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
1.2 Understand how students learn
- Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of research into how students learn and the implications for teaching.
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
At an independent all boys school in Toowoomba with a high socio-economic demographic I completed professional experience in a year 2 class for three weeks. During this time, I completed a teaching and learning cycle in the learning area of mathematics, topics of length, area, mass and volume. To begin the learning cycle not only did I spend time creating relationships with each of my students to build rapport and trust, but I also assigned a diagnostic assessment with varying levels of difficulty to ascertain students’ level of abilities. By thoroughly analysing the data from the diagnostic assessment allowed me to understand where to begin explicit teaching and link new content to student’s prior knowledge.
Data informs instruction, providing teachers with student capabilities, identifies gaps in learning and is used in every stage of the teaching and learning cycle to enable effective teaching by tracking student progress (Masters, 2018). Data also allowed me to provide differentiation for students who were identified to require support in the assessed areas. This was implemented individually, through peer support in assigned mixed ability pair work and differentiated tasks. Individualising content allowed me to assign tasks that were within the student’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). Theorist Vygotsky (1978) describes the ZPD as the space in which learning should be targeted to challenge students, but is not out of their reach (Yilmaz, 2011). To identify student’s ZPD I used multiple pieces of formative assessment such as observations and independent work along with the diagnostic assessment. Through the relationship I had built with my students I also understood personality traits and learner characteristics (Yilmaz, 2011). These traits and characteristics helped me identify when a student needed encouragement and guidance or further scaffolding and support or if the content was too challenging and needed to be differentiated. Meeting standard 1.2 and 1.5 understanding how my students learn and the implications for teaching and understanding strategies for differentiating teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students.
Additionally, through observations of the students in the classroom it became apparent that all structured learning needed to be engaging and meaningful for students to remain on task. I accommodated this through active involvement of inquiry-based learning and allowing regular brain breaks. This personalisation of learning for individual students and as a whole class is evidence of standard 1.1 demonstrating knowledge and understanding of physical, social and intellectual development and characteristics of students and how these may affect learning. Please click link to view artefacts of diagnostic assessment, peer support and individualised tasks. As a result, students were engaged in rich discussions, making real-life connections, and had successful outcomes when completing a summative assessment. https://create.usq.edu.au/renee-cook/examples-of-teaching-impact/examples-of-teaching-impact-for-standard-1/
References
Masters, G. (2018). The role of evidence in teaching and learning. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=columnists
Yilmaz, K. (2011). The Cognitive Perspective on Learning: Its Theoretical Underpinnings and Implications for Classroom Practices. Clearing House, 84(5) 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2011.568989
