| Focus area 6.1 Identify and plan professional learning needs – Demonstrate an understanding of the role of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers in identifying professional learning needs. Focus area 6.2 Engage in professional learning and improve practice – Understand the relevant and appropriate sources of professional learning for teachers. Focus area 6.3 Engage with colleagues and improve practice – Seek and apply constructive feedback from supervisors and teachers to improve teaching practices. Focus area 6.4 Apply professional learning and improve student learning – Demonstrate an understanding of the rationale for continued professional learning and the implications for improved student learning. |
In my second practicum, I was fortunate enough to commence soon after the school had sent a group of four teachers to a Professional Development session on improving thinking in line with the work by Peter Liljedahl’s. My mentor teacher recommended I read Peter Liljedahl’s book to align to the school’s current PD (6.1, 6.2). He then recommended I observe one of the teachers who had started to implement some of the strategies (6.2, 6.3). Following this, my mentor teacher and I collaborated (6.3) and incorporated strategies I had observed and learned from the book in my lesson planning (6.4) to improve student engagement (4.1). The classroom in which the strategies were implemented was a Year 9 Mathematics class dominated by rambunctious male students within a low socioeconomic demographic.
After listening to the audiobook version of the book (6.2, Artefact1), I discussed the contents of the book with my mentor teacher and other colleagues (6.3, Artefact2). I also observed classes in which the methods were being implemented (6.3 Artefact3). I worked with my mentor and incorporated three of the strategies from book and the classes I observed (6.4) in a sequence of 9 lessons I prepared and delivered. These strategies were getting started strategies with a menu of diversified workpapers (3.1, 3.2, 6.4 Artefact4), random groupings and, in the absence of vertical whiteboards in our classroom, the use of student desks as whiteboards (3.3, 3.4, 6.4 Artefact5).
The random groupings were not received well by students. I had to pivot and revert to seating plan groups instead. The use of student desks as whiteboards was not as effective (or as clean) as when placed vertically (Forrester, Sandison & Denny, 2017; Liljedahl, 2023), however students liked to gather around, write on, erase and re-think their workings on the table. Thinking and engagement improved (4.1) consistent with Liljedahl’s (2023) findings. It also resolved another problem inherent in low-socioeconomic classrooms; students arriving unprepared for class and without a pencil or pen. Getting students started with the easiest possible task was the concept behind the menu of options (1.2,1.5, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 6.4 Artefact4). This was well received allowing some student choice in activities enabling students to participate more authentically (Churchill, 2022, p. 80; Gilbert, 2020, p. 15; Larmer & Mergendoller, 2010), and on their own terms. While it was successful in moving most students along the learning continuum (Artefact6), I realised I fell short with the feedback provided to Frank (pseudonym) (Artefact7 Artefact7Annotation).
While it is possible that the random groupings might have been more successful if introduced at the beginning of the year, my instructions may also not have been clear enough, which could have contributed to change resistance (Mikel-Hong, et al, 2024) something I will need to be aware of in the future. The whiteboards were well liked and improved engagement but worked better when placed vertically on the walls in the class I observed consistent with the findings by Liljedahl (2023). I would use vertical whiteboards in the future given the success I observed. I would also use a menu of workpapers again in the future to enable student self-efficacy and choice, though I would be more strategic with the feedback I provide. As Hunzicker (2010) noted, teachers frequently fail to implement professional development learnings. However, at this school, PD was intentionally and collaboratively implemented (Artefact2, 6.3, 6.4). I will seek out similar supportive and flexible school cultures in the future which lead to improved teacher efficacy and effective professional development traction (Evans, 2014).
References
Churchill, R. (2022). Teaching : making a difference (5th ed.). John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd.
Evans, R. H. (Ed.). (2014). The Role of Science Teachers’ Beliefs in International Classrooms : From Teacher Actions to Student Learning (1st ed. 2014.). Sense Publishers.
Forrester, T., Sandison, C. E., & Denny, S. (2017). Vertical whiteboarding : Riding the wave of student activity in a mathematics classroom. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73(4), 3–8.
Gilbert, R. (2020). Teaching humanities & social sciences : teaching and learning across Australia (L. Tudball & P. Brett, Eds.; Seventh edition.). Cengage.
Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: a checklist. Professional Development in Education, 37(2), 177–179.
Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2010). 7 Essentials for Project-Based Learning. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 34-37.
Liljedahl, P. (2023). Building Thinking classrooms in Mathematics, Grades K-12. Sage Publications Inc.
Mikel-Hong, K., Li, N., Yu, J. (Joya), & Chen, X. (2024). Resistance to Change: Unravelling the Roles of Change Strategists, Agents, and Recipients. Journal of Management, 50(6), 1984–2011.
Leave a Reply