Standard 2: Know the Content and How to Teach It

2.2 Content selection and organisation: Organise content into an effective learning and teaching sequence.

2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting: Use curriculum, assessment and reporting knowledge to design learning sequences and lesson plans.

(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2022, para. 2)

This instructional context took place in a grade three classroom of 20 students, where I comprehensively and thoughtfully planned a Humanities and Social Sciences (HaSS) mini-unit underpinned by the design elements of deep learning and data-driven instruction (APST 2.3). The concept for this teaching sequence came during a morning meeting, as I asked students to share key dates to be added to the classroom calendar. The suggestion to include National Sorry Day confused yet fascinated the class, as many children had never heard of this commemorative event. It was this discussion that led me to organise content into a personalised, student-centred sequence with an authentic real-world connection the children were eager to delve into (APST 2.2; 2.3) (Fullan & Scott, 2014).

To effectively develop the HaSS unit, I implemented a backward design perspective, utilising the analysed results of the student data, seen in Artefact 2.1, to frame a teaching and learning sequence relevant to the class (APST 2.3) (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). It became apparent through whole-class discussion that the topic of National Sorry Day, sparked student interest and curiosity. As an effective educator, I mindfully considered this context an opportunity to personalise the curriculum and provoke a deep learning experience (APST 2.2; 2.3). With these anticipated learning intentions, I applied thorough understanding of the curriculum to align content explicitly with the grade-level achievement standards and content descriptions, seen in Artefact 2.2 (APST 2.3). This deep learning context optimised the Cross-curriculum priority, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures, to enrich the content authentically to allow students to engage with and better understand the relevancy of National Sorry Day (APST 2.2; 2.3) (Quinn et al., 2019). I demonstrated my competency to strategically organise this content by proficiently framing an overarching unit question, learning goals, and a subsequent summative assessment, seen in Artefact 2.3 (APST 2.2). This culminating task was formulated in conjunction with curriculum content, students’ identified needs, and the underlying deep learning question, to create an authentic, purposeful assessment experience (APST 2.2; 2.3) (Autin & Davis, 2020). This involved the class cooperatively conducting a group presentation to raise awareness of National Sorry Day at a community event, moving education beyond the classroom and into the real-world (Quinn et al., 2019).

Artefact 2.1: Representation of the student data and analysis.

Artefact 2.2: The unit overview with explicit alignment to the Australian Curriculum (Verrall, 2023).

_{Artefact 2.3: An overview of the deep learning unit question, learning goals and summative assessment task.}

The implementation of a backwards design perspective to optimise the selection of curriculum content proved to be highly successful (APST 2.2; 2.3) (Autin & Davis, 2020). My initial idea to develop the HaSS unit from an authentic conversation I encountered with my class, enabled me to organise content into an effectively designed, deep learning sequence that my students were intuitively interested in (Quinn et al., 2019). This curiosity, motivated students to enthusiastically delve into lessons and immerse themselves in real-life experiences that enhanced their education and attainment of the learning goals (APST 2.2) (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). I appraised my deep learning sequence through the collation of students’ summative assessment results, seen in Artefact 2.4. This comparison highlighted whole-class growth, and provided me with confidence in my proficient application of a successfully organised, effective learning and teaching sequence in accordance with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST 2.2; 2.3) (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2022).

_{Artefact 2.4: Representation of student data from the summative assessment, and a comparison between the classes’ diagnostic data, prior to the learning and learning sequence.}

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2018). Australian Curriculum: Foundation to year 10 curriculum: Humanities and social sciences (HASS): Year 3 level description (Version 8.4). The Australian Curriculum. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2022). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) (Rev. Ed.). https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf

Autin, N., & Davis, T. (2020). The cognitive trio: Backward design, formative assessment, and differentiated instruction. Research Issues in Contemporary Education, 5(2), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2019v44.n11.4

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Pearson Education Australia.

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world change the world (1st ed.). Sage Publications.

Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2014). Education plus [Whitepaper]. Collaborative Impact SPC. https://www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Education-Plus-A-Whitepaper-July-2014-1.pdf

Quinn, J., McEachen, J., Fullan, M., Gardner, M., & Drummy, M. (2019). Dive into deep learning: Tools for engagement (1st ed.). Sage Publications.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.