102086 Designing Teaching & Learning

Assignment 2: QT Analysis Template

Evaluate the lesson plan according to the following NSW Quality Teaching model elements.

Evaluation score – refer to NSW QTM Classroom Practice Guide for each element

Comments incl. evidence for evaluation score (2 sentences)

1 Intellectual quality
1.1 Deep knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Generally, the main concepts are sustained throughout the lesson (learning
5 about timetables). The first two tasks are connected to the outcomes and provide students
with opportunity for discussion and learning at a deeper level using real-life and relevant
resources e.g. timetables.
Worksheet activity is superficial and does not link to outcomes of learning to read real life
timetables or understanding of sustainability and takes a good portion of the lesson,
however it does provide questions which can be linked to problem-solving using timetables
in real-life (what happens if train is late etc.)
1.2 Deep understanding
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: N/A. This outcome relates to how students demonstrate their understanding in
5 the classroom which cannot be identified from the lesson plan.
1.3 Problematic knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Perspectives of students and teacher are only provided during the discussion section. The
5 questions used as prompts for discussion are quite direct, and depending on how the
teacher responds to student answers, knowledge can be treated as problematic or not (e.g.
why do you think that?). For instance, the question about what sustainability means to
students can provide a chance to engage students in problematic knowledge and how
different students share different meanings. However, this only makes up a very small
portion of the lesson. All other activities require direct and factual answers to questions.
1.4 Higher-order thinking
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: The questions prompted for discussion in the first activity can provide a space
5 for higher-order thinking, depending on teacher response to answers (do they further
student thinking by asking why their answer was so). The final activity questions provide an
opportunity for students to engage in higher-order thinking, by asking students to justify
and explain their responses, by looking at multiple solutions.
1.5 Metalanguage
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Teacher slightly explains and asks students to identify what they think
5 sustainability means to them which can open discussion about language. However,
throughout the lesson nothing else about language is discussed, the way in which
timetables are structured, symbols etc.
1.6 Substantive communication
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: There are many opportunities in the lesson plan for substantive communication
5 between teacher-students (discussion) and student-student (activities) which are spread
across activities. However, the types of questions asked in the discussion and activities are
quite direct and would be dependent on how the teacher interacts with student responses
(Furthering responses and building up discussion from student’s responses) to create
meaningful and beneficial dialogue.

Quality learning environment

2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: No comments on quality of work expected by teacher are communicated to
5 students. Tasks are just explained to students and very briefly. At the start of the lesson,
the teacher provides general comments about what students require to improve based on
a previous assessment – possibly articulating the quality of work she expects to see from
students in following lessons and assessments, but nothing related to the content of the
lesson plan.
 2.2 Engagement
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: N/A level of student engagement cannot be identified from the lesson plan until
5 it is implemented in the classroom, as this relates to student behaviour in the classroom.

2.3 High expectations

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Little challenging work is presented in the lesson plan. The final activity can be
5 deemed as challenging (depending on student’s ability in the classroom) but does not
involve any form of conceptual risk-taking. No expectations are directly communicated or
inferred in the lesson plan except to complete tasks allocated.
2.4 Social support
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: N/A. Cannot determine until lesson is implemented because it relates to
5 teacher and student behaviours in the classroom.
2.5 Students’ self-regulation
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: N/A. Cannot determine until lesson is implemented as it is related to the
5 students’ behaviour in the lesson and classroom management.
2.6 Student direction
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Teacher determines choice, time, pace and criteria of all activities in the lesson.
5 Students only have a choice in working individually or in pairs in the final activity.

3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Background knowledge is only drawn on during discussion time briefly where
5 students are asked to reflect on what sustainability means to them as well as their
understanding of timetables and their importance.
3.2 Cultural knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: No diverse groups or cultural views and understandings are mentioned in the
5 lesson.
3.3 Knowledge integration
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: One meaningful connection is mentioned when the teacher discusses with
5 students the importance and meaning of sustainability (relating to science/geography) in
the first discussion activity.
3.4 Inclusivity
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: N/A. Cannot determine until lesson is implemented as this would relate to
5 students and teacher behaviour in the way they exclude or include themselves and others
in the classroom.
3.5 Connectedness
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: The lesson is very much connected to the real-world in terms of understanding
5 real timetables for the daily life of students. However, the final activity is superficial and
involves an unrealistic scenario, but nevertheless involves working with and understanding
timetables that can relate to skills needed in the real-world and implications for use of
timetables. Students are not required to demonstrate their knowledge to or influence
external audiences.
3.6 Narrative
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Narrative is used in the final activity when a scenario is given (relating to Harry
5 Potter) about timetables. It is a superficial scenario and hence, does not really relate to a
real-world application or example of using timetables as indicated in the content area in
the syllabus, however, the questions asked relate to real-world problems when reading and
understanding timetables, hence furthering the substance of the lesson to possible
problems that can be faced with timetables.

Identifying Areas for Improvement

Identify the four NSW QT model elements you are targeting for improvement.

QT model
1) Cultural Knowledge 2) Student Direction
3) Explicit Quality Criteria 4) High Expectations

Lesson Plan

Topic area: Timetables Stage of Learner: 11, Syllabus Pages: pp. 34 pp. 38
Standard
Date: 23.03.17 Location Booked: Classroom Lesson number: 8
Time: 50 minutes Total Number of students: Printing/preparation: Links
30 to various transport websites
ready. Print worksheets and
corresponding timetables. Need
access to a Smart Board and
laptops/computers.

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

Formative  The interpretation of  Students review how to

MS11-3, assessment takes different timetables interpret timetables and
MS11-4, place throughout and how this can be use this to solve
MS11-9, the lesson. Teacher used as a part of life. problems using a range
MS11-10. walks around and How public of different timetables,
asks questions, and transportation can be including ferries, buses
ensures that used as a means of and trains. Incorporate
students are promoting 12-hour and 24-hour
staying on task. sustainability. time into understanding
 The difference timetables.
between 12-hour and  Use and incorporate
24-hour time. knowledge of technology,
 International time 12-hour and 24-hour
zones. time and international
time zones to solve
travel-related problems.

Time Teaching and learning actions

Intro Teacher greets students and asks them to sit down in their seats. Students take out
their work book and stationery required for the lesson. Teacher outlines what the
5 mins
lesson will entail.

Revision Revision
5 mins
 Teacher hands back results from the in-class assessment from lesson 7. Teacher
outlines what was done well overall and what the class will work on together, to
improve students’ understanding of content, as a path to achieve syllabus outcomes.

Body Class discussion

10 mins
Teacher facilitates discussion between students and asks questions about when and
where you may need to use a transportation timetable. Teacher shows a transport
timetable on the Smartboard and asks:

1. What is the purpose of this timetable?

2. What features does this timetable have?
3. What would happen if this timetable did not exist?
Within this section, the teacher briefly discusses with students about how using public
transport can help with sustainability, by reducing carbon emissions and what the
impact human activity has on ecosystems. Teacher asks students what sustainability
means to them.

1. How do you get to school every day?

2. How does where you live affect how you travel to school? (Distance,
Money, Access – consider rural areas/ other countries)
3. What do you think would happen if we did not have any timetables?
4. What are the different ways you have used or seen timetables being
used? (Apps etc.)
5. What are the main features of this timetable? (24-hour clock, locations
etc.)
10 mins Class activity and Smartboard interaction
Teacher briefly overviews how to read a timetable (using the example on the Smart
Board)
Students get into pairs and ask each other travel related questions, based on the ferry
timetable that appears on the Smartboard, and answer questions based on ferry, bus
and train timetables provided on papers.

Questions are provided on the board and begin simple and extend to become more
difficult: (Answers are given in 12-hour and 24-hour time)

1. What time do I have to leave Old Cremorne Wharf, if I am to arrive at

Circular Quay, Wharf 2 by 2pm?”
2. What time do I have to leave Central Station to arrive at Auburn Station
at 16:00?
3. What is the quickest way (transport method) to get from Parramatta to
Circular Quay, if I leave at 11:00? What time will I arrive?

Answers are shared together as a class at the end of the activity.

 Teacher walks around the room and checks students are staying on task, asking
relevant questions and helping where necessary. Teacher ensures that students are
helping each other, as a form of social support.

15 mins Worksheet activity*

Teacher hands out bus timetable worksheet activity. Students have the option of
working on this alone, or with another person or group.
After explaining the worksheet, the teacher indicates that she wants to see the
following criteria represented in their presentations in the following lesson to
students:

 At least 3 modes of transport selected (Sydney – Airport, Airport –

Airport, Airport – Tourist Attraction) – Creativity of Choice
 Times indicated for arrival and destination in local and international
time – Are these choices logical? (No overlaps, or long waiting times
etc.)
 Justification for choice of transportation methods and
websites/resources used – (Are they economical, efficient etc.)

Further prompts:

1. How will you travel from the school to Sydney Airport (drawing on first
activity questions and resources), indicate departure and arrival times.
2. How will you travel from Sydney Airport to _____ Airport (Provide links
to various travel resources and websites), indicate departure and arrival
times.
3. How will you travel from ____ Airport to the tourist attraction (suggest
links to overseas travel websites), indicate departure and arrival times.

Extension:

1. What is the cost of this travel plan?

2. What is the cheapest way of travelling to your destination?

Conclusion Teacher summarizes the key points of the lesson. Discusses what the next lesson will
entail. Asks students if they have any further questions.
5 mins
How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

MS11-3 Teacher and student questioning throughout lesson,

timetable worksheet. Student answers to activity
questions and worksheet. Use of 24-hour and 12-hour
time as well as international and local time correctly and
accurately.

MS11-4 Students working in pairs and helping each other

perform calculations based on time.

MS11-10 Timetable Worksheet.

MS11-9 Student use of technology to use appropriate transport

websites and applications for worksheet.
Worksheet activity*

Five trains travel from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to London Central on the
same morning. The Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts station 6 minutes after the Gryffindor
Goods Train, but arrives 14 minutes before the Slytherin All-Stations Train. The Gryffindor
Goods Train takes 46 minutes to reach London Central and arrives at 8:53am. The Ravenclaw
Express leaves 10 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express and arrives 14 minutes before the
Gryffindor Goods Train. The Muggle-stops train is running 6 minutes late on this particular
morning, and arrives in London Central at 8:37, after leaving Hogwarts 4 minutes before the
Hufflepuff Express. The Slytherin All-Stations Train takes 33 minutes to travel from Hogwarts to
Central London, and arrives 46 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts.

Work out the train timetable for the 5 trains.

Hogwarts London Central

Hufflepuff Express
Slytherin All-Stations
Gryffindor Goods Train
Ravenclaw Express
Muggle-stops

1. What is the latest time train you could catch from Hogwarts to arrive at London
Central before 8:40am? What train is this?
2. Explain what would happen if the Ravenclaw Express train was running 7
minutes late.
3. Hannah misses the Hufflepuff Express train by 2 minutes. She needs to be in
London Central by 8:45am. What may be a possible solution for her? Justify
reasons for your answer.
You and a group of friends wish to travel out of Australia for the school holidays and visit at
least one tourist attraction. To make this work, you must plan your travel to work out how you
and your friends are going to leave Australia and arrive at your destination in a timely manner.
You and your friends decide that you will all meet at the school and leave from there. Firstly:

1. Choose an overseas location you would like to travel to.

2. Choose one tourist attraction or place you want to visit.
3. Plan how you would travel from school to your destination country as well as the
tourist attraction (using transport facilities in Australia and in the International
country of choice)
4. Clearly indicate the times of arrival and destination (in Australian and your
designated countries time) for each of the stops.
5. Indicate why you chose the modes of transport that you did.
6. Present your plan in 1 minute to the class in the following lesson.
 Justification

The mathematics lesson plan has been modified to improve the following four aspects

of the Quality Teaching Framework; Cultural Knowledge, Student Direction, Explicit Quality

Criteria and High Expectations.

Cultural knowledge refers to the integration of views other than the dominant culture

into lessons which aim to allow students to understand and value the views and practices of

different groups (Quality teaching). Research indicates the importance and benefit of linking

every day, cultural practices, and students’ interests into the curriculum to enhance academic

achievement and engagement (Nasir, Hand & Taylor, 2008; Ukpokudo, n.d.). The previous

lesson plan was void of any cultural knowledge. The first two questions adjusted in the lesson

plan about how students travel to school and how place affects modes of transport incorporate

students’ experiences and own cultures (Nasir, Hand & Taylor, 2008; Ukpokudo, n.d.). The

questions can incite students to respond in relation to different social groups e.g. low/high

socio-economic status. Furthermore, the final worksheet activity on travel planning exposes

students to timetabling and public transport systems present in different cultures and how to

interpret them as well as appreciate their use and differences. It is important to note that

teachers do face some difficulties in incorporating culturally-responsive material in lessons,

as there is danger of conforming to stereotypes or presenting a shallow understanding which

is unrelated to the topic (Stavrou & Miller, 2017).

Student direction is argued to be a means by which students can further engage with a

topic due to being given some element of choice over the activity, pace or criteria (Gore,

2007; Attard, 2015). Students should not be provided complete control over lessons, however

they can be given choices over their representation of results, selection from a pool of topics,

or the manner in which they choose to work (Attard, 2015). Student direction was quite
limited in the previous lesson plan, only allowing students to select if they wished to work in

pairs or individually in the final task. In the reformed lesson plan, there is greater room for

student direction in the final task. Students are given choice over the location they choose to

research and the method they use to develop a travel plan (transportation methods, websites

etc.), they are also given a choice of working individually, in pairs or groups. Providing

students with choice in the classroom demonstrates teacher confidence and high expectations

of their abilities which results in greater student engagement and achievement (Rubie-Davies,

Peterson, Sibley & Rosenthal, 2015).

Teacher expectations are linked to student performance in the classroom (Centre for

Education Statistics and Evaluation, n.d.). Challenging activities, classroom climate, student

autonomy and direction are all factors which portray high expectations of students (Rubie-

Davis et al. 2015). Teachers often avoid challenging tasks in fear of negative student

responses, although research has indicated that most students prefer challenging tasks

(Sullivan, Clark, Cheeseman, Mornane, Roche, Sawatzki & Walker, 2014). The lesson plan

was not very challenging except for the final task which was challenging but mainly due to

the poor structure of the question which required students to process multiple pieces of

information simultaneously resulting in unnecessary working memory load (Centre for

Education Statistics and Evaluation, 2017). Furthermore, the task was not linked directly to

outcomes, and involved a superficial scenario. The alternative final activity as well as the

class activity focus on high expectations, which involve the students covering other syllabus

outcomes (NSW Education Standards Authority, 2018; Ladwig & Gore, 2003) including

conversion of 12-hour and 24-hour time, as well as participating in challenging and risk-

taking work (Ladwig & Gore, 2003) in the final activity whereby they must discover possible

methods of travel. According to Sullivan et al. (2014), it is important to be wary of

challenging tasks by providing enabling and extending prompts for students that may face

difficulty or find the task easy. This has been provided at the end of the worksheet.

Finally, explicit quality criteria were also not heavily addressed in the lesson plan.

Explicit quality criteria involve the teacher clearly articulating to students the quality of work

required to be produced in the lesson (Ladwig & Gore, 2003). Research has identified the

importance of teacher explicit instruction which involves explicit and relevant criteria

provided to students (Centre of Education Statistics and Evaluation, n.d.). In the altered

lesson plan, the teacher is more explicit about what she expects from students. In the first two

activities, the teacher is directly receiving responses from students and can provide a direct

line of feedback about their responses. In the final activity, the criteria are explicitly

articulated to students in terms of what quality and level of work is expected of them in line

with the outcomes indicated in the syllabus. The students are encouraged to critique their own

work and follow criteria before presenting work to the classroom on which they will be

provided with feedback. Providing students with clear learning goals and consequently

quality feedback is central to student outcomes and engagement (Rubie-Davies et al., 2015).

In conclusion, the four areas identified for improvement from the Quality Teaching

Framework have been used to justify reforms in the mathematics lesson plan.
 References

Attard, C. (2015). Engagement and mathematics: What does it look like in your classroom?
Retrieved from
https://cpl.asn.au/sites/default/files/journal/Catherine%20Attard%20%20-
%20Engagment%20and%20Mathematics.pdf

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2017). Cognitive load theory:
Research that teachers really need to understand. Retrieved from
https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au//images/stories/PDF/cognitive_load_theory_report
_AA1.pdf

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (n.d.). What works best: Evidence-based
practices to help improve NSW student performance. Retrieved from
https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/images/stories/PDF/What-works-best_FA-
2015_AA.pdf

Gore, J. (2007). Improving pedagogy: The challenges of moving teachers towards higher
levels of quality teaching. In J. Butcher, L. McDonald (Eds.). Making a difference:
Challenges for teachers, teaching and teacher education, 15-32. Sense Publishers.

Ladwig. J., & Gore, J. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: A classroom practice
guide. Retrieved from http://web1.muirfield-
h.schools.nsw.edu.au/technology/Programs/Template/Quality%20Teaching%20Guide
.pdf

Nasir, N. S., Hand, V., & Taylor, E. V. (2008). Culture and mathematics in school:
Boundaries between “cultural” and “domain” knowledge in the mathematics
classroom and beyond. Review of Research in Education, 32, 187-240. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20185116

NSW Education Standards Authority. (2018). Mathematics standard: Stage 6 syllabus.

Retrieved from
https://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/assets/mathematics_standard/mathematics-standard-
stage-6-syllabus-2017.pdf

Rubie-Davies, C. M., Peterson, E. R., Sibley, C. G., & Rosenthal, R. (2015). A teacher
expectation intervention: Modelling the practices of high expectation teachers.
 Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 72-85. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.003

Stavrou, S. G., & Miller, D. (2017). Miscalculations: Decolonizing and anti-oppressive

discourses in Indigenous mathematics education. Canadian Journal of Education,
40(3), 92-122. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1952361626/abstract/CCB0F088668B4952PQ/1
?accountid=36155

Sullivan, P., Clark, D., Cheeseman, J., Mornane, A., Roche, A., Sawatzki, C., & Walker, N.
(2014). Students’ willingness to engage with mathematical challenges: Implications
for classroom pedagogies. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.).
Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice - Proceedings of the 37th Annual
Conference of The Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (597-604).
Sydney: MERGA.

Ukpokudo, O.N. (n.d.) How do I teach mathematics in a culturally responsive way?

Multicultural education, 47-56. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/84ee/b1f09761f8d41af7fc32e95723bdfaa33915.pdf

Weebly Link

https://jjomaa.weebly.com