Focus area 3.1 Establish challenging learning goals – Set learning goals that provide achievable challenges for students of varying abilities and characteristics. Focus area 3.2 Plan, structure and sequence learning programs – Plan lesson sequences using knowledge of student learning, content and effective teaching strategies. Focus area 3.3 Use teaching strategies – Include a range of teaching strategies. Focus area 3.5 Use effective classroom communication – Demonstrate a range of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies to support student engagement.

On my first practicum, I worked with a very engaged group of year 8 gifted and talented STEM students. The class was well behaved and enthusiastic. The greatest challenge was to keep the highest achievers busy and on task so planning an engaging and challenging lesson was of crucial importance. My task was to teach the class introductory algebra.

I intentionally created a lesson which I did not expect to get all the way through (Artefact1 slide 10), a strategy so students could see there was more content to cover to keep them engaged to the end (3.1, 3.2). Based on mentor feedback (Artefact1 slide 1, Artefact 2), in this lesson, I more intentionally incorporated I do, we do and you do sections consistent with the Gradual Release of Responsibility model (Fisher & Frey, 2008) into the PowerPoint presentation to make expectations clearer to students (3.3, 3.5). The lesson used flowcharts as a scaffold to backtrack simple one step equations, enabling students to leverage this logic to then independently solve equations applying inverse operations (Fisher & Frey, 2008). The lesson then progressed to two step equations and finally to complex problems, which, consistent with the findings of Lenvik et al. (2023), enhance engagement of gifted and talented students. In a different context it might be more appropriate to use an unrelated activity to support a brain reset, but upon consultation with my mentor teacher (6.3), we determined a content-based minute to win it brain break activity (Artefact1 slide 5) was appropriate.

The students were better able to follow what to do with the I do, we do and you do labels, highlighting just how explicit communication should be with students, including in PowerPoint slides (3.5). Scaffolding using the flowchart method worked well for most but not all students. I spoke to these students after class, and they provided feedback (Artefact1 slide 3, Artefact3 (3.6) that they would have preferred to skip straight to applying the inverse operation method. The complex worded problems were enjoyed by the students who were heavily motivated by challenge consistent with the findings of Lenvik et al. (2023). It was challenge that also fuelled the minute to win it activity. This activity was received so enthusiastically I thought we would get a complaint from the neighbours! Minute to Win it became a feature of my lessons with this class during my practicum. In slides 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9, extension or alternative activities or ways of working were given to students to enable them to engage in more challenging work where they were confident in doing so (1.5, 3.1, 3.5). This ensured the pace of the lesson was maintained with some students following worked examples while others worked independently ensuring students were neither left behind or held back (Artefact1).

Upon reflection, this lesson helped me to gain insight into the value of high expectations. I appreciated experiencing the impact of using challenge to motivate students. For this reason, I will always plan a little more than I expect to cover and incorporate challenge wherever possible in my future practice. I also learned the value of clearly communicated instructions including embedding alternative activities or methods and extension activities within PowerPoint slides (3.5) mitigating risk of student boredom of confusion. Lastly, I learned that not all scaffolds work well for all students and sometimes a linear approach to gradual release of responsibility is less effective than a more contemporaneous approach which provides students optional methods.

References

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.  

Lemov, D., Hernandez, J., & Kim, J. (2016). Teach like a champion field guide 2.0 ; a practical resource to make the 62 techniques your own. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Lenvik, A., Jones, L. Ø., & Hesjedal, E. (2023 August), Adapted Education for Gifted Students in Norway: A Mixed Methods Study. Educational sciences, 13(8), 774.