Assessment learning plan for senior English (years 11 and 12)

The below assessment learning plan has been designed for future students studying
senior English under the new 2019 senior English syllabus, as is both designed by,
and currently in the process of being finalised for implementation in schools for year
11 in 2019, by the Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority (QCAA)
(Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority, 2017, p. 74). In this aim, the below
three internal assessments (IA), (with each one being either an exemplar of a
diagnostic, formative or summative piece of assessment), along with their associated
learning tasks, seek to help teachers both assess and develop each students’ unique
learning outcomes throughout senior English. Said assessments are intended to be
implemented in schools at unique stages across the 2019 senior syllabus, in
particular, stretching from Unit 1: Perspectives and texts (year 11 semester 1), to
Unit 4: Close study of literary texts (year 12 semester 2) (Queensland Curriculum &
Assessment Authority, 2017, p. 3).
Assessment description Objectives to be assessed/ Learning tasks to Differentiation of
Learning outcomes prepare students for assessment for
assessment diverse learners’
needs/strengths

Internal Diagnostic assessment: Objectives/learning outcomes In-class reading  Assessme

assessment Personalised diary entry (To of students’, in completing comprehension nt is partly
(IA) 1 be implemented in-class diagnostic assessment quizzes after the class’ a creative
(Diagnostic) during Unit 1 in syllabus) By critically reflecting and then reading of a main plot task –
 Text: Arthur Miller’s developing a personalised diary sequence(s) inside benefits a
1953 play The entry from the perspective of a each act of the play: wide range
Crucible (Miller, 2000, main character in Arthur Miller’s  Teacher, either of learning
p. 1-144) play, students will be assessed through use of needs of
 Students are asked to on how they: an ICT tool such students,
write a personalised,  “Establish and maintain as Kahoot, that may
first person diary entry roles of the PowerPoint or not
from the perspective of writer/speaker… and via a written respond
either John Proctor, relationships with a handout/paper well to
Abagail Williams, Giles range of audiences, quiz, asks 3-5 traditional/
Corey, Tituba or including public key questions directed
another main audiences” about the play’s instruction
character from Miller’s  “Create and analyse plot/characterisa tasks
play (Miller, 2000, p. 1- perspectives and tion events of  Students
144) representations of the play, just who
 Students, in their diary concepts, identities, recently read, struggle to
entry, (to be written by times and places in for students to write
students after having [Arthur Miller’s play]” answer. physically/
read the end of Act  “Make use of, in their  Helps students struggle
2/beginning of Act 3), own texts, the ways to fully grasp with wrote
will be asked to write a cultural assumptions, and clarify (by learning
personalised attitudes, values and the afterward could write
representation of the beliefs underpin texts marking of the their
events, motives, and invite audiences to quiz by the class response
interrelationships with take up positions, and together, as a with the
others (especially in analyse these ways in whole) the aid of a
terms of who accuses [the text/play] created events they word
who of being a witch), by [Arthur Miller]” have just read processing
and beliefs from the 1st  “Use aesthetic features inside the play; ICT tool
person perspective of and stylistic devices to in a more (no
the character they achieve purposes and beneficial way spellcheck)
 have chosen; by using analyse their effects in than if they were  Students
evidence from [Arthur Miller’s play]” to just try to who have
sections of the play  “Select and synthesise comprehend the been
they have read so far. subject matter to play’s events by identified,
 Allows the teacher to support perspectives” themselves via
diagnostically assess  “Organise and Vocal inquiry previous
students’ not only sequence subject questioning of learning
reading matter to achieve students from the tasks, to
comprehension of the particular purposes” teacher, about WHY have
play so far, but also  “Use cohesive devices they think the struggled
students’ level of deep to emphasise ideas and characters are to
understanding of the connect parts of [Arthur saying/doing/thinking understand
characters. Miller’s play]” the things they are the play
Conditions:  “Make language choices depicted to do, while can be
 Exam-like conditions for particular purposes reading the events of allowed to
but in class time and contexts” the play: bring in a
 Time: in-class task (Queensland Curriculum &  Teacher, when physical
over 1 lesson (up to Assessment Authority, 2017, p. reading the play copy of the
60-70 minutes) – 17) together as a play to aid
although exact time class or after them
depends on school’s silent reading, during the
period/lesson length asks students’ assessme
 500-800 words key inquiry nt Commented [JG1]: These diagnostic, formative and
 Student-generated, questions about summative assessments, for use in Senior English, that I
pre-prepared written the characters in developed, are key demonstrations of both my professional
notes with quotes/plot the play, in knowledge and pedagogical use of a variety of assessment
development notes of order to get approaches to assess students’ learning.
first 2 acts, may be students
brought into classroom critically thinking
while writing response about the
motivations,
causes, beliefs,
themes, etc.,
bring raised to
them in the play
by Miller.
 Possible
questions: Why
do you think
Abagail is
throwing John
Proctor’s wife
‘under the bus’
here by
accusing her of
witchcraft? Why
do you think
Tituba is trying
to help defend
the Proctor’s
from being
accused of
witchcraft? Etc.
Group collaborative
discussion about
play’s events:
 Teacher asks
students to
collaboratively
discuss with
 another student,
or students,
what they think
just happened in
the section of
the play they
just read
 Allows students’
to help each
other both
comprehend
and form new
critical
understandings
about the play
Internal Formative assessment: Objectives/learning outcomes Diagnostic  For
assessment Analytical essay (To be of students’, in completing assessment/IA 1 students
2 implemented during Unit 1 in formative assessment  Previous IA1 that
(Formative) the syllabus) In devising their analytical assessment struggle
 Text: Arthur Miller’s essay, in response to Arthur serves as direct with writing
1953 play The Miller’s play, students will both practice for this analytical
Crucible (Miller, 2000, develop their own learning formative essays
p. 1-144) outcomes in, and be assessed assessment as (like more
 Students are asked to on how well they: it prepares visual
devise an analytical  “Use patterns and students by learners)
essay, conventions of [an giving them an there can
addressing/using analytical essay] to improved be an
evidence from Arthur achieve particular understanding inclusion of
Miller’s play, which purposes in cultural about the an ICT
argues in support of a contexts and social characters and element to
thesis situations including events at the the
statement/hypothesis public audiences” core of the play, assessme
in response to the  “Create and analyse which, above all nt; in that,
focus question(s) of: perspectives and else, is required while said
How does the people representations of to write an students
of Salem’s collective concepts, identities, analytical will still be
paranoia, fear, hate, times and places in argument about required to
lust and/or greed allow [Arthur Miller’s play]” the play in the write an
the town to descend  “Make use of, in their first place. analytical
into the religious, witch own texts, the ways In-class practice at essay, it
hunting trials as cultural assumptions, writing key can be in a
depicted in the play?; attitudes, values and features/structure of transcript
In what ways could beliefs underpin texts an analytical essay in form for
this rampant and invite audiences to response to practice these
accusation-based, take up positions, and questions/hypothesis’ students to
guilty before innocent analyse these ways in  Students’, record
trial system be [the play created by during class themselve
relatable to Arthur Arthur Miller]” lessons s
Miller’s own life, writing  “Select and synthesise throughout the delivering
this play in 1950s Cold subject matter to study of Arthur vocally,
War America? support perspectives” Miller’s The through
 By writing this  “Organise and Crucible, will recorded
analytical essay, sequence subject write short video on
senior English matter to achieve practice an ICT
students are asked to particular purposes” responses of device.
enact higher order  “Use cohesive devices either an Students
thinking by not only to emphasise ideas and introduction can then
making a critical connect parts of [their (including thesis be marked
argument about the analytical essay]” and by both
play, but also by signposting), their
 relating their argument  “Use grammar and body paragraph written
to the underlying language structures for (PEEL structure) analytical
reasons/context in particular purposes in or conclusion of essay
which Arthur Miller [this] written [analytical an analytical transcript
(the playwright) is essay]…text” essay; with the AND their
writing his play under  “Use [analytical essay]- teacher to ICT
in the first place (i.e. appropriate features to design practice recording.
McCarthyism, fear of achieve particular questions about  Draft
communism; which is purposes” Arthur Miller’s response
required of a (Queensland Curriculum & play (unrelated (to be
successful teacher to Assessment Authority, 2017, p. to summative submitted
have been taught, at a 17) assessment), in by
basic standard, to order to facilitate students’
students at the start of this, during halfway
the English classes through
unit/curriculum plan  Both teaches assessme
that covers this play) students’ in how nt
Conditions: to write an timeframe)
 Time: 2.5 weeks/18 effectively allows all
days (8-10 hours in argued and well student’s
class time) to be thought out to have
completed both in analytical essay, their
class and in students’ while also responses
own time at home improving given
 Length: 1800-2000 students critical critical, yet
words understanding positive,
 Students are of the play, by feedback
encouraged to submit asking said from the
a draft response to students to teacher;
teacher halfway apply it in a allowing all
through the formative demonstrative students’
assessment’s time mode of writing learning
frame (after 1.5 Directed/guided outcomes,
weeks), so teacher instruction learning in making
can provide effective activities from teacher a critical
feedback to students about the argument
that can further social/political context about
develop their Arthur Miller is writing Miller’s
response/improve their in when he completed play, to be
learning outcomes his play improved –
 Students are required  Teacher is drastically
to write their analytical required to more so
essay as if they were teach to than just
writing to a public students, either traditional
audience that has before or after feedback
already read or reading the after
seen/has a basic written students
understanding of the transcript of the have
play’s events and play, the fear of completed
characters; while also McCarthyism/th the
using evidence from e fear of assessme
both Arthur Miller’s communists nt
play and peer- that existed in
reviewed sources Miller’s
found via students’ American
own research society at the
time of the
1950s, and how
it directly
influenced him
 in writing the
play itself in the
first place
 This can be
done through
directed
instruction like
a PowerPoint
lecture and/or
guided learning
informational
handout
activities with
students
Collaborative, critical
student discussion
about the play after
reading the entire
transcript of the play
 Students, in
preparation for
writing their
formative
assessment, will
be asked by the
successful
teacher to split
into
collaborative
peer learning
groups and
discuss with
other students
what they think
Miller’s play is
saying about the
reasons behind
the accusatory
witch-hunting
the characters
practiced
against each
other
Internal Summative assessment: Objectives/learning outcomes In-class modelling  Summative
assessment Extended response — of students’, in completing practice at writing a assessme
3 written response for a public summative assessment film review article nt task
(Summative audience (To be By devising this formative  Students, before holds great
implemented during Unit 3 in assessment/written film review starting the differentiati
)
the syllabus) article for an online publication, assessment, are on value
 Texts (whose students will both develop their shown for all
representations are to own learning outcomes in, and professional learners as
be compared against be assessed on, how well they examples of a it includes
each other): (out of a numerical total grade of film review both visual
Schindler’s Ark by 25 marks, spread across article from an (study of
Thomas Keneally multiple criterion): online the film,
(Keneally, 1982, p. 1-  “Use patterns and publication (not pictures
432) and Schindler’s conventions of [a written related to the inside the
List directed by Steven online film review assessment); actual film
Spielberg (Spielberg, article] to achieve using this review
1993) example shown itself) and
  Students are required particular purposes in a by the teacher written
to devise a written film specific context” as a guide, (study of
review article for an  “Establish and maintain students, for the novel
online publication the role of the writer [of Homework/in and
(along with appropriate an online film review class, practise majority of
visual imagery), for a article] and relationship writing their own the content
public audience, that with an identified public short 100-200 in the film
directly offers both a audience” word practice review
critical analysis of, and  “Analyse perspectives film review article)
critical and representations of article, using the elements
perspective/judgement concepts, identities, literal of
upon, the differences times and places in model/layout as learning/as
between the two [both Schindler’s Ark shown to them sessment
historical and Schindler’s List (i.e. pictures
representations of respectively]” from a film,
Oskar Schindler (and  “Analyse the ways short
his depicted saving of cultural assumptions, paragraphs,
Jewish families who attitudes, values and imbedded
worked for him in his beliefs underpin [these quotes etc.).
factory during the two] different [texts  By the time of
Holocaust); as is representing Oskar actually starting
provided in both the Schindler] and invite this summative
1982 novel of audiences to take up assessment,
Schindler’s Ark and positions” student should,
the 1993 film  “Analyse the effects of by completing
Schindler’s List aesthetic features and numerous
respectively. stylistic devices in the practices like
 Students are also two texts” this throughout
required in their film  “Select and synthesise the English unit
review article to offer a subject matter to of work, be
critical comment in support perspectives” confident in
how they see the  “Organise and developing an
adaption of Schindler’s sequence subject accurate
Ark into a film, in matter to achieve professional film
Schindler’s List, particular purposes” review article
impacting the historical  “Use cohesive devices model/layout in
representation/signific to emphasise ideas and response to the
ance of Oskar connect parts of [a task.
Schindler, overall written online film Collaborative
 Assessment task review article] for a discussion with
inspires higher order public audience student groups about
thinking in students by  “Make language choices students’ own
having them actively thoughts about the
for particular purposes
judge the differences text and film (how they
and contexts”
of the same historical differ, are the same)
 “Use grammar and
event/representation language structures for  Before starting
across two different particular purposes” assessment,
literary mediums – and  “Use written features,
students are
hence, explain the asked to gather
and complementary
significance in having into groups of 3-
features if appropriate,
to do such a thing in 4, after watching
to achieve particular
the first place. the film AND
purposes”
Conditions: reading the
(Queensland Curriculum &
 1000-1500 words (to Assessment Authority, 2017, p.
novel, and
be accompanied by discuss between
29).
digital elements themselves/lear
appropriate to a film n from each
review article – i.e. other’s
pictures from the film) contributions,
the
  Length: 5 weeks differences/simil
notification of arities they can
assessment task and see between the
preparation two different
 Students have open historical
access to all resources representations
and are encouraged to of Oskar
use evidence in their Schindler they
article from the film, have studied
novel and peer-  Allows students
reviewed sources. to better
(Queensland Curriculum & internalise their
Assessment Authority, 2017, own literal
p. 30-31) understandings
of the two texts,
thanks to the
both
collaborative
teaching to, and
learning from,
their fellow
peers
Critical whole-class
deconstruction of key
scenes from the film
Schindler’s List and
how they are relatable
to the text’s
representation
 Teacher plays
key scenes from
Spielberg’s film
that are adapted
from Keanelly’s
book; after
watching each
scene, students,
as a class, re-
read the same
scene in the
novel and then
discuss what the
key
similarities/differ
ences are
between the two
representations
 Extremely good
for the learning
outcomes of
visual leaners
who might have
struggled
otherwise by
just internalising
the written text
alone, rather
than
deconstructing
 both in unison,
as is done here.

Marking, moderation and feedback guidelines

The marking and resulting moderation process of students’ responses to the above
assessments, in this assessment learning plan, is crucial, to ensure that all students’
are graded by their teacher objectively, fairly and accurately. Hence, why in aim of
this, as described above, students are marked/assessed according to a numerical
grade, (usually out of 25 marks across a range of criterion), based upon assessment
objectives/learning outcomes that are very similar to the assessment/unit objectives
that the QCAA recommends teachers to model their assessment or marking process
off of (Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority, 2017, p. 1-74). Said
examples of this marking criteria, in their exact forms, can be seen included in the
above designed diagnostic, formative and summative assessments, with marking
criteria assessing students’ in senior English learning areas such as: knowledge
application; organisation and development; and textual features (Queensland
Curriculum & Assessment Authority, 2017, p. 31).
However, the way in which the marking of students’ assessment responses is
moderated by the professional teacher, teaching to this assessment learning plan, is
also critically important, if the marking process of these said student assessments is
to be eliminated of bias, inaccuracy and injustice as much as possible. This is why
this assessment learning plan also proposes that the professional teacher, marking
each of the above assessments, is not only required to mark each of their own
students’ responses, but is also required to cross-mark their completed marking with
other teachers’ completed marking. Which ensures that every teachers’ marking is
distributed evenly to other teachers’ in the faculty for them to double check each
other’s marking; with the original teacher to do the same with the other teachers’
marking. In this way, a ‘round-robin’ approach to marking students’ responses to
assessment, throughout this assessment learning plan, is achieved where every
single student’s work has at least been moderated by more than one teacher;
eliminating a singular teacher’s possible bias, inaccuracy or injustice towards a
student’s grade.
It is clear that the professional teacher must also provide effective feedback that is
not only critical, yet is also positive, encouraging, timely, accessible and
personalised to each students’ unique learning needs/identified areas of feedback, to
improve all said students’ learning outcomes. The inclusion of the opportunity for
students to submit a draft response, for the teacher to give critical/ effective
feedback, halfway through the completion of the above formative assessment, is
such an example of this style of feedback in action. As it has an immediate impact on
students’ assessable learning outcomes in regards to writing an effective, higher
order thinking analytical essay (both in a formative, and later, summative sense), as
it is feedback given to students at the best time – when they are writing their
assessment. In addition to this formative-like feedback during assessment, one on
one vocal consultation with students in highlighting the grammatical, content and/or
generic shortcomings that the teacher has marked on their assessment paper is also
very effective; as the student can both hear said shortcomings from the teacher AND
read on their marked paper what they did wrong/how they can improve. Which has
shown to be much more effective than any alternative.
Data interpretation and resulting changes of pedagogy
Of course, how a professional teacher of senior English responds to the assessment
data of their students (and the responses from students in participating in lesson
activities that prepare them for assessment) is imperative to improving student’s
learning outcomes as much as possible. After all, through the lead-up lesson
activities in preparation for a formative/summative assessment, a teacher can clearly
judge their classroom to see if they are grasping the learning outcomes they want
them to grasp about a text/English curricular aspect(s) for the assessment. After all,
this is the reason why this above assessment learning plan has included both key
learning activities for each assessment and an exemplar diagnostic assessment that
can be used throughout the construction of unit plans in senior English; to gather
data about students that diagnoses their level of understanding of not only the
events and characters of a text, for example, but also their understanding of many of
the higher order thinking aspects of a unit/textual study. If the assessment data from
either the above learning activities, diagnostic assessment, or even formative
assessment, shows that students are struggling, more than expected, to understand
key textual content or key English curricular components, then it is expected a
teacher redesigns their pedagogy to teach students in a different way/mode/form that
will better suit the class’ learning needs (i.e. changing a directed instruction reading
of a text to a more student-focused, collaborative learning understanding of a text).
For example, in the particular case of the above diagnostic assessment, if students’
assessable data show that they have struggled to fully understand the motives,
beliefs, perspectives and/or interrelationships between each of the characters in
Arthur Miller’s play, then maybe it would be prudent for a teacher to go back and
design either collaborative or guided learning activities; that focus on each individual
character, one at a time, in The Crucible in depth. One example activity of this could
be a task that asks students to form groups that will read back in the text, as a group,
to both find and then take notes on/collaboratively discuss John Proctor’s, Abagail
Williams’, etc., impact in each scene they appear in the play.
Rationale
I believe that any professional teacher, teaching senior English for the new 2019
senior syllabus, will find it clear that both the above diagnostic, formative and
summative assessments and their associated learning tasks to prepare students, all
support the development of higher order thinking in students. Especially, when it
comes to improving students’ higher order thinking skills in both multiliteracies
meaning-making (through the in-class associated learning activities that prepare
students for each assessment), and critical literacy (when it comes to students
demonstrating learning outcomes in the actual assessments themselves).
Multiliteracies meaning-making, in particular, is a higher order thinking skill that
improves students’ ability to create critical meanings/judgements about a text, such
as those throughout the assessment learning plan above; in that, a multiliteracies
approach acknowledges that pedagogical reality that, “Meaning-making is a process
of representation (sense-making) and communication (in which a message prompt is
interpreted by another person) (Kalantzis, 2012, p. 173). Especially when
representation meaning-making, in particular, is often triggered in students’, (like any
other human being), when something “starts with our interest,” or has our attention
and focus, such as, “[thinking about something,] making sense of something we are
experiencing, talking silently to ourselves about something, or rehearsing in our own
minds what we may say to another person” (Kalantzis, 2012, p. 178). Obviously, this
assessment plan (with its learning activities) has representation meaning-making
deep in mind (with its asking of students to internalise meanings from texts), as it
ensures that students’ can, especially when it comes to critically studying texts at a
senior level, “see things in their minds’ eyes in ways that suit them, which fit their
preconceptions.... [enabling students to] always [be] (re)constructing their worlds,
seeing them in new ways, thinking new thoughts, envisioning things from fresh
perspectives and imagining new possibilities” (Kalantzis, 2012, p. 178).
Communication meaning-making, which can be prompted in students’ learning
outcomes, “when a person creates a message which serves as a prompt that
impacts upon the meaning universe of another person or persons,” also has great
value in improving student’s critical making of meaning, as can be seen through this
above assessment learning plan’s learning activities (Kalantzis, 2012, p. 178-179).
As it, “is a reciprocal [meaning-making process], in which one person’s
meaningaction prompts another person’s representation (at least), and possibly also
a communication from them;” indeed, “If representation is individual and cognitive,
communication is social and interactive” (Kalantzis, 2012, p. 179).
This is why then, to take advantage of students’ multiliteracies in both representation
and communication meaning-making, my above assessment learning plan has
numerous learning activities, attached to every single assessment task, that employ
collaborative learning. As after all, by having senior English students (studying under
this assessment learning plan) both communicate, and form internal representations
from each other about critical meanings, as a student group, from the events/
characters/beliefs/motives presented in the texts of study, it hence, ensures said
students have a deep, valuable critical understanding of this said text when it comes
to the assessments themselves.
More importantly though, higher order thinking is a key aspect of students’ learning
outcomes that is also assessed heavily in the above diagnostic, formative and
summative assessments themselves. In that, each assessment tasks is clearly
geared to asking students to adopt a critical, deconstructive reading of the texts
under assessment, or in others words, developing in students’ assessable learning
outcomes in demonstrating the higher order thinking skill of critical literacy
(especially in IA3). Indeed, critical literacy is an imperative skill in deconstructing
texts in senior English, especially when such a higher order skill, “puts a value on
encouraging [students, in their learning outcomes,] to see themselves as engaged in
textual acts which are part of a wider set of discursive practises that actively produce
and sustain patterns of dominance and subordination in the wider society” that they,
as students in modern Australia, live in (Locke, 2015, p. 23). More so, critical literacy
also develops in students’ the understanding that texts, especially all of the texts in
the above assessments, “us[e] a range of linguistic devices, [that] seek to position
readers to view the world in a particular way;” and that they in turn, as the readers of
each text they study, “[bring] to the act of reading a set of discursive lenses, each of
which will interact with the discursive designs of a text in a particular way, ranging
from submission to resistance” (Locke, 2015, p. 23).
All these higher order thinking learning outcomes, which students gain from a critical
understanding of a text, are most definitely supported throughout all the above
assessments, with each assessment and its learning objectives above asking
students key critical literal questions of a text, similar or identical to key questions
inspiring critical literacy, such as: what kind of text do you think this is?; what
message/features about society does this text promote?; What distinct reality and
knowledge(s) does the text construct and what worldviews/knowledge does it leave
out?; how does this text represent you, as the reader, and try to position you and/or
other readers?; what authority does this text promote and is it at odds with your
ethical stance?; etc. (Locke, 2015, p. 24).
As for the intervention strategies I have identified in response to the data collected
from each assessment (as I have described above), I believe that while changing my
pedagogy in immediate response to the student grades I receive (in ways that I have
exemplified above), is a good start in turning senior student’s learning outcomes
around, it is not the only way I have identified that is effective in intervening for
student’s learning needs. Effective feedback, which adheres to all the feedback
criteria I have identified earlier in this assessment learning plan, is the key
underpinning of my interventional approach. In that, I think my decision to both
provide written, marked feedback to students, along with personalised 5 minute, one
on one verbal consultation with the student about that very same written feedback, is
not only a good feedback strategy but also serves as a good intervention in the
senior English students’ learning outcomes from assessment tasks as well. As
scholar/teacher Faulkner argues, such vocalised feedback, physically alongside the
student, allows the professional teacher to feel, “free to follow the [students’] line of
argument and add [their] own thoughts, asking questions or commenting on where
[they] had expected the [students’] paragraph to go” allowing teachers to, “[model]
how to do those oft-scrawled commands: ‘extend, elaborate” (Faulkner, 2011, p. 87).
Personalised, vocal feedback to me in essence, is the best intervention strategy in
direct, immediate response to students’ assessment data, as it allows the student to,
“[experience] a reader engage with their writing, in real time… [by hearing] the effect
of poor spelling, careless pronouns, run-on sentences,” hence, allowing students to
ultimately understand, “why the mechanics [of their assessment responses, in
content/grammar/etc.] actually matter” (Faulkner, 2011, p. 88).
Most of all, in reflection, after designing this senior English assessment learning
plan, it is clear my ‘historical progression’ of assessment, across this entire 2019
English senior syllabus assessment plan, has a clear development of students’
learning outcomes in writing a clear analytical response addressing various themes
raised in many texts of study. After all, all the way from IA1 (diagnostic) to IA3
(summative) as described above, there is a clear progression of learning, aimed at
developing students’ analytical writing ability in response to a text while writing for a
public audience. By the end of these three assessments, it is clear that each
graduate senior English student, studying through this course, will know how to write
an effective analytical argument. Which, I think, reflects some advice a professional
teacher, then serving as my mentor teacher on my last professional placement, said
to me during a history class (which is applicable to English). In which, they said (in
response to one of my learning activities) that I needed to work on both developing
lesson activities that could take into account the generalised/year group achievement
level of the students in the class, and how I could better relate my professional
teaching to the personalised difficulties that the students’ I taught may face. In
response, when it comes to designing assessment and associated learning activities,
I think I have provided students, studying under this assessment learning plan,
assessment (and learning activities) that afford as much differentiation opportunity
towards students’ learning needs as possible (such as visual and ICT learning
elements as seen above), but still, at the same time, challenges students at
appropriately increasing levels, from the diagnostic task to the summative task. In
this way even beyond the classroom, I feel I have developed a higher order thinking-
focused assessment learning plan, for senior English, that helps assess graduate
students’ ability to demonstrate flexibility, creativity and innovation; in order to
become, “[active future citizens that are] agents in their own knowledge processes,
capable of contributing their own [as a member of many different working societies]”
(Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p.170-172).
References
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New
Learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.
doi:10.1080/15544800903076044
Faulkner, N. (2011). How to maximise student learning after assessment whilst minimising
the pain of correction (in search of the Holy Grail). English in Australia, 46(3), 87-88.
Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-
au.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=123283980049261;res=IELHSS
Kalantzis, M. (2012). Literacies as multimodal designs for meaning. In B. Cope, E. Chan, L.
Dalley-Trim, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Literacies (pp. 173-205). Port Melbourne, Victoria:
Cambridge University Press.
Keneally, T. (1982). Schindler's Ark. London, United Kingdom: Hodder and Stoughton.
Locke, T. (2015). Paradigms of English. In S. Brindley & B. Marshall (Eds.), Masterclass in
English education: Transforming teaching and learning (pp. 16-28). London, United
Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic.
Miller, A. (2000). The Crucible. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority. (2017). English General Senior Syllabus
2019. Retrieved from
https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/portal/syllabuses/snr_english_19_syll.pdf
Spielberg, S. (Director). (1993). Schindler's List [Motion picture]. United States: Universal
Pictures.