Let's start at the beginning of semester 1, 2012. Assignment 1 was a daunting task, putting my understanding of what my role as a teacher is in relation to the 8 VIT Standards. Through readings: text book, journal and other literature, it became apparent to me that what the previous three years of university has produced is a well-rounded, informed, and highly motivated student teacher, almost ready to take control of a class of his own in the real world. This final year will look at all that I have learnt in the previous three: my own attributes in accordance to the VIT Standards; my own attributes that I feel are polished and admirable; and attributes that I feel may still need development as I move towards my final two placements. Assignment 1 bought to my attention two attributes that I feel may still need development through this final year of university. As a student teacher I have enjoyed a range of school placements: both upper and lower, with a selfish affection for teaching levels 3 and 4 students. However, my final year will see me spending three placements in a year 2 classroom, one where my previous experience may not comply with the workings of this particular class. In reflection, it became apparent to me that my desire to teach upper primary has limited my own ability to integrate some imperative facets of teaching in a lower primary levels. Through much deliberation and conversation with my mentor, it was determined that my ability to assimilate Inquiry Teaching and Engagement Theory into lower level classrooms may be slightly limited. These attributes formed the brunt of my plan of action for development in Assignment 1.
Extract of why I chose these attributes/What will be the outcome of this plan for both attributes:
Engagement Theory: I specifically chose this attribute for implementation in the lower levels (1 and 2) as I don’t feel my ability to continuously engage lower primary students is as strong as my rapport with upper primary. I intend on implementing the following five (5) stages throughout my time in a year 2 (level 2) classroom, and building upon my ability to actively engage all students over all primary year levels.
Inquiry Teaching: I specifically chose this attribute for implementation in the lower levels (1 and 2) as I don’t feel my ability to integrate inquiry into these grades is as strong as my capacity to facilitate direct teaching. Currently my confidence lies in developing and maintaining lessons and activities for upper primary grades which maintain a focus on inquiry. I don’t feel this confidence is matched when developing lessons for lower primary, where I tend to rely on direct teaching techniques.
Action Plan (Click image to view)
Action Plan (Click image to view)
The implementation of these attributes into my specific grade 2 class would be a tricky task to say the least. The characteristics of the class are extremely diverse: hyperactivity, seclusion, high and low level thinkers, and varying abilities to work individually, with partners, in small groups, and as whole class. The action plans were designed to be able to apply these attributes into my daily teaching over individual steps, making it a lengthy process rather than a quick progression. The stages of implementation of Engagement Theory worked in helping me gain an understanding of individual students’ abilities over all KLA’s, as well as students interests to assist in gaining complete and ongoing engagement in all lessons and all activities from all students. The plan was a five step process consisting of: initial recognition of individual students ability and understanding of students interests; responsive planning in reply to individual student ability and interests; enthusiastic teaching to assist in student motivation and interests; research of professional and educative papers on student engagement, combined with viewing lesson plans with a focus on student engagement; and finally an integration of ICT within lessons to break up direct teaching and put an emphasis on hands on learning. Similarly, the stages of implementation of Inquiry Teaching worked in helping me to understand the importance of inquiry in a primary classroom, and develop methods of integrating and developing throughout daily lessons and activities. Inquiry is a learning approach which makes the students take responsibility of their own learning, as well as focusing on the development of skills and students own conceptions (Wilson & Murdoch, 2004). The plan was a six step process consisting of: research theories of inquiry learning to gain a fuller comprehension of implementation into lower primary; understand the inquiry attributes already possessed by the students; design lessons with a strong focus on inquiry; comprehension of content to be taught, and a range of pre-planned focus questions to promote inquiry; understand the risks involved in incorporating inquiry with low-ability students; and working closely with the supervising teacher to plan lessons with a focus on inquiry.
How was the plan put into action and what resulted?
The underlying approach for implementing these action plans into my teaching was through discussions with my supervising teacher. In a quote from Snowman et al (2009, p. 12)
She knew the class best, and her strategies for teaching them were a lot more polished than mine. Since there were a number of sessions throughout the first week where the students were at specialist classes, these times were spent reviewing lesson plans that I had designed for the following days class, and pinpointing how I could change aspects to better execute the action plans for both attributes. As teachers, we need to ascertain where the learner is at and teach accordingly (Skamp, 2012, p. 19). The class I was with had a tendency to be easily distracted and not complete tasks in accordance to plans, so therefore we decided that engagement would be my main focus, and that the implementation of inquiry could work as support for actively engaging all students at all times, with a stronger application during my second and third placements. Tompkins (2010, p. 8) describes engagement as ‘an examination of students’ motivations and interests to suggest ways to nurture students’ engagement. Students who are engaged are intrinsically motivated and have higher achievement’. My supervising teacher came up with the suggestion that I may be able to gain some understanding of what the students’ interests were by looking through their work books: having a look at what they wrote about, what they liked to draw etc. Luckily, a new craze called Moshi Monsters had hit the school and most of the students’ work reflected their love for the small pocket sized creatures. Now with a doorway into the students’ minds, my teacher and I focused on responsive planning to integrate Moshi Monsters into daily lessons.
I wasn’t sure how this would work; my initial thoughts were that it would be more of a distraction than a benefit to my teaching. We decided to start small to see how the students’ reacted to the integration. I took a Maths Zone class which focused on time. The zone was the second highest group, made up of a mix of level 2 students (years 1 and 2). Using Microsoft Paint, I took the Moshi Monsters logo and made it the background of the clock faces I was using on the IWB. Immediately the students recognised the image and made a strong connection to the clocks. I was surprised at how much more willing these students were to take part in the activities, rather than the usual distractions. I tried it again in the next session, this time it was story writing. I had run through a model of planning out a story during the previous days writing session and the students were going to try writing their own story for the first time. During planning I used an example of a dog as the main character and students didn’t connect as well as I had hoped. Prior to planning and writing, I bought them together to brainstorm a range of topics they could write about, not surprising, Moshi Monsters was at the top of most lists, followed by AFL and Pokémon. Again it was evident that students were more inclined to plan and write about something they were highly interested in: all students completed the task within the session, with some beginning to plan a second story. Churchill et al (2011, p. 56) states that ‘the development of an engagement approach is fuelled by understandings, often rooted in psychology and psychoanalysis, of the relationships between the fundamental needs of children and their behaviour’. This was evident as soon as students’ interests became a focal point of all lessons. My supervising teacher recognised that through my planning and our discussions I had made a strong connection between students and the content. She stated that her initial concern was that I would rely too heavily on making that connection between the students and the Moshi Monsters and that the objective of the lesson would be lost, however she commended me on my capacity to keep lesson content the focus and not overlook the lesson goal.
To this point, I felt that I had been able to integrate a considerable aspect of my action plan into daily lessons. The final planned stage was to integrate ICT within lessons to break up direct teaching and put an emphasis on hands on learning. I had used the IWB in a number of lessons: maths, literacy, writing, science etc., however, in my last three days I wanted to make ICT integration a focus. I discussed with my supervising teacher the possibility of designing a three lesson integrated unit, incorporating ICT, maths, writing, art, and the whole school unit on Asia. The lessons would consist of a brainstorming/planning/designing phase, a construction phase, and finally a small write up. The unit would see students plan and design their own Asian inspired building, using the regular shape tool on Microsoft Paint. Initially, I conducted a short introductory session with the students revisiting images of buildings they had come across during their focused studies on Indonesia, India, Korea, China and Japan. We looked at the buildings: the architecture, shapes, intricate details, surroundings, colours etc. From there students used pencils, texters, rulers and paper to design their own building, using elements of the images we looked at. Students were reminded that the buildings were to made up of regular shapes only. During the next lesson, students either finished their plans or began construction of their building on a computer. Prior to beginning, I bought the class together to remind them of the elements of Microsoft Paint they would be using. Most students had a fair grasp on this program. By lessons end all students had achieved somewhat of a completed or near completed building on their computer and had began colouring. The final session saw them completing their designs and writing two or three sentences about their building. The supervising teacher and I visited each of the students throughout the session to see what their design looked like and to listen to what they had written, or what they were going to write. For me, this unit was a huge success, and in reflection with my supervising teacher we discussed how there is no need to design intricate, detailed and extensive lessons: the lessons that have the most impact are the ones that make the biggest connection to the students. This unit was able to integrate elements of inquiry with the students own interest (using computers) to create what we both felt was a strong, enjoyable, and more importantly valuable unit.
Reflection
Effective teaching requires both professional and personal development (Borich, 1996, p. 2). For me, EEE401 has highlighted the importance of constant development of my own attributes as an educator, and as a human being. The process of assessment for this unit has been greatly beneficial for me to able to pinpoint not only my strengths as a teacher, but some aspects that are in need of developing, which need to be exerted in order to become the best I can be. I’m more than happy for a potential employer to read this aspect of my professional portfolio and recognise that I have seen my own weaknesses as a lower primary teacher, and that I have the determination to plan and develop upon these attributes to better myself.
References
Borich, G.D 1996, Effective teaching methods, Merrill Publishing, Englewood Cliffs: NJ.
Churchill, R, Ferguson, P, Godinho, S, Johnson, N, Keddie, A, Letts, W et al 2011, Teaching: Making a Difference, Wiley & Sons, Brisbane: Queensland.
Murdoch, K & Wilson, J 2004, Learning Links, Curriculum Corporation, Melbourne: VIC.
Skamp, K 2012, ‘Teaching primary science constructively’, in K Skamp (ed.), Teaching primary science constructively, 4th edn, Cengage Learning, South Melbourne: VIC, pp. 1-55.
Snowman, J, Dobozy, E, Scevak, J, Bryer, F, Barlett, B 2009, Psychology Applied to Teaching, Wiley & Sons, Brisbane: Queensland.
Tompkins, G 2010, Literacy for the 21st Century: A Balanced Approach, 5th edn, Allen & Bacon, Sydney: NSW.
