as observed by the volume of maths related chatter in the room, excitement and participation. My mentor’s comments reflected this engagement (Artefact 1d).
Providing more collaborative experiences in the classroom is a goal for my Graduate Teacher Performance Assessment (GTPA) next year. I will review my lesson reflections over my previous professional placements, to identify the learning activities which provided engagement and achievement of learning goals, as well as research education website for other ideas. Providing challenging and engaging learning opportunities and building my repertoire of activities, will assist me in achieving proficiency in my first year of teaching.
References
CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Duchesne, S. & McMaugh, A. (2019). Educational psychology for learning and teaching (6th ed.). Cengage Learning Australia.
Goos, M., Vale, C., Stillman, G., Makar, K., Herbert, S., & Geiger, V. (2017). Teaching secondary school mathematics: research and practice for the 21st century (2nd ed.). Allen & Unwin.
Goss, P., Sonnemann, J., & Griffiths, K. (2017). Engaging students: creating classrooms that improve learning. Grattan Institute.
Hiller, S.E., Kitsantas, A., Cheema, J.E. & Poulou, M. (2021). Mathematics anxiety and self-efficacy as predictors of mathematics literacy. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1868589
Koch, I. (2018). Maths anxiety: students, pre- and in-service teachers. Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute: AMSI Choose Maths Research, 4. 1-31. https://amsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/researchreport4-maths_anxiety_students_and_teachers.pdf
Pendergast, D., & Main, K. (2017). Quality teaching and learning. In D. Pendergast, K. Main & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching Middle Years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (3rd ed.). 66-80. Allen & Unwin
