Assessment 2

Science Lesson Plan Analysis and Revision

Xinyue (Ivy) Zhang

19935267
Quality Teaching Analysis

1 Intellectual quality
1.1 Deep knowledge
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

Both the teacher and students provided information, reasoning and arguments
that address the intricacy of renewable and non-renewable resources, and the
relationship between non-renewable resources and the Earth’s natural
environment. Replacing non-renewable resources with biodegradable resources
was a clear focus within the lesson.

1.2 Deep understanding

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

Students explored the cause and effect relationships between non-renewable

resources and the Earth’s natural environment, came up with individual
solutions of developing bio-degradable bags to replace polyethylene bags with
the teacher’s guidance and constructed explanations for their design. However,
students did not draw their own conclusions in a relatively integrated way.

1.3 Problematic knowledge

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

The teacher gave students opportunities to explore not only the reason why
people use polyethylene bags quite often but also the damage they do to the
natural environment. Besides, the teacher allowed students to develop their own
solutions / designs to replace the polyethylene bags with papers.

1.4 Higher-order thinking

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:
 The teacher provided opportunities for students to develop and improve their
own biodegradable bags. Most students combined facts and ideas to arrive at
their interpretation in terms of the benefit to use renewable resources.

1.5 Metalanguage
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

During the lesson, some terminologies such as biodegradable, polyethylene

were used to describe the nature / composition of the resources being used for
waste management. However, no instructions or help with the professional
language was provided.

1.6 Substantive communication

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

There was continuous interaction in the entire lesson and the communication
were focused on the essence of the lesson. Oral, written and symbolic
communication methods were adopted in the lesson and students could learn
from each other when they share their thoughts and ideas.

2 Quality learning environment

2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

The teacher gave several direct instructions in terms of what to do, and included
technical and procedural criteria. However, no explicit statements were made
in terms of the quality of work (For instance, when he asked students to improve
the design of paper bin liners, there was no detailed criteria regarding the
quality of the expected bin liners.).

2.2 Engagement
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:
 All students in the class, almost all of the time, were on-task following teacher’s
instructions and engaged in the lesson. They followed the teacher’s instructions
and took the work seriously. Also, from their enthusiasm for the work, we can
tell that they were trying really hard.

2.3 High expectations

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

All students participated in challenging work (including identifying the causes

and effects of using polyethylene bags, developing solutions and improving the
design of paper bin liners) throughout the lesson processes. They were
stimulated to put in great effort and to take some risks (eg. failure to identify
enough elements, or failure to make a better design) and were recognised for
doing so.

2.4 Social support

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

Think-pair-share activities and making paper bin liners were involved in the
lesson which allowed for all students to make commitments and collaborate.
These activities, together with discussions provided opportunities for students
to understand and value each other.

2.5 Students’ self-regulation

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

All students, almost all of the time, demonstrated initiative in following the
teacher’s instructions and regulating their own behaviour. The teacher didn’t
waste any time, or have to waste precious time in the lesson, on discipling
students’ behaviour or regulating their movements.

2.6 Student direction

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:
 There was no evidence showing any student direction. The teacher clearly
designated every part of the lesson to students.

3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

Students’ out-of-school background knowledge was consistently incorporated

into the lesson in terms of waste management. Activities such as think-pair-
share activities, mapping cause and effects of using polyethylene bags, and
designing the replacement bin liners were undertaken to assess prior school
knowledge.

3.2 Cultural knowledge

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

The teacher failed to introduce any cultural knowledge into the lesson. Neither
did he show/convey value of other knowledge apart from the dominant culture
in the lesson.

3.3 Knowledge integration

1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

Many meaningful connections were made between waste management and the
influence on the natural environment by the teacher and students during the
lesson, such as marine animals suffocate after mistaken polyethylene bags for
food, polyethylene bags remain in environment for over 1000 years, etc.

3.4 Inclusivity
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:
 Students from all groups in the classroom were involved in every part of the
lesson activities and their contributions were recognised and valued. There was
no evidence of discrimination or injustice.

3.5 Connectedness
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

Students had a chance to explore the links between the knowledge they gain in
the classroom (biodegradable resources) and situations beyond classroom
(waste management, use of bin liners) in ways that establish personal meaning
and highlighted the importance of using renewable resources. This was strong
enough to guide students into the effort to influence those who are not in the
classroom.

3.6 Narrative
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:

Narrative was used sometimes as a minor part of the lesson. Students

constructed their own stories related to waste management when they were
identifying / discussing causes and effects of using polyethylene bags and
improving the design of paper bin liners.

Four Areas for Improvement

QT model
1) 1.5 Metalanguage 2) 2.1 Explicit quality criteria
3) 2.6 Student direction 4) 3.2 Cultural knowledge

Revised Lesson Plan – Bin Liners

 Syllabus: Science Stage: Stage 4 Topic: Earth and Space

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

SC4-13ES Explains Informal formative ES3 Scientific Classify a range of the
how advances in assessment. knowledge influences Earth’s resources as
scientific the choices people renewable or non-
understanding of make in regard to the renewable.
processes that occur use and management of
within and on the Earth the Earth’s resources. Investigate some
influence the choices strategies used by
people make about people to conserve and
resource use and manage non-renewable
management. resources, e.g.
recycling and the
alternative use of
natural and made
resources.

Time Teaching and Learning Actions

5 min Lesson Preliminaries/Administration
 Settle students into the classroom.
 Mark the roll.

5 mins Direct Instruction

 Welcome students and remind them of the topic.
 Ask students what they took away from the previous lesson. Use metalanguage
to assist their recalling.
 Identify the language or symbolic features that are essential for developing deep
understanding of renewable resources. Clarify meanings and definitions with
students.
  Introduce students to high density polyethylene as a non-renewable resource
used to make plastic bags.
 Key ideas for this lesson are cause and effect with questions being “why do we
use so many plastic bags in Australia?” and “what is the effect on the
environment?”
 Another key idea is solutions with questions being “what have governments
done to solve problems caused by plastic bags?” and “what can citizens do to
solve problems caused by plastic bags?”
 Give overview of activity:
 Designing renewable alternatives to plastic bags using newspapers.
Teacher will show students a design and they will improve that design.
 Give overview of thinking tools to be used:
 Think-pair-share
 Cause-effect map
 Pros-Cons-Questions

10 mins Think-Pair-Share Activity

 Give students true/false statements worksheet with questions like “the average
plastic bag is used for only 5 minutes but can take up to 1,000 years to break
down in the environment.”
 Students have 2 minutes to individually answer the questions (think).
 Students then have 1 minute to discuss their responses with the student sitting
next to them (pair).
 Teacher will then lead class discussion based on worksheets for 5 minutes
(share).
10 mins Cause-Effect Mapping Activity
 Give students cause-effect map worksheets.
 Students have 2 minutes to think of as many reasons for why we use so many
plastic bags in Australia and around the world (different cultural settings and
across social groups).
 Go around the class to check student understanding. Highlight the link between
the causes identified and the production of high density polyethylene bags.
  Students have 2 minutes to list as many sub-effects of the production and use of
plastic bags. Circulate to assist students.
 Teacher leads brief class discussion to summarise the environmental effects
identified by the students. Also identify some specific influence on different
social groups.
5 mins Solutions Brainstorming Activity
 Introduce practices and events from diverse cultural backgrounds undertaken to
reduce the use of non-renewable resources
 Students to brainstorm solutions by governments from different countries and
across social groups
5 mins Direct Instruction
 Teacher to show students how to construct a biodegradable bin liner by folding 4
sheets of newspaper. The bin liner will fit into the teacher’s waste-paper basket.
5 mins Pros-Cons Activity
 Teacher invites students to highlight the pros and cons of the biodegradable bin
liners.
15 mins Student-Centred Activity
 Students to choose learning tasks: work in random pairs/groups to identify ways
to help with the environment (either to improve the bin liners shown by the
teacher or to incorporate other designs using biodegradable resources)
 Students to discuss about the criteria that explicitly describe the quality of work
expected.
 Assist students to refine and clarify the criteria to reach a shared understanding
of what is expected, e.g. the product developed has to be made from renewable
resources, it can be used in people’s everyday life, it has as many advantages as
plastic bags so that people are willing to use it.
 Circulate around the room to assist students.
 Students demonstrate their designs to the teacher and other students
 After demonstration, teacher asks students in the audience for constructive
comments about the good things of their design and possible improvements
 Debrief the students by asking them to identify something new that they learnt
including new metalanguages.
  Ask students to thank each other, thank the students and close the lesson.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

SC4-13ES Informal questioning of student understanding as the
lesson progresses.

Academic Justification

Metalanguage can profitably help learners to easily pick up what they have acquired before and link
up new concepts with that they have command of (Berry 2005; Hu 2010). Therefore, at the very
beginning of this class, the teacher’s using metalanguage to assist students’ recalling of previous
lessons can help students to consolidate knowledge. More importantly, it links up with the new
knowledge to be taught in this class, which contributes to deeper understanding of biodegradable
resources. According to Gore (2007), the use of metalanguage encourages attention to educational
language as well as how language helps student understanding. For example, when a Mathematics
teacher helps students to understand coordinates, metalanguage explaining how they fit in the four
quadrants is likely to give students a spatial idea of what a coordinate represents. When a
geography teacher takes a moment to explain the North Magnetic Pole, students will easily
understand the difference between true north and magnetic north in mapping. Similarly, in the
subject class, explaining the metalanguage frequently used in the topic of renewable resources will
help them to better understand the lesson and strengthen the impression. Further, in the end of the
lesson, involving some metalanguage to help with debriefing could help students to strengthen their
memories of what they have learnt (Schleppegrell 2013).

Cultural knowledge represents the inclusivity and teachers can build up learning upon the valuable
resource from different social groups within Australian society (Professional Learning and
Leadership Development Directorate 2006). Incorporating cultural knowledge can strengthen the
substance of the lesson and students can gain broader insights from learning cultural knowledge of
diverse social groups (Gore 2007). Introducing cultural knowledge when students discuss the
cause/effect of using plastic bags and seeking solutions give them opportunities to not only look
beyond the domestic situation but also gain a wider understanding of the environment issue.
Further, it also raises students’ awareness of social justice and equity, which is of vital importance
in teaching practice due to the diverse backgrounds of Australian population (Ferfolja, Diaz &
Ullman 2018). Adding a quick brainstorming activity in terms of the solutions from diverse social
groups following the cause-effect activities can broaden students’ horizon that there are varieties of
solutions can be used to tackle the problem. More importantly, it can strengthen their impression
that cultural knowledge is valued and is equal to the dominant culture.

Many modifications to the last student-centred activity have been made to improve student
direction and explicit quality criteria. Instead of asking students to work in fixed pairs to improve
the design of paper bin liners, the modified lesson plan gives students opportunities to choose
activities that they wish to undertake and the peers they would like to work with. This gives
students opportunities to have some control over their learning process, which can positively
increase their motivation to get involved in classroom activities (Gore 2007). The revised lesson
plan also gives students rights to choose their team members, which will boost their engagement in
the learning tasks (Berghoff & Egawa 1991). They think and share their ideas to each other, decide
on a plan that satisfies the whole group and then work very hard to actualise it. During the process,
they make plans, assign tasks to each other and make decision on timelines. Instead of showing a
lack of initiative, students get more involved in learning activities together with their favourite
peers (Berghoff & Egawa 1991).

Further, the revised lesson plan allows students to discuss and refine the quality criteria, which
gives them further direction over their studies. This, again, increases their passion over studies and
their motivation to achiever better academic performance (Allen & Tanner 2006; Sparrow 2004).
Instead of wasting time trying to decide what is expected from them or producing acceptable rather
than excellent work, clarifying quality criteria helps students to become more aware of their
learning (Allen & Tanner 2006; Gore 2007; Sparrow 2004). More importantly, it communicates
high expectations and enhance conversations between students and their teacher (Sparrow 2004).
What’s more, commenting on the work of their peers using the criteria could help them get deeper
understanding of what is considered as good work (Allen & Tanner 2006). It could help them to not
only gain clear and precise information regarding how to produce good work, but also get access to
what counts as quality (Gore 2007).
References

Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria
explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE Life Sciences Education, 5(3), 197-203.

Berghoff, B., & Egawa, K. (1991). No More Rocks – Grouping to Give Students Control of Their
Learning. Reading Teacher, 44(8), 536-541.

Berry, R. (2005). Making the Most of Metalanguage. Language Awareness, 14(1), 3-20.

Ferfolja, T., Diaz, C. J., & Ullman, J. (Eds.). (2018). Understanding sociological theory for
educational practices. Cambridge University Press.

Gore, J. (2007). Improving pedagogy: The challenges of moving teachers towards higher levels of
quality teaching. In Making a difference: Challenges for teachers, teaching, and teacher
education (pp. 15-33). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Hu, G. (2010). Revisiting the role of metalanguage in L2 teaching and learning. English Australia
Journal, 26(1), 61-70.

Professional Learning and Leadership Development Directorate (2006). Quality teaching in NSW
public schools: A classroom practice guide. Ryde, NSW: State of NSW, Department of
Education and Training.

Schleppegrell, M. (2013). The Role of Metalanguage in Supporting Academic Language

Development. Language Learning, 63, 153-170.

Sparrow, S. M. (2004). Describing the ball: Improve teaching by using rubrics explicit grading
criteria. Michigan State Law Review, 2004(1), 1-56. Chicago 7th ed.
Learning portfolio

https://ivyteaching.weebly.com