TEDE513-15 Assignment 3:

Reviewing the learners experienced curriculum in Health, Physical Education or Science, or

Technology.
Contextual Note:
Unfortunately I had little influence or control over how or what I taught during my science lessons.
There was an expectation from my mentor teacher to teach the water cycle, regardless of
conversations about the curriculum level of that subject. There were also expectations for me to
teach it how she has always taught it, even though I had provided my lesson plans in advance of
the lesson taught. Lastly, there were additional expectations regarding its integration with
procedural writing, as I was scheduled the writing block to complete my lessons.

Introduction
Just because you have taught it, doesnt mean that it has been learnt (Fautley & Savage,
2013; Rodgers, 1989). This notion resonates with me and is highlighted by Rodgers (1989) when
he argues that the taught curriculum is distinctively different from the experienced curriculum,
which can also be argued to be different from the intended curriculum. This is because students
process information given to them through individualistic means to form personal meaning, based
on knowledge, past experiences and environment (Rodgers, 1989). This essay will discuss three
aspects of the teaching and learning process: the intended curriculum, the taught curriculum and
the experienced curriculum. Each of these three areas will be discussed in regards to assessment
of students learning and future amendments to teaching and learning provided.

The Intended Curriculum and Assessment

Stringer (2013) and Lee and Abell (2007) emphasise the importance of assessment
decisions within the intended curriculum/planning process and makes a clear distinction between
summative and formative assessment. In order to effectively assess students learning, I needed to
consider assessing students experienced curriculum. For this purpose I decided to integrate
formative assessment methods into my lessons, based on Volkmann and Abell (2003) and
Rodgers (1989) recommendations. I chose formative activities that required students to feedback
their knowledge through verbal, kinesthetic and written tasks to ensure all student learning styles
and preferences were met (Stringer, 2013; Noe, 2010). Through determining these formative tasks,
I asked myself what do the students know at this stage of the lesson and how can I make their
thinking visible (Fautley & Savage, 2013; Keely, 2008).

Therefore I structured the intended curriculum on a constructivist and socio-cultural

perspective of learning, where I was able to formatively assess a baseline of students prior
knowledge and continuously assessment students thinking through the construction of knowledge
as a group (Duit & Treagust, 1995). In order for this formative information to be beneficial I also
had to consider and specify Specific Learning Outcomes (SLO) and Achievement Criteria (AC)
during the planning process. This allowed the lessons to be a continuous process of identifying
students learning gaps and ensuring the instruction was moving them towards the achievement
criteria (Harlen, 2006). Consequently the SLOs and ACs also provided a method of comparing the
students experienced curriculum against the intended curriculum (Fautley & Savage, 2013).
Another area that was considered during the planning process was the movement and
grouping of students during the lesson (Froschauer & Bigelow, 2012). By considering the students
moves within the lesson plan I was able to ensure I gave opportunities to formatively assess as
many students thoughts and process as possible, which gave me information of how and where to
progress the lesson to next. Within my lesson plan I decided to move seamlessly between small
group and whole class discussions achieved through using Think, Pair, Share (TPS) pedagogy
(Thornton, 1991; Radhakrishna, Ewing, & Chikthimmah, 2012). This strategy enabled students to
construct knowledge through discussion, as well as provide opportunities for formative assessment
of small groups thinking. Additionally the use of TPS was a way for me to ensure a safe and
collaborative learning environment for students who may be hesitant to contribute and participate
or have language difficulties (Radhakrishna, Ewing, & Chikthimmah, 2012).

The Taught Curriculum and Assessment

In reflection of my Science lessons, the taught curriculum was far from the intended
curriculum due to various circumstances outside my control (Refer to annotated lesson plans).
There a clear distinctions between the two lessons taught. The first lesson followed a constructivist
and socio-cultural approach to teaching and learning which was centred on the students
knowledge and experiences and the collective construction of new knowledge (Hofstein &
Walberg, 1995; Keely, 2008). This approach left room for students to feedback formative
information to the teacher, through discussions, manipulation of objects and written work (Keely,
2008). The second lesson followed a behaviourist approach to teaching and learning, which was
centred on the teacher feeding students information and students writing that information down
(Hofstein & Walberg, 1995). Through this approach there was little room for students to feedback
formative information and therefore required a different method of making students thinking visible,
which resulted in a summative assessment (Keely, 2008).

An area that I had not considered prior to my science teaching sessions is the development
of students metacognitive strategies in regard to the success criteria, as well as reflection on the
quality of work required for that success criteria (Fautley & Savage, 2013; Keely, 2008). Although I
provided students with the intended learning and success criteria I did not emphasise or expect
students to reflect on or evaluate their own learning against this success criteria (Keely, 2008;
Harlen, 2006). Wiliam (2008) argues that students engagement with success criteria provides
them with a purpose for learning, as well as empowerment and sense of control over their learning.
Another area that I only superficially considered that became apparent during the first
lesson, was the classroom culture, environment and context. Keely (2008) argues that for
formative assessment to be effective and valuable to students, the classroom environment must be
conducive to discussions, ideas and risk taking, where it is about the construction of knowledge
rather than the right answer. Being a student teacher in a classroom environment that was
constructed by someone else, I needed to be more aware and prepared for the dynamics of the
environment. I noticed during the initial prior knowledge discussions some students were opting out
of the discussions, while others were repeating I already know this. This could have been due to a
number of reasons based on the classroom environment that the students are used to, however I
needed to adjust my teaching more to match the context of the class (Keely, 2008).

The Experienced Curriculum and Assessment

Figure 1. TPS exercise on what happens to puddles on a hot day

Figure 2. TPS exercise on why windows fog up

Information from both figure 1 and 2 was gathered informally through TPS exercises to
grasp a sense of prior knowledge at the beginning of the lesson. Throughout the first lesson I used
this information as a comparative tool of where, they have been, with where they are going. A
similar process was intended to be repeated towards the end of the series of lessons and data
compared to inform me of feedforward information of where to next. A similar formative
assessment process was recommended by Rodgers (1989) as a method of informing the next
teaching and learning phase; however Keely (2008) and Harlen (2006) argue that it is not formative
assessment if it is not used to inform future teaching and learning as a continuous cycle. The
constraints of formative assessment observed within my lessons was the issue of group thought,
where it is difficult to gauge individual student information as with group work it is the thoughts of
the collective group rather than the individual. Therefore to meet the expectations of my mentor
teacher of providing her with information about individuals students achievement, I had to conduct
a summative assessment.
Additional formative assessment was collected in a form of a written procedure of the
students observations. This formative information gathered demonstrated that the majority of
students need more instruction on developing and writing a prediction, as well as more structured
scaffolding towards writing and making judgements about their observations (Refer to figure 3).
The information also showed the majority of students had a clear understanding of evaporation;
however most students missed predicting the condensation component of the experiment,
demonstrating the next stage of teaching and learning should focus more on the condensation
process (Refer to figure 4). Although this formative assessment provided me with individual
feedback on students thinking that I could use for future teaching and learning, it was time
consuming and I felt that students were not constructing new knowledge they were simply copying
from the board.

Figure 3. A students written results.

Figure 4. A students written prediction.

The summative assessment was conducted to measure and rank students against a scale
of achievement (Refer to Appendix B and C). Although I recognise that summative assessment is
essential for reporting achievement and meeting school and governmental requirements, the
information collected was not useful for me or the students as it had an ending with no requirement
for action (Harlen, 2006). However it provided formal, objective and systematic feedback on what
students understood, which can be compared and interpreted against the lessons SLO and AC.
The constraints of summative assessment observed within my lessons were within its rigorous
nature, where there is little considerations for circumstances that were outside the expected norm
(Harlen, 2006). For example, one student showed considerable learning within the formative
assessments, but showed he had no understanding within the summative assessment.

Future Amendments
If I were to repeat these lessons I would make a number to changes to ensure the formative
assessment was more effective and informative for my future lesson planning. Firstly I would
employ a number of Keely (2008) formative assessment classroom techniques (FACT) for the
purpose of identifying preconceptions, motivating students, promoting metacognition, encouraging
scientific discussion and inquiry, concept development, questioning, feedback, self-assessment
and reflection. Additionally, I would also incorporate controversial and debatable questions into my
pedagogy, which question students assumptions and engage them in critical thinking around a
topic (Keely, 2008). This also relates to and offers a method of providing differentiated instruction
for students who require enrichment and accelerated programmes.

Conclusion
In conclusion, I have reflected on three distinct but integrated areas of teaching and
learning: the intended curriculum, the taught curriculum and the experienced curriculum. In relation
to assessment of students learning the intended curriculum requires well planned lessons that
integrate formative assessment seamlessly into the programme. This is to ensure teachers are
continuously engaging with students learning and adjusting lessons during the taught curriculum.
However it is the experienced curriculum that assessment is essential, as this provides feedback,
not on what was intended or taught, but what was actually learnt. Finally, I provided some
reflections on how I could improve my lessons in future to ensure my assessment pedagogical
practice is more effective.

References
Duit, R. & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In
B. J., Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education. Chicago, IL: National
Society for the Study of Education.
Fautley, M., & Savage, J. (2013). Lesson planning for effective learning. Maidenhead, Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Froschauer, L., & Bigelow, M. L. (2012). Rise and shine: A practical guide for the beginning
science teacher. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Hanauer, D. I., Hatfull, G. F., & Jacobs-Sera, D. (2009). Active assessment: Assessing scientific
inquiry (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Harlen, W. (2006). Teaching, learning and assessing science 5-12 (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage
Publications.
Hofstein, A. & Walberg, H. J. (1995). Instructional Strategies. In B. J., Fraser & H. J. Walberg
(Eds.), Improving science education. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of
Education.
Keeley, P. (2008). Science formative assessment: 75 practical strategies for linking assessment,
instruction, and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lee, M. H., & Abell, S. K. (2007). Assessing for science learning. Science and Children, 44(7), 66.
Noe, R. A. (2010). Employee training and development (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Radhakrishna, R., Ewing, J., & Chikthimmah, N. (2012). TPS as an active learning strategy.
NACTA Journal, 56(3), 84.
Rogers, V. (1989). Assessing the curriculum experienced by children. The Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9),
714-717.
Stringer, J. (2013). Primary Science Curriculum Guide. Florence, KY: David Fulton Publishers.
Thornton, C. A. (1991). Think, Tell, Share Success for students. Arithmetic Teacher, 38(6), 22-23.
Volkmann, M. J., & Abell, S. K. (2003). Seamless assessment. Science and Children, 40(8), 41.
Wiliam, D. (2008). Improving learning in science with formative assessment. In J. Coffey, R.
Douglas & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: Perspectives from research and
practice. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Appendix B: Summative Assessment

Appendix C: Summative Assessment Results

First Name

Last Name

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Overall

Elijah Kane Lemamquis

BLODWELL

Darryl Zach

BRADLEY

VG

Samantha Ngahuia

CLUNIE

Amber Amaris Patrick

DASS

VG

Liana Claire

DUCAY

VG

Brahmvir Singh

GHUMAN

VG

Abigail

HAMPTON

VG

Kauri Tyrel Sheen

HIGGINS

Levi Anthony

HOUPAPA

Lapuke Raitera

HUNT

VG

Vania Vrunda

KUMAR

VG

Daykota

MEN

Tyler Douglas Gerald

PENE

VG

10

Taimona

PUUTU

VG

Marian Kahita

SAENIASI

VG

Gabriel Alexander

SALES

NW

Paige Elizabeth

SOLLY

VG

Jorja Katelyn

TASKER

Olive

VAN STELTENKARAITIANA

VG

Vicente Nikolas

VARAS REA

VG

Aarya

VIVEKANANDAN

Raichel

WILLIAM

Elmos Larry

Key
WILLIAMS

VG

Key

Overall

Correct answer

Incorrect answer

Excellent

VG

Very Good

Good

NW

Needs Work

Question 4

Very confident

A little bit
confident

Not very

11

confident

Not confident

12