PLAN AND CRITICAL REFLECTION ON LEARNING ACTIVITY
Table of Contents
Introduction. 2
Plan for Learning Activity. 3
Learning Objectives. 3
Learning Outcomes. 3
Teaching and Learning Strategies. 4
Assessment Approaches. 5
Critical Evaluation of the Learning Activity. 6
Critical Reflection on the Learning Activity. 9
Conclusion. 11
References. 13
Introduction
This assignment is to plan, carry out and write a critical reflection on a learning activity undertaken at a secondary school in Belview estate. The school I visited is a mixed gender academy that has high expectations of its students with 47% achieving 5A*-C GCSE (including Mathematics and English GCSE). It has a population of about 700 students ranging from ages 11-18 of which 81 are in sixth form. It has a high proportion of students with free school meals (reference). Majority of the students are of minority ethnic heritage, most frequently Black African, with a broad range of other ethnic and cultural backgrounds and EAL (English as an Additional Language) (Webster and Mertova 2007). It was rated ‘Good’ by Ofsted in May 2012 in all of the five areas; Overall effectiveness, Achievement of pupils, Quality of teaching, Behaviour and safety of pupils, Leadership and management against which it was judged (Ofsed 2012).
I was assigned to teach ‘representation of data and/or the calculation of averages’ to a small group of six year 8 students with mixed ability. We were in a classroom with three other smaller groups being taught by some of my colleagues. In this assignment, I will be justifying my planning; reflecting on the lesson and the challenge of working in a mixed ability group; and evaluating the assessment for learning.
I felt that the students would have been introduced to the basics of ‘representation of data and/or the calculation of averages’ already, so the lesson objective focused on the calculation of averages’ and how to calculate mean from frequency table (Brahier 2016). The starter activity was designed to review the students’ prior knowledge of data interpretation as a way to revise the fundamental principles and also develop their skills and understanding. Ollerton recognises the impact (Civil 2014). The key impact is that planning which ends up causing students for going right back to the basic knowledge base for reminding them about what is required for moving ahead (Winters and Costich 2008). As a matter of fact, basics can be considered as the changeable feast. Ollerton recognises the impact of quality planning has on quality teaching, which I strongly agree with him that teachers are able to build on the student’s basic knowledge and progress their learning.
In presenting the plan for learning activity, this paper will draft out the learning objectives, learning outcomes, teaching and learning strategies, and assessment approaches. Further ahead, a critical evaluation will be provided for the conduct of learning activity based on the criteria of assessment set for the assessment approaches. Further ahead, a critical reflection will be provided for my experience in the teaching and learning activity linking with important theories and literature review. Based on the overall plan, evaluation and reflection, I will be drafting key points of conclusion regarding my own personal learning in this procedure.
Plan for Learning Activity
The key focus of this learning activity was representation of data and calculation of averages. This plan is drafted to highlight the learning objectives, learning outcomes, learning and teaching strategies, and assessment approaches. In planning out the learning activity, my focus was on assisting students for the achievement of goals and objectives related to their basic understanding of representation of data and calculation of averages (Brahier 2016). Hence, my approach was identifying the adequate strategies for providing instruction, and strategies of teaching for tutorials. I also understood the value of effective practices in classroom as well. Further ahead, I was able to understand the overall scope of cognitive development among students. The theory of cognitive development was established by Piaget as a comprehensive theory regarding the establishment and nature of human intelligence (Sutherland 1992). The theory focuses on dealing with the overall attribute of knowledge and how individuals consider their gradual acquisition, construction and utilization (Frohberg and Schwabe 2009). In the overall plan, I considered my focus of cognitive development as progressively reorganizing the mental processes that take place due to environmental experience and biological maturation (Sutherland 1992). I perceived my understanding that students have the ability of constructing their own meaning, while considering the discrepancies of experience.
Learning Objectives
There appears to be a strong link between learning objectives and development of better understanding about the self. By the encouragement of students for adopting the critical framework, they will be prepared not only for engaging in scholar based conversations and debating within disciplinary framework, but also for ensuring there engagement in the democratic society as citizens (Skemp 2006).
The key learning objectives for this learning activity are as follows:
ü To enhance the understanding of all 8 students with mixed ability regarding way in which there is calculation of different categories of average such as mean, median and mode.
ü To enhance the understanding of all 8 students with mixed ability regarding the presentation of large data in different formats such as pictogram, bar diagram, pie charts and graph.
Learning Outcomes
Following are the key learning outcomes that the students will minimally achieve after the learning activity is completed:
ü The students will be able of calculating average of different types in terms of mean, median and mode.
ü The students will be able of differentiating between different types of data required and relevant for presentation.
ü The student will be able of presenting relevant and required data as per different formats in terms of definition and interpretation such as pictogram, bar diagram, pie charts and graph.
Teaching and Learning Strategies
To be able to layer on, I prepared a newspaper cut out on football league score such as and allowed a pair discussion to identify the different data representation on the material given to them and what interpretations they may infer from the information. The idea was to use their responses to introduce the objective of the lesson. The learning objectives will also guide the student to know where to direct their attention and check at the end of the lesson what they have learnt (Gao and Zhang 2012).
The main activity was structured in a way that will engage individual student by asking probing questions like how many goals was scored in a premier league with pictures of some footballers and numbers that can be used to calculate mean using the frequency table (Brahier 2016). The pictures shown with the question was intended to relate classroom mathematics to real life context, which resonate with Skemp’s (1986) relational understanding that ‘building up a schema within a given area of knowledge becomes an intrinsically satisfying goal in itself’.
The relational learning of mathematics includes the establishment of a schema that is a conceptual structure out of which the possessor is able of producing a number of plans (García and Kleifgen 2010). These plans are crucial to begin from any initial point under his or her schema for reaching a final point. The constitution of mathematics is not just regarding the matter of subject, instead a specific type of knowledge regarding the same. The subject matter of instrumental and relational mathematics can be considered as more or less the same. However, both of them have such differences that according to my opinion, there appears to be a strong case to consider them as different categories of mathematics (Sutherland 1992).
The students were all given an opportunity to tell me their definitions by writing it on their mini white board. The mini white board was also a way to ensure was engaged and to assess their understanding as well. After assessing their understanding, I then moved on to demonstrate how to calculate averages from a simple and grouped data frequency table. I allowed them to give me answers to the addition and multiplication bit.
I did this under the notion of enhancing the participation of students in the classroom. The increment of participation can be considered as an obvious objective in learning activities that include small group work and frequent discussion. However, it is significant throughout the courses of learning (Skemp 2006). If only some of the students show participation by contributing in discussions, seeking questions or volunteering answers, to a certain extent, class sessions turn out to be a lost opportunity for the promotion and assessment of learning. I hence, focused on devoting more thoughts and time in order to shape the overall environment and plan for the learning session. Hence, my strategic focus moved ahead as follows (Star 2014):
ü Creation of a classroom that is emotionally safe and secure
ü Creation of a classroom that is intellectually safe and secure
ü Cultivation of engagement meter
ü Creation of adequate intermediate approaches
ü Creation of a culture based on explanation rather than a culture based on the right answer
ü Establishment of self- awareness among students regarding the knowledge
At the school, I realized my students can get used to do work with the consistency of quality. For helping out the students delivering poor quality work, I considered the process of draft and revise. A number of professionals have been using this design process for an increment in the quality of work. Several researchers have supported the establishment of prototypes, response for crucial feedback, and refinement of design prior to any kind of production (Hornberger and Link 2012).
I further ensured open education and child centric classrooms while directly applying the views of Piaget. Irrespective of the achievement of major success, there are certain limitations in terms of recognition. There is a need for supporting the stages of cognitive development sharply instead of continuous establishment. Further ahead, it becomes crucial for determining which point of views and arguments can be trusted by students and the arguments they consider as sceptical (Gough 2004). This helps in setting the fundamental base for the progress achieved by student while keeping their claims at stake in the sense of intellectual rigorousness. Learning the analysis and critical evaluation of arguments thus is helpful for teachers for the development of sound framework in testing the arguments individually and advancing with the own perceptions.
Assessment Approaches
In order to assess their learning of the new concept of my demonstration and differentiate the work sheet given for their task, I asked them to write down the red, amber or green on their white board as suggested by Dylan William (2010) in a video, ‘Classroom Experiment’.
The video considers that while some students show a lot of eagerness to participate in class, other never do the same. There are only some students to show consistency in participating in class and such a trend appears to be damaging as this results in the reinforcement of divisions across the achievements (Webster and Mertova 2007). It has been suggested by William (2010) that teachers should be making a random selection of students for seeking answers from every student. Mini- whiteboards can be considered as the most significant technology in the current era of education. It acts as a source for all students in writing down the answers and holding up further ahead. Further ahead, it becomes crucial for ensuring the enhanced responsibility of the students for their own behaviour by the use of positive reinforcement and peer pressure. With the random selection of a student, there is recording of performance in each lesson for at least one entire day. This performance will be acting as a proxy for the entire class (Sutherland 1992). This ensures the encouragement of students for keeping an eye on their own behaviour and on the behaviour of others.
I allowed them to work in pairs because I wanted them to share their findings and develop new understandings. The students were engaged and able to share their findings with one another. Some of the tasks led us to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of the three averages as it was obvious that mode did not exist for a 2 of them and the median too was estimated to a whole number since we were working with discrete data and fraction number cannot be a realistic number of ‘goals’ or ‘text messages sent on a phone’. They were also eager to respond and I thought it was a positive feedback from their learning (Star 2014).
There is no denial in the fact that there is a strong correlation between improved achievement of students in class and higher scope of engagement as measured by directly observing and interviewing the students. Hence, I also considered the use of questionnaire in order to conduct the assessment of overall leaning. As significant as engagement is for the success of students, strategies for the promotion of engagement do not lay emphasis or involve presence across the vast setting of the school. Instruction for the promotion of routine, rote learning and passivity hold the tendency of being rules instead of the exception (Kolb 2014).
At the end of the demonstration, we wrote out in a tabular form our responses and I gave out the differentiated worksheet I had prepared for them in order to ensure that each student experience challenges. The worksheet had 5 questions each for the different colour codes, and also in order of difficulty. Two of them were able to do 3 questions, while the rest were on their second before the time given was up. I asked the student to explain to the rest how they worked out their answers for one of the questions and why they used the particular method they had chosen (Winters and Costich 2008). This was to demonstrate the new understanding the students had gained and assess their ability for progress work. At the end, I asked them to tell me how they would explain today’s lesson to someone who was away.
Critical Evaluation of the Learning Activity
Critically evaluating point of views, arguments and ideas is crucial for the establishment of autonomous thinking among the students. Only the process of critical evaluation help in distinguishing students in terms of competent claims for the acknowledgment of truth (Walqui 2006). Further ahead, it becomes crucial for determining which point of views and arguments can be trusted by students and the arguments they consider as sceptical. This helps in setting the fundamental base for the progress achieved by student while keeping their claims at stake in the sense of intellectual rigorousness. Learning the analysis and critical evaluation of arguments thus is helpful for teachers for the development of sound framework in testing the arguments individually and advancing with the own perceptions (Webster and Mertova 2007).
In my opinion, I felt my students learnt and enjoyed the lesson and that they understood what they were learning because they were actively participating and responding to my questions during the starter and through to the end, despite, the noisy background due to the other three smaller groups being taught by my colleagues.
I felt very comfortable because even though the students were of mixed ability, they were motivated to learn by using the mini white board to write their individual answers (Nolan and Featherstone 2016). It was interesting to see how they worked together, helping one another to clarify misconceptions. I was able to recognise the benefit peer discussion had on individuals as they assisted one another in their group discussion, which I can relate to with Jo Boaler (2015) on achieving great outcome in a mixed ability group, even though he also argued that grouping children in a low set at an early age might be damaging as well. Nonetheless, mixed ability gives opportunity for students to learn, for those who struggle, but remains the same for high achievers. The activities in the lesson and class dynamics reflected in the teaching principles that instruction should be student centred, responsive to students’ cognitive and personal needs.
The ones educating young children hold the tendency of sharing the objective to foster successful achievement and learning among children. As the key pressure for emphasizing upon academic standards end up increasing, there is huge relevance of reflecting upon the most efficient practices in order to ensure that there is actual learning among children as per the teaching (Skemp 2006). Each and every factor in relation with the achievement of children are not under the control of teachers, but there is creation of an environment of engagement throughout the classroom. The utilization of strategies of engagement can be considered as a powerful tool of teaching crucial in the promotion of achievement in students. The key reason is focus of children upon learning, supporting specific concepts and skills of learning, and providing positive associations of children with learning. I realized that the use of this strategy provided greater responsibility to students about their own learning. This can be identified as a prerequisite for higher scope of achievement (Star 2014). I perfectly acknowledged that my own awareness of the learning process and the utilization of strategies of engagement will be benefitting the student in a tremendous manner. I realized that as learners, the confidence and learning of the students was increasing in a significant manner. My selection of engagement strategies was highly dependent on my style of teaching, purpose and the group of students I was teaching (Novak 2010). Irrespective of the selection of these strategies, effective facilitation is crucial in order to ensure successful work. The facilitation involved the use of techniques for the execution of strategy. This involves the provision of guidance, required materials, explicit directions and clearly stated purpose. Further ahead, my focus was always inclined on: exposing the student to new knowledge and information, promoting excitement by the sources of discovery, activating previous knowledge, requiring active investigation, encouraging collaboration, and allowing choice (Walqui 2006).
I found out that it was easier for the student to gain understanding and progress in their learning when they are engaged in the classroom activity, because the teacher needs to provide meaningful experiential and motivational activities that will encourage the students to learn.
As they worked on the different pieces of cardboard at the start of the lesson, they were very excited to learn and eager to give me their responses and move to the next task. At a point I ask one of the student to explain using the mini white board to show the rest of us how she did her task. This was encouraged by Cockcroft that ‘Several students could be asked to provide one of their answers and these could be written on the board/screen’.
As a matter of fact, I faced a number of problems in terms of curriculum definition and construction, in addition to subject matter or content. Suggestions and guidance for the methods of teaching had not been included in the previous setting of education (Webster and Mertova 2007). The key reason for this was increased haste with the introduction of curriculum, for the assurance of clarity in pressing change across education while strongly reviewing methodology along with the content. However, the expression of claim has been about decision making in leaving out methodology for the choice of individual teacher in the classroom. This involves the consideration of several needs of the student and the purposes of specific learning sessions. At each and every level, mathematics teaching should be inclusive of opportunities in order to perceive the following (Sutherland 1992):
ü Exposition delivered on the part of teach
ü Discussion taking place between the students and the teacher and among the students as well
ü Adequate practical work performance
ü Practice and consolidation of fundamental routines and skills
ü Solutions to problem that include the need of applying mathematics on daily basis situations
ü Conduct of investigational research
It has been further ahead suggested quite often that on the whole, teachers of mathematics are supposed to be effective in terms of exposition and the teaching should focus on consolidating and practicing the routines and skills (Winters and Costich 2008). However, as a teacher of this subject, I found myself to be less effective at additional four components mentioned in the recommendations of Cockroft. In addition to the other justifications provided to foster discussion in the learning plan of mathematics, there is clarity in the fact that discussion can be helpful to prove and conduct investigation. Even though, it becomes crucial for discovering the individual capabilities of a student, it is well justified to allow the students for working collaboratively at adequate periods for the enhancement of learning (Winters and Costich 2008). I also thought it was natural for accepting the scope to include the utilization and application of mathematics as a crucial component for the learning plan. I focused on providing the key implication that there is need for solving some of the issues while considering daily scenarios. This suggests that when there is utilization and application of mathematics, it has to be used and applied while connecting with daily scenarios and even not at times.
Critical Reflection on the Learning Activity
In my reflection, I feel I need to find a way to make them think more, experiment more, set themselves higher standards and needed to be pacier, because the starter exceeded the time allocated for it. One reason I think the starter took a longer time is that I thought I needed to assess their in depth knowledge on data representation and averages and their varied ability in order to ensure each of the student progress in their learning and having in mind that, this will be a factor I would consider and if I were to teach the class again, I will limit the time I spend for starter activity and use more of the 10 minute mini lesson approach, and then move into main activity sooner to give students more time on the task. It will also avail me the opportunity to have a better idea of which students will master the learning outcomes and assessment for learning (Walqui 2006).
After I had ensured the student had demonstrated good understanding averages and how to calculate it, some task were given to them in order of difficulty so that the students can work on problems that are challenging, though some student lacked confidence because they were careful not to mistake, I told them it was acceptable to make mistakes and reinforced their ability by commending on what they had done right and asking them how and why they had given the answers they had written (Perret-Clermont and Oates 2004). Then I was able to guide them in the right path, which I saw improved their confidence and saw progress in their learning. I can now relate this to Boaler (2015), in her book ‘The elephant in the classroom’ that when students make a mistake in math, their brain grows and connections are made and when they do the work correctly, there is no brain growth, suggesting that we want students to make mistakes in math class and that students should not view mistakes as learning failures but as learning achievements was quite fascinating.
National Curriculum (NCETM) emphasis teachers to prioritise depth over pace and breadth when differentiating provision for high attainers, while also retaining opportunities to utilise breadth and pace where appropriate in a statement: Teachers hold the responsibility of setting higher expectations for all students. It is the responsibility of teacher to stretch out work for students who have attained more than the standard set. I felt very comfortable because even though the students were of mixed ability, they were motivated to learn by using the mini white board to write their individual answers. It was interesting to see how they worked together, helping one another to clarify misconceptions (Webster and Mertova 2007). I was able to recognise the benefit peer discussion had on individuals as they assisted one another in their group discussion, which I can relate to with Jo Boaler (2015) on achieving great outcome in a mixed ability group, even though he also argued that grouping children in a low set at an early age might be damaging as well. Nonetheless, mixed ability gives opportunity for students to learn, for those who struggle, but remains the same for high achievers.
I therefore feel there should be a balance between the pace and depth of lesson, for instance in a typical class of mixed ability that I taught, I realized I needed to provide a suitable challenge for all student and give every student the opportunity to achieve as high a standard as possible.
I thought working in pairs or groups encouraged the students learning and meet their needs through differentiated instructions, and it was interesting how this facilitated their learning as I was checking their understanding while they were on the task.
Finally, as suggested by George that all of us engaged in mathematics classrooms need to work continually at our own understanding of the nature of mathematics, and how we can present this mathematics to our learners in ways that can help them to better understand what they are learning (Walqui 2006).
I further realize that I should have been raising this to a certain limit such that I will be able to justify the utilization of computers during the teaching and learning process. There always appears to be a significant scope that some students end up catching and understanding the strategy of the teacher (Wiliam 2006). The key issue is in convincing the young students that their ability for using the rule cannot be considered sufficient on receiving it. An additional mis-match was faced under the scope of which the students were putting in efforts for rationally understanding the concept, but I though my guidance was taking them in a wrong direction. However, the scope of relational mathematics provided a significant advantage (Winters and Costich 2008). There appeared to be increased adaptability for the performance of new tasks. In helping out a student with addition and multiplication of decimal fractions for the pie chart representation of data, I discovered the best option will be the carried forward method without complicating things any further. The same student had been successful in learning that if there is acknowledgement of two angles from a single triangle, the third angle can be discovered by the addition of the two angles of the triangle and then subtracting the added value from 180 (Smith 2013). Students held the tendency of showing simple extrapolation in comparison with what was acknowledged already. However, relational understanding surely enabled the understanding of least effective methods in the learning process. I should have focused more for relating the issue with the method and possible for adapting the method with the new issues (Skemp 2006). On the other hand, instrumental understanding appeared to be necessitating the memory of issues for working across the method.
The ability of weighing alternates, making decisions and evaluating contradictory evidence is critical to the life of students and scholastic endeavours being in connection with civic engagement, professional success and personal happiness. For the achievement of objectives appropriately, I understood that instruction should be incorporating intellectual activity and challenge, opportunities for original or creative work, and the use of information and translation of information (Star 2014). This is crucial for communicating coherently, while considering opportunities for the production of original work instead of a basic consideration of information (Ollerton 2014). In my opinion, I felt my students learnt and enjoyed the lesson and that they understood what they were learning because they were actively participating and responding to my questions during the starter and through to the end, despite, the noisy background due to the other three smaller groups being taught by my colleagues (Rogers 2011).
Conclusion
The relational learning of mathematics includes the establishment of a schema that is a conceptual structure out of which the possessor is able of producing a number of plans. These plans are crucial to begin from any initial point under his or her schema for reaching a final point (Walqui 2006). The constitution of mathematics is not just regarding the matter of subject, instead a specific type of knowledge regarding the same (Boaler 2015). My selection of engagement strategies was highly dependent on my style of teaching, purpose and the group of students I was teaching. Irrespective of the selection of these strategies, effective facilitation is crucial in order to ensure successful work. The facilitation involved the use of techniques for the execution of strategy. This involves the provision of guidance, required materials, explicit directions and clearly stated purpose (Webster and Mertova 2007). Further ahead, my focus was always inclined on: exposing the student to new knowledge and information, promoting excitement by the sources of discovery, activating previous knowledge, requiring active investigation, encouraging collaboration, and allowing choice. I also understood the value of effective practices in classroom as well. Further ahead, I was able to understand the overall scope of cognitive development among students. The theory of cognitive development was established by Piaget as a comprehensive theory regarding the establishment and nature of human intelligence. As a matter of fact, I faced a number of problems in terms of curriculum definition and construction, in addition to subject matter or content. Suggestions and guidance for the methods of teaching had not been included in the previous setting of education (Winters and Costich 2008). The theory focuses on dealing with the overall attribute of knowledge and how individuals consider their gradual acquisition, construction and utilization. In the overall plan, I considered my focus of cognitive development as progressively reorganizing the mental processes that take place due to environmental experience and biological maturation. I perceived my understanding that students have the ability of constructing their own meaning, while considering the discrepancies of experience.
References
Boaler, J., 2015. The elephant in the classroom: Helping children learn and love maths. Souvenir Press.
Brahier, D.J., 2016. Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics. Routledge.
Civil, M., 2014. Immigrant Students in Mathematics Education.Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, pp.277-282.
Frohberg, D. and Schwabe, G., 2009. Mobile learning projects–a critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of computer assisted learning, 25(4), pp.307-331.
Gao, F. and Zhang, K., 2012. Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011.British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), pp.783-801.
García, O. and Kleifgen, J.A., 2010. Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. Teachers College Press.
Gough, J., 2004. Reflections on Skemp’s contributions to mathematical education. Mathematics education research journal, 16(1), pp.72-77.
Hornberger, N.H. and Link, H., 2012. Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), pp.261-278.
Kolb, D.A., 2014. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Nolan, A. and Featherstone, S., 2016. An Anthology of Educational Thinkers: From Addams to Vygotsky. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Novak, J.D., 2010. Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Routledge.
Ollerton, M., 2014. Differentiation in mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Teaching, 240, pp.43-46.
Perret-Clermont, A.N. and Oates, J., 2004. A socio-cognitive perspective on learning and cognitive development. In Cognitive and language development in children (Vol. 8, pp. 305-332). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rogers, R. ed., 2011. An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Routledge.
Skemp, R.R., 2006. Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics teaching in the middle school, 12(2), pp.88-95.
Smith, A. E. (2013). A National Curriculum in England. ERIC.
Star, J., 2014. Instrumental and Relational Understanding in Mathematics Education. In Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 304-307). Springer Netherlands.
Sutherland, P.A., 1992. Cognitive development today: Piaget and his critics. SAGE.
Walqui, A., 2006. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), pp.159-180.
Webster, L. and Mertova, P., 2007. Using narrative inquiry as a research method: An introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. Routledge.
Wiliam, D., 2006. Mathematics inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the mathematics classroom. Granada Learning.
Winters, F.I. and Costich, C.M., 2008. Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), pp.429-444.