| Focus area 2.1 Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area – Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the concepts, substance and structure of the content and teaching strategies of the teaching area. Focus area 2.2 Content selection and organisation – Organise content into an effective learning and teaching sequence. Focus area 2.3 Curriculum, assessment and reporting – Use curriculum, assessment and reporting knowledge to design learning sequences and lesson plans. Focus area 2.5 Literacy and numeracy strategies – Know and understand literacy and numeracy teaching strategies and their application in teaching areas. |
In a recent assessment, I was asked to produce a learning sequence for a Senior Accounting class to prepare students for the third assessment aligned to the Queensland Senior General Accounting syllabus. The class was described as predominantly engaged students with average B to C grade. Five students were highlighted for consideration with differentiation needs including literacy or numeracy lower than expected, gifted, talented and disruptive when disengaged and a student struggling with suboptimal attendance. My task was to prepare the unit plan aligned to the assessment task and with consideration of differentiation strategies and adjustments for the five highlighted students.
I prepared a unit plan (2.1, 2.2 Artefact1) around three key learning experiences. Strategies and tasks designed to support students with different needs including extracurricular activities and feedback to support literacy and numeracy development, additional projects, scaffolding and continued contact due to poor attendance (1.5, 2.5 Artefact2, Artefact3) were also included. The problem-solving model, outlined in the Accounting 2025 v1.1 General Senior Syllabus (QCAA, 2024), was incorporated in several exercises within the unit plan to align to the requirement to use this model to complete the assessment (2.3). Given the heavy focus of the topic on content and procedural tasks, Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) framework was used supporting student progression from heavily scaffolded use of the problem-solving model in the first sequence to more independent practice in the second sequence and in the final sequence to independent application of the model to higher order tasks of predicting, concluding and communicating findings (Fisher & Frey, 2008). Understanding by Design (UbD) also underpins the planning of this unit with the use of driving questions to hook and anchor student learning and the use of backwards design to map tasks aligned to understanding core unit objectives and achieving success in the assessment (2.3, Wiggins & McIntyre, 2005).
Marker feedback was that although the proposed literacy and numeracy strategies (2.5, Artefact2) were insightful and detailed and learning was aligned strongly to summative objectives and suitably embedded in the lesson sequence (2.3, 5.2, Artefact4), assessment justification could have better articulated assessment as learning and the unit plan was too detailed, reading more like lesson plans and not adequately focusing on unit objectives. As Patel (2010) notes, unit plans are designed to clarify the objectives (why), the content (what), the learning activities (how) and the testing (evidence of achievement) of a unit. It is from the unit plan that the draft daily lesson plans are prepared, often changed as assessment for and as learning inform appropriate next steps for learning to take (Flygare, Hoegh and Heflebower, 2023) (2.2, 2.3). My unit plan was a hybridised unit and lesson plan. As such, it was ineffective for both purposes.
I have come to appreciate the power of incorporating assessment as learning to drive critical thinking and problem solving, in which student metacognition is activated through the reflection of feedback and drives changes in student understanding or approach (Earl, 2006) (5.2, 2.3). I will continue incorporating new literacy and numeracy strategies in my future practice to ensure students have equitable access to course content (Whatt-Smith, Elkins & Gunn, 2011) (2.5). In future, I will need to ensure a unit plan is fit for purpose, serving as a tool to capture the big ideas of instruction as mapped to the curriculum and to identify the learning cycles from which lesson plans can then be prepared (Flygare, Hoegh and Heflebower, 2023) (2.2). I will continue to use backwards design in my practice to ensure alignment of assessment and learning (2.3).
References
Earl, L. (2006). Assessment-A Powerful Lever for Learning. Brock Education, 16(1), 1.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching : a framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Flygare, J., Hoegh, J. K., & Heflebower, T. (2023). Planning and teaching in the standards-based classroom (1st ed.). Solution Tree Press.
Patel, R. N. (2010). Educational evaluation : theory & practice (Rev. ed.). Himalaya Pub. House.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.) Pearson.
Wyatt-Smith, C., Elkins, J., & Gunn, S. (2011). Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy. Springer.
Leave a Reply