S00125246

Rationale for Lesson Plan

The lesson plan is based around a grade one/two class

Students in my class came from
in a low socio-economic school. There are 27 children diverse linguistic, cultural, religious
and socioeconomic backgrounds
in the class, many who have English as an additional
(1.3). Here is evidence of the
language, learning difficulties and there are some differences and in my other artefact
you will see how I implemented
Indigenous leaners. The class is based in a building
teaching strategies accordingly.
with three other classes, each class have their own
corner of the building and roughly 28 children in each.

An example of a socio-economic difference that has arisen in this class is there was
recently a Mothers Day stall at the school. The children were asked to bring in $1 to $5
to spend at the stall, some children brought in some small change, others nothing at all
and a couple children brought in $20. This exposed the socio-economic differences of
the children in this class.

As it is quite a loud environment with roughly 112 children in the same building there
needs to be strong communication strategies in place. Open classrooms are known to
be impractical as there are problems with the noise level and also the visual distractions
of the other classes (Shield, Greenland, & Dockrell, 2010). To minimise the sound, each
classroom is set in the corners of the building and to decrease the visual distraction
there are items such as lockers and tables in place in attempts to segregate from the
other classes. The board in this particular classroom is in the corner where the children
have enough room to sit in an array. This spot is the quietest part in the classroom as it
is the furthest away from everyone else, it is quiet enough so the children can listen and
hear what the teacher is saying as well as partake in group discussions.

Some communication strategies that are used in this lesson plan involve a call and
response, in this case it is the teacher saying One, Two and the children responding
eyes on you. The practise of call and response involves the active participation of the
 S00125246

audience, this lets the teacher know that the students are following and listening to him
or her (Boone, 2003).

Showing children examples of partitioning, by modelling it on the white board as well as

having concrete materials to model with before the children attempt the task allows
them to have a greater understanding of the content. It also means that the students
can go back to their desks and make choices and take actions that are suitable to the
learning task such as using concrete models or finding new ways to partition (Deed et
al., 2014). By involving the children in class discussions and problem solving it allows
the children to feel their opinions and voice are valued (White, Mistry & Chow 2013). By
selecting some children to come up at the end of the class and read out what some of
their answers were promotes a supportive environment and shows again that their voice
and ideas are valued (White, Mistry & Chow, 2013).

Each childs needs are different and that is why This section shows the research
in the lesson plan there is a section that caters behind the differentiation strategies
and how they are used to meet
for diversity, this includes an enabling prompt, specific learning needs of students
extending prompt, English as additional across the full range of abilities
which connects to standard 1.5.
language learner/dialect (EALL/D) learners and
Indigenous learners.
The enabling prompt includes materials such as the Multi-Attribute blocks and the icy-
pole sticks, having these concrete materials help the students deepen their
understanding of the concept (partitioning) and also help the students focus on key
mathematical ideas (McDonough, 2016). EALL/D learners and the other students are
able to access the Mathematics learning wall (MLW), this mathematical language will
help them develop the knowledge and language required by the curriculum. It will also
assist their ability to justify their answers to their classmates as they will be able to use
the relevant language. By explaining and justifying their ideas the students are obliged
to think deeply about mathematics and it will assist them in reaching a correct answer
as well as a full understanding of the concept (Hoffman, Breyfogle & Dressler, 2009).
 S00125246

When planning for this lesson I

Indigenous learners will be working with their tables undertook research to see what
groups, with the use of group interaction the strategies I could incorporate into
the lesson to assist Aboriginal and
children will be able to assist each other. This meets Torres Strait Islander students (1.4)
the needs of Indigenous learners as they are known
to benefit from learning by and with peers (Nichol &
Robinson 2000). The tables groups are mixed with
children of different capabilities, this encourages the idea that students working together
learn better in social settings (Tella, 2013), EALL/D learners will also benefit from this
strategy (Chen & Chang, 2014). Having the children work in tables groups also supports
Vygotskys theory, the Zone of Proximal Development where a peer or an adult who is
more knowledgeable can assist others through social interactions (Wass, Harland &
Mercer, 2011). The children of different capabilities are together and from this
environment they are able to support and learn off each other (Scrimsher & Tudge,
2003).
This section demonstrates knowledge
and understanding of students as
Each person has a natural preference for the way individuals with different learning styles
they prefer to receive, process and convey and capabilities. It connects with
standard 1.1 as it shows physical, social
information (Hewitt, 2008), the classroom layout and and intellectual development and
lesson accommodate for the different learning styles characteristics of students. It also
shows an understanding of how
of children. Connecting Howard Gardeners multiple students learn and how that learning
intelligences theory to the lesson plan means that affects the classroom and planning
(1.2).
children who have logical-mathematical intelligence,
linguistic intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, visual
intelligence and kinaesthetic intelligence will be greatly supported (Gardner, 2006).

The activity in the lesson plan also follows Blooms taxonomy of knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Adams, 2015). At the
start of the lesson the children bring prior knowledge such as doubling and multiplicative
 S00125246

thinking then they get an understanding about the facts of partitioning during the class
discussion. Then they are able to apply it to the numbers on the board, from here they
analyse what they have written and evaluate if they have gotten it correct and they then
are able to create their own numbers to partition.

By having these communication strategies in place and connecting theorists to the

lesson plan, educators are able to provide the best support for childrens learning.
 S00125246

References

Adams, N. (2015). Blooms taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. J Med Libr Assoc,
103(3), 152-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010
Boone, P. (2003). When the Amen Corner Comes to Class: An Examination of the
Pedagogical and Cultural Impact of Call-Response Communication in the Black
College Classroom. Comm. Educ., 52(3), 212-229.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000156208
Chen, S. & Chang, L. (2014). The influences of cognitive styles on individual learning
and collaborative learning. Innovations In Education And Teaching International,
1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.931242
Deed, C., Cox, P., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., & Keeffe, M. (2014).
Personalised learning in the open classroom: The mutuality of teacher and
student agency. International Journal Of Pedagogies And Learning, 9(1), 66-75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18334105.2014.11082020
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.
Hewitt, D. (2008). Understanding effective learning. Maidenhead, England: McGraw
Hill/Open University Press.
Hoffman, B., Breyfogle, M., & Dressler, J. (2009). The Power of Incorrect
Answers. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(4), 232-238.
McDonough, A. (2016). Good concrete activity is good mental activity. Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom,21(1), 3-7.
Nichol, R. & Robinson, J. (2000). Pedagogical challenges in making mathematics
relevant for Indigenous Australians. International Journal Of Mathematical
Education In Science And Technology, 31(4), 495-504.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002073900412606

Scrimsher, S. & Tudge, J. (2003). The Teaching/Learning Relationship in the First Years
of School: Some Revolutionary Implications of Vygotskya's Theory. Early
 S00125246

Education & Development, 14(3), 293-312.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1403_3
Shield, B., Greenland, E., & Dockrell, J. (2010). Noise in open plan classrooms in
primary schools: A review. Noise Health, 12(49), 225.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.70501
Tella, A. (2013). The effect of peer tutoring and explicit instructional strategies on
primary school pupils learning outcomes in mathematics. Bulgarian Journal of
Science and Education Policy, 7(1), 5-25.
Wass, R., Harland, T. & Mercer, A. (2011). Scaffolding critical thinking in the zone of
proximal development. Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 30
(no.3), pp. 317-238. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.489237

White, E., Mistry, R., & Chow, K. (2013). How Do Teachers Talk About Economic
Inequality? The Complexity of Teaching at a Socioeconomically Integrated
Elementary School. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 370-394.