Focus Area 3.2 Plan, structure and sequence learning programs

Plan lesson sequences using knowledge of student learning, content and effective teaching strategies. Backward planning Outsiders unit

Focus Area 3.4 Select and use resources

Demonstrate knowledge of a range of resources, including ICT, that engage students in their learning.

During my first professional experience placement at a co-educational Catholic secondary school I taught Year 11 Business students who were undertaking a vocational Certificate III Business qualification through a third party provider. This proved challenging as the school did not follow a syllabus or have any curriculum-style learning objectives for me to plan from. After discussion with the teacher, I decided to plan a three-lesson sequence on Personal Finance based on an extension of the Business Skills strand in the Year 10 Australian Curriculum (3.2) (ACHES055, ACHES056, ACHES057, ACHES058) (ACARA, 2017).

This class was accustomed to working autonomously through the VET materials with low teacher instruction, so I designed an interactive unit focused on real life, authentic experiences to engage their interest and overcome any resistance or negative attitudes (Caskey & Anfara, 2014). Using limited student data, I identified that many students had part time jobs and were interested in obtaining their driver’s licence and purchasing a car. Therefore, I took a backward design approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998) and sequenced the lessons logically, culminating in the students’ developing a budget for purchasing a car (3.2) (Artefact 3.1, 3.2, 3.3). The lack of curriculum foci and subsequent absence of student achievement data forced me to incorporate a flexible, responsive approach to lesson planning based on continual formative student feedback (Artefact 3.4, 3.5). I used this information to adapt my teaching during the lesson (reflection in action) and for planning subsequent lessons (reflection on action) (Schön, 1983) (3.2). Using a multiliteracies framework I ensured the lesson sequence provided students with opportunities to work across the four domains: situated practice (using familiar experiences/knowledge to make meaning – developing a personal budget); overt instruction (acquiring new knowledge using known frameworks – applying their personal financial information to obtain insurance quotes); critical framing (critically viewing personal finance issues through social and cultural lenses – making decisions about financial prudence); and transformed practice (applying new knowledge to different situations – identifying appropriate insurance priorities for young people versus the costs associated with insurance) (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009).

Authentic ICT was incorporated in all three lessons including using Excel for developing a personal budget (Artefact 3.6), visiting websites for research and online financial tools, and quizzes for formative feedback (3.2, 3.4) (Artefact 3.5). Technology was critical to performing the tasks, not simply an add-on artefact to the lesson, which is important in activating higher order thinking (Prestridge & Finger, 2017). The lessons included a variety of student configurations depending on the activity: independent work for personal budget development, pairs for calculating the cost of purchasing a car, and small groups for researching types of credit and reporting back to the class on findings. Collaborative learning is preferred by secondary students (Kellough & Kellough, 2008), is a high impact teaching strategy when facilitated by clear instruction and the assignment of roles and responsibilities (Hattie, 2019), and provided an opportunity for differentiation as less financially / technologically literate students could learn from their peers (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). I explicitly taught and modelled key skills for each lesson: setting up the Excel budget, using online insurance and credit tools and directing students to specific websites for research activities. This strategy clarified the learning intentions and success criteria for group work and, combined with frequent questioning, assisted me in gauging the needs of students in relation to the level of instruction required and the pace of the lesson (Hattie, 2019).

Students were engaged from the first lesson and using the Menti survey to anonymously project students’ self-reported strengths and weaknesses on the whiteboard was a successful strategy. Marzano & For describe this engagement strategy as ‘self as stimulus’, where students are used as the subject for motivation and engagement (Marzano & For, 2007). The high utilisation of ICT for each lesson was also highly engaging and resulted in participation from usually quiet / EAL/D students (Goss et al., 2017) (2.4). Formative assessment at the end of each lesson demonstrated substantial new learning and I received positive feedback from my supervising teacher after the final lesson in the sequence on buying a car (Artefact 3.7).        

To meet the proficient level for this standard, I will be required to backward plan larger units of work using the Australian Curriculum (7-10) or senior syllabus. With more time spent in the classroom I am particularly keen to focus on evaluating and improving my teaching programs (3.6) and engaging parents/carers in the educative process (3.7).