Designing, Teaching & Learning – Assignment 2.

Due: 12 October 11:59 PM.

PART A)

Throughout this assignment, I will focus on analysing and modifying the English LP from
VUWS according to the NSW QT Teaching Model.

QT Analysis Template

Evaluate the lesson plan according to the following NSW Quality Teaching model elements.

Evaluation score – refer to NSW QTM Classroom Practice Guide for each element
Comments incl. evidence for evaluation score (2 sentences)

1 Intellectual quality
1.1 Deep knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
Although the lesson plan involves a research process, the lesson plan
focuses more primarily on exploring language features and text
structures.

1.2 Deep understanding

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
The lesson plan allows students to share their personal thoughts and
understandings of the speeches being studied. It also allows students to
engage with research and share their ideas with class-room peers.
1.3 Problematic knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
The lesson plan does not involve problematic knowledge as students are
only given a short period of time to gather only factual information
regarding Martin Luther King Jr. and Richard Gill. The lesson plan does
not encourage varying opinions regarding the speech being studied and
instead, focuses on students sharing the same knowledge.
1.4 Higher-order thinking
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
Although grouping students together to discuss ideas can promote higher-
order thinking, the teacher does not strongly encourage higher-order
thinking. Though, this can be changed in order to promote higher-order
thinking.
1.5 Metalanguage
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
The lesson plan mainly focuses on gathering factual information and
answering questions. It does not explicitly state the importance of
metalanguage or its role in the writing process.
1.6 Substantive communication
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:
Other than facilitating small groups, there is no teacher-student
interaction throughout the lesson. However, there is interaction amongst
students as they share and discuss their ideas in small groups and with
the whole class.
Quality learning environment
2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
Although the lesson plan suggests that teachers should let the students
“Know that this is only half of the speech”. However, the requirements
of the speech are not explicit.
2.2 Engagement
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
The lesson plan ensures engagement as students are invited to share their
opinions in groups. Similarly, students are encouraged to ask questions
in relation to the speeches.
2.3 High expectations
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
There are no high expectations of the students. For example, it is only
required that the teacher has a “similar level of background knowledge”.
2.4 Social support
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
Students are expected to work together as groups and share information.
While the lesson plan does not explicitly outline that the teacher must
encourage effort, the facilitation of groups is an opportunity for the
teacher to encourage the expression of different views.
2.5 Students’ self-regulation
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
Students are required to work as a group to answer questions and share
ideas. This is a teacher-directed, yet student-lead activity which allows
for student autonomy.
2.6 Student direction
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
Students do not have the choice to choose the activities which they will
engage in. It is overall a teacher-directed lesson.
3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
The lesson plan requires that students research about Martin Luther King
Jr. and Richard Gill on request. It does not consider their background
knowledge of these influential figures.
3.2 Cultural knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
There is no cultural knowledge that is reinforced in the lesson plan.
3.3 Knowledge integration
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
There is low knowledge integration in this lesson plan as students focus
on influential figures from the past (History). However, the lesson plan
 mainly focuses on the speech, rather than understanding the figures
themselves and their historical context.
3.4 Inclusivity
1–2–3–4–5 Comments:
The lesson plan originally suggests that only volunteer students are asked
to share their findings with the rest of the class. It disregards other
students who may not have volunteered, and as a result, discourages
them.
3.5 Connectedness
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
The lesson plan does not promote connectedness. It merely focuses on
achieving its outcome—developing students’ speech for assessment and
their ability to write meaningful text.
3.6 Narrative
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments:
While narrative is not encouraged when assessing student understanding
of key concepts, the lesson plan leaves room for students to use narrative
to aid understanding through group discussion.

Identifying Areas for Improvement

Identify the four NSW QT model elements you are targeting for improvement.

QT model
1) Inclusivity. 2) Metalanguage
3) Problematic Knowledge 4) Higher-order thinking.
PART B) LESSON PLAN MODIFICATION WITH HIGHLIGHTED ASPECTS.

Topic area: Stage of Learner: Syllabus Pages:

Close look at speeches Stage 5 – Year 10
Date: Location Booked: Lesson Number: /

Time: Total Number of students Printing/preparation

1 hour Quick quiz to test students’
prior knowledge of speeches,
language features and text
structure. Teacher will also test
students’ grammar to ensure
students have a basic
understanding of the use of
grammar.

Class set of both worksheets

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

 Students present Students learn about
speeches in class speeches as powerful
Syllabus outcomes spoken texts by
considering
ACELY1750: Identify and two speeches from
explore the purposes different contexts.
and effects of
different text Students learn about
structures and the role of shaping
language features of meaning through
spoken texts, and use language and the
this knowledge to powerful impact that
create purposeful certain words can
texts that inform, have.
persuade and engage.
Identify how language
can be used to shape
meaning in
communication.

Time Teaching and learning actions

Intro Remind students of the range of text types they have studied and indicate that this
lesson will be focused on speeches as powerful examples of spoken texts.

Body Provide students with a short amount of time to research Martin Luther King Jr.
and Richard Gill, ensuring that everyone in the class has some knowledge of both
people. Give each student a piece of paper to write down something they have
found out about the influential figures. Provide students with the question: “Why
might you think this information is important to know?” Allow each student to
share their findings and discuss with each other and compare the findings.
At the end of this, teacher will discuss with students their own
knowledge/findings while considering the students’ findings.
Provide students with the ‘I Have a Dream’ worksheet to look over and the
opportunity to ask questions before viewing Martin Luther King Jr’s speech (8
mins)
Note: make sure your students know that this is only half of the speech.

Students then write down their initial thoughts in answer to the questions
regarding King’s speech.

Facilitate small group discussions where students can share their answers amongst
themselves. Make sure that students who are susceptible to disengagement are
grouped with those who are usually engaged. This will ensure inclusivity and
prevent the teacher from disregarding disengaged students. Assign each
 individual group with the question regarding King’s speech: “How does the
language used in this speech make it powerful?”

Direct to students to find and write down specific words in the speech that they
find powerful and impactful. Students will then be directed to share their answers
with the class.

Allow students to then discuss their answers and views with the teacher’s own.
Show students Richard Gill’s The value of music education (13 mins).

Ask students the question “How does Gill use language to make his speech
powerful? Note: Make sure students know that answers are subject to variation.

Once again, students have time to write down their initial thoughts in answer to
the questions regarding Gill’s speech, before discussing these answers in small
groups.

Split the class into half and assign one group with King’s speech and the other
with Gill’s. Allow each group to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their
assigned speech. Provide students with the questions: “What key features make
this speech a powerful one and what could be done to improve the speech?”

Facilitate a class discussion where each group can share with each other the
strengths of their assigned speeches. This will allow students to explore the
similarities and differences of the speeches. This is another way of ensuring that
students are considering the effectiveness of the speeches.

Allow students in groups to pull out their technological devices and find a speech
that relates to their own cultural backgrounds or a speech by someone that
students may personally like. Students will then discuss with each other and the
teacher the comparisons made between the recommended speech and chosen
poems speech.
Conclu Students are then given the option to commence writing their own short speech
sion using either their devices or the ‘Plan Your Own Speech’ worksheet. Emphasise
the importance of students demonstrating that they have a clear understanding of
audience and purpose. Also, emphasise the importance of modifying language
according to different audiences. This will ensure that students can also use
metalanguage to convey purpose.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

ACELY1750 Students present their speeches in class. An activity
could then be based around looking at what made the
speeches different with regard to language use,
purpose and intended audience.
 WORKSHEETS

Http://www.capthat.com.au/sites/default/files/Close%20look%20at%20speeches%20worksheet
%201.docx

http://www.capthat.com.au/sites/default/files/Close%20look%20at%20speeches%20worksheet
%202.docx

PART C) ACADEMIC JUSTIFICATION

It is a professional requirement that NSW teachers must teach content according to the NSW

Quality Teaching Model. The modifications made to the original lesson plan follow these

requirements.

While the original lesson plan facilitates group discussion, improvements to promote

inclusivity can be made. For example, the original lesson plan encourages only volunteer

students to share their findings. This may be a problem as not all students may be willing to

volunteer. However, students can contribute to discussion through encouragement. The

modification to the lesson plan has been made so that students are each given a small piece of

paper where they are required to write one thing that they have found out about the influential

figures. The students will answer the question: Why do you think this information is

important?” This question will guide them in their discussion after seeing the speeches. This

activity ensures inclusivity through assigning each student a role to play. According to the
Classroom Practice Guide, “High inclusivity is evident when all students in the classroom…

participate in the public work of the class” (NSW Department of Education, 2017).

I have also made a change to implement inclusive pedagogy, where students who are

susceptible to disengagement are to be grouped those who are routinely engaged. It is

suggested by the Classroom Practice Guide to “Reflect on and consider ways of including

those students who are passively disengaged in the public work of the class” (NSW

Department of Education, 2017). In relation to this, students will be asked the question of

“How does the language used in this speech make it powerful?”. The question can promote

higher-order thinking—another critical element of pedagogy.

Higher-order thinking occurs when “Students combine facts and ideas in order to… arrive at

some conclusion or interpretation” (NSW Department of Education, 2017). With respect to

this, I have identified an opportunity in the original lesson plan to integrate a question that

demands higher-order thinking: “How does Gill use language to make his speech powerful?”.

The question aims to stimulate students to think about how language can be used to make

their own speeches powerful. In the original lesson plan, there are no questions that have

been posed. A study by Ong, Et al (2016) demonstrates that teacher questioning promotes

higher-order thinking. Likewise, the study suggests that “Open questions elicit a wide range

of possible responses rather than one or two “right answers” “(Ong, et al, 2016). In my

modification, the teacher must explicate to students that varying answers are acceptable as

they contribute to discourse. Ultimately, this can encourage all students to participate in class

discussion. Furthermore, the open discussion in the classroom can promote problematic

knowledge, where different views are encouraged as opposed to factual knowledge.

It is evident that the original lesson plan expects students to have a “Similar level of

background knowledge”. This can be changed to integrate problematic knowledge. In my

modification, I have applied the recommendation of the Classroom Practice Guide to ensure

that “Knowledge is treated as open to multiple perspectives”. By splitting the class into half,

each group will be assigned with the two different speeches. Students can reflect upon the

strengths and weaknesses, and come together to compare the speeches. Through this, students

will identify the different perspectives of strengths and weaknesses. This creates opportunity

for opposing views as well as exercises students’ public speaking skill. Overall, this alteration

is beneficial as it demonstrates to students that a speech can be powerful in different ways

and according to different people.

Throughout the modified lesson plan, I have ensured that students are constantly reflecting

upon the role of language. Here, students can demonstrate an understanding of metalanguage,

which is relevant to the modified learning outcome. The modified lesson plan requires

students to identify and write down specific words in the speech that they think make it

powerful. According to the Classroom Practice Guide, “Lessons high in metalanguage have

high levels of talk about language and how texts work”. A research article by Schleppegrell

(2013) found that the focus on metalanguage of mood and speech function can contribute to

students’ understanding of the role that language plays in creating a powerful voice. Finally,

the integration of metalanguage can be justified as it achieves the standard 2.1 of the

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

The modifications made ensure inclusivity through group activities where the questions

provided stimulate higher-order thinking. Additionally, problematic knowledge has been

integrated through providing questions that are open to multiple responses. The modification

likewise encourages metalanguage as it contributes to students’ deep understanding of the

key roles of language and its use.

Reference list:

AITSL. (2017). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

A Classroom Practice Guide. (2006). NSW Department of Education. Retrieved from

https://app.education.nsw.gov.au/quality-teaching-

rounds/Assets/Classroom_Practice_Guide_ogogVUqQeB.pdf

NSW Department of Education. (2017). Quality Teaching in our schools. Retrieved from

https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/professional-learning/scan/past-

issues/vol-36,-2017/quality-teaching-in-our-schools

Ong, K. K. A., Hart, C. E., & Chen, P. K. (2016). Promoting higher-order thinking through

teacher questioning: A case study of a Singapore science classroom. New Waves, 19(1),
 1-19. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1805719774?accountid=36155

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

Development. Language Learning, 63, 153-170.