![]()
Please find below:
|
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
|
Audit and critique of unit plan
The inclusion of the ‘student strengths’ and ‘student weaknesses’ sections was applaudable, as it allows the teacher to plan for differentiation within the over instruction. However, the ‘student weaknesses’ section lacked sufficient detail to plan for suitable activities. Further details on what the students currently find difficult would enhance this section.
Differentiation was considered for the ‘assessment’ piece, however it is questionable as to how much this would assist the students. The students identified as ‘weak’ in reading and writing were given the option of an oral. It is assumed that the students would still need to complete a written copy of their work for submission or at least as a guideline to their oral, therefore this does not seem to have assisted them. There is also insufficient detail to determine the scaffolding that would be provided on the assessment piece, such as; structure of the assignment, guiding questions or limitations and parameters on sources of information.
The spatial design element was incorporated to a reasonable degree within the ‘sequence of lessons’. Graphs and diagrams were mentioned numerous times, although there was no detail on whether the students would be learning how to use them. The teaching and use of the food web was the most outstanding example of spatial thinking incorporated into the unit overview. Otherwise we assume that the appropriate overt instruction on how to understand and draw conclusions from spatial representations would be included into the activities.
It is difficult to draw conclusions as to whether overt instruction was sufficiently addressed in this unit plan given that the descriptions are usually limited to what the students will do, rather than the pedagogies and strategies used to assist student learning. Incorporation of education on the appropriate metalanguage was prominent, although there was no mention of links to previous knowledge or situated practice with these terms. Given the lack of information, we assume that overt instruction was included in each of the activities. For example, we assume that for the practical experiments, the students were taught the scientific report structure, appropriate use of language, skills to analyse sources of information and draw valid conclusions and how to create and draw conclusions from graphs.
Differentiation was considered for the ‘assessment’ piece, however it is questionable as to how much this would assist the students. The students identified as ‘weak’ in reading and writing were given the option of an oral. It is assumed that the students would still need to complete a written copy of their work for submission or at least as a guideline to their oral, therefore this does not seem to have assisted them. There is also insufficient detail to determine the scaffolding that would be provided on the assessment piece, such as; structure of the assignment, guiding questions or limitations and parameters on sources of information.
The spatial design element was incorporated to a reasonable degree within the ‘sequence of lessons’. Graphs and diagrams were mentioned numerous times, although there was no detail on whether the students would be learning how to use them. The teaching and use of the food web was the most outstanding example of spatial thinking incorporated into the unit overview. Otherwise we assume that the appropriate overt instruction on how to understand and draw conclusions from spatial representations would be included into the activities.
It is difficult to draw conclusions as to whether overt instruction was sufficiently addressed in this unit plan given that the descriptions are usually limited to what the students will do, rather than the pedagogies and strategies used to assist student learning. Incorporation of education on the appropriate metalanguage was prominent, although there was no mention of links to previous knowledge or situated practice with these terms. Given the lack of information, we assume that overt instruction was included in each of the activities. For example, we assume that for the practical experiments, the students were taught the scientific report structure, appropriate use of language, skills to analyse sources of information and draw valid conclusions and how to create and draw conclusions from graphs.
Recommendations for redesign
Spatial design element
Given that the University of Redland (n.d.) lists “designing any kind of plan or arrangement of information” as spatial literacy, I feel that this unit plan overlooked an opportunity to allow students to practice their spatial thinking. The activities that focused on metalanguage and relationships could have allowed the students to demonstrate their understanding through the synthesis of mind maps or relationship webs.
The most glaring omission in relation to spatial literacy was the lack of overt instruction and situated practice in the activities. To assist with this process, the teacher may choose to utilise ICT, such as the Geographical Information Systems (GIS). GIS “enable teachers to give pupils the sense of reality, urgency, experience, fun and location. Instead of being told about facts and results the students can discover on their own.” (Scholten & Van Leeuwen, 2009).
Overt instructions
“One of the most important (principles of good teaching) is the need for planning. Far from compromising spontaneity, planning provides a structure and context for both teacher and students, as well as a framework for reflection and evaluation” (Spencer, 2003, p. 25). Therefore planning of scaffolding questions, activities, tools and resources (including online) is imperative and was not demonstrated in the unit plan. There is also a dire need of the demonstration aspect of overt instruction, as the students need to be able to visualise and understand what the end result should look like (The New London Group, 1996). Following the demonstration, students will need to experience the activity first-hand and receive constructive feedback through the related situated practice aspect of multiliteracies pedagogy (The New London Group, 1996).
Given that the University of Redland (n.d.) lists “designing any kind of plan or arrangement of information” as spatial literacy, I feel that this unit plan overlooked an opportunity to allow students to practice their spatial thinking. The activities that focused on metalanguage and relationships could have allowed the students to demonstrate their understanding through the synthesis of mind maps or relationship webs.
The most glaring omission in relation to spatial literacy was the lack of overt instruction and situated practice in the activities. To assist with this process, the teacher may choose to utilise ICT, such as the Geographical Information Systems (GIS). GIS “enable teachers to give pupils the sense of reality, urgency, experience, fun and location. Instead of being told about facts and results the students can discover on their own.” (Scholten & Van Leeuwen, 2009).
Overt instructions
“One of the most important (principles of good teaching) is the need for planning. Far from compromising spontaneity, planning provides a structure and context for both teacher and students, as well as a framework for reflection and evaluation” (Spencer, 2003, p. 25). Therefore planning of scaffolding questions, activities, tools and resources (including online) is imperative and was not demonstrated in the unit plan. There is also a dire need of the demonstration aspect of overt instruction, as the students need to be able to visualise and understand what the end result should look like (The New London Group, 1996). Following the demonstration, students will need to experience the activity first-hand and receive constructive feedback through the related situated practice aspect of multiliteracies pedagogy (The New London Group, 1996).