Task 2: Catering for Diversity

Artefact 1:
On my practical placement I was in a classroom with a child who
was partly deaf and who was significantly intellectually behind her
peers therefore she is on an IEP. This child has trouble writing but is
able to verbalise what she is thinking. It is therefore necessary for
this childs assessment pieces to be modified.
For an informal, formative assessment the class was required to
draw pictures of different settings they had read about in a story
they had just read in class, demonstrating AITSL Standard 5.1. They
were then required to use adjectives to describe the settings they
had drawn. For the child mentioned prior, her assessment was
altered in the following manner:
1)
She was required to draw one picture of a setting in the story
instead
of
four
2)
Due to the fact the child has poor writing skills, I took her into
another
room where it was quiet (so that she could hear me
better)
3)
I communicated to her that she was required to tell me what
she had
draw in her picture and I was going to write it down for
her. She
communicated that she had drawn a big shark with
sharp teeth; it was
swimming in the dark sea.
4)

I wrote down what she said next to her drawing

This artifact shows that the needs of diverse learners was

considered in terms of how the task was designed because it
allowed her to verbalise what she was thinking without struggling
with trying to write down her thoughts. It is though the
implementation of the change in the presentation of this
assessment, that is having an educator to support communication,
the student is able to access this assessment addressing AITSL
Standard 5.4 (Elliott, as cited in Readman & Allen, 2013). If this
child was required to write down what she was thinking she would
get fixated in the formation of the letters and the spelling of the
words instead of focusing on describing the setting which was what
was being assessed. In other words this task was completed in a
way that took the focus of things that the student would find tedious
and instead concentrate on what was actually being assessed: using
describing words. It could be said that if this child was required to
write down the describing words herself the task would not
demonstrate her understanding of using describing words in the
same way verbalizing her thinking did.
Another assessment accommodation that was made for this student
was a change of the location to enable the child to hear instructions

better. This is another assessment accommodation described by

Elliott (as cited in Readman & Allen, 2013).
Evidence of this students learning was collected though the
educator writing down what the student said. It is though this that
the assessment instrument was created to cater for her needs and
furthermore demonstrating AITSL Standard 5.5. This is primarily
because it enabled her to demonstrate what she understood without
the hindrance of writing becoming a distraction for her. The
assessment given to the student was then judged, not against other
students learning but against the childs own personal learning
goals, these judgments demonstrate AITSL Standard 5.3. Once the
assessment was completed, feedback was given verbally to the
student. This was done due to the fact that the student can more
easily understand verbal instructions as opposed to written. This
method of feedback addresses both AITSL Standard 5.2 regarding
providing appropriate feedback and the consideration of diversity in
the classroom.
Artefact 2: Formal, summative
Another student in this class was an ESL student. My mentor
teacher mentioned that she did pick up English quiet quickly
however she did struggle written language.
For a formal and summative writing assessment in which students
were required to complete a reflection of their time at swimming the
child mentioned above completed the same assessment,
demonstrating AITSL Standard 5.1. While she did complete the
same task as the other student in the class, her rubric outcomes
that she was being assessed on were slightly different to her peers.
In other words, she had different learning goals to meet. These
goals included achieving correct spelling, grammar and neat
handwriting. So the student did not have to struggle to think about
what to write about, she was given questions relating to the topic to
answer as what to write about often is a struggle for her.
Unlike assessments that are conducted one-on-one for some
children with diverse needs, this child does not require individual
instruction. However her diverse needs are met through the
implementation of an individual learning plan (Foreman & ArthurKelly, 2014). This artefact shows that the diverse needs to this
student was considered in the design of the task as the task was
structured in such a way that her focus did not have to be on what
she was writing about or who she was writing to, instead she was
able to focus on the mechanics of writing, the grammar, the
sentence structure and her handwriting. These are all things that
she knows she has to focus on and something that she is working
towards. By eliminating the element of what to write about and

giving her a structure she does not become overwhelmed. Through

the modifying of this assessment process AITSL Standard 5.4 was
demonstrated.
At the end of this assessment the childs work was collected and
marked like the rest of the class however hers was marked against
her own marking criteria based on her personal learning plan and
the ESL learning progression described in the English as an
Additional Language or Dialect: Teacher Resource (ACARA, 2014).
The use of these marking guides highlights the implementation of
AITSL Standard 5.3 of making consistent judgments. This normality
is important for this student as it enables her to feel like she is just
like the other students. Written feedback is given to the student
focusing on her spelling, grammar and handwriting. At the same
time, verbal feedback was given to the student when her work was
handed back. This is important for this student as it enables her to
be immersed in both written and verbal communication of English,
demonstrating AITSL Standard 5.5 of reporting positively and
appropriately. Words that the child struggled to spell in the
assessment were added to her list words. This enabled the child to
work towards improving her spelling, something she struggles with.
This use of appropriate and useful feedback demonstrates AITSL
Standard 5.2.
Artefact 3: Informal, formative
A child with dyslexia was also in this classroom. He experienced
difficulties with spelling and reading.
One of the informal, formative assessments undertaking in this class
was a writing piece in which students were required to write about
What I did on the weekend, demonstrating AITSL Standard 5.1 of
understanding and implementing formative assessment. All
students were required to write two pages however this child with
dyslexia was only required to write one page.
For the assessment I sat with him and asked him what his first
sentence was going to be. He told me and for each word he said, I
write a dash on his whiteboard to signify the word. We then revised
each word he said and word-by-word he was required to spell it out
and write it down. For the words he struggled with, I would help him
with the word and take not of the word he struggled with.
This artefact demonstrates that the needs of this student were
considered in regards to the design of the task as it allows for the
student to work through what he knows rather than giving him a
task that will only highlight his weaknesses. By breaking the whole
page of writing into sentence-by-sentence and then into word by

word, the child was not as confused and did not tend to get jumbled
up in the words. Elliott (as cited in Readman & Allen, 2013, p. 251)
suggests that practices such as this are important as they allow the
student to access the assessment or get into the assessment
process. Without this access to the assessment that is being
provided by the educator assisting with the breaking up of the
sentences, the student would not be access it. This modification of
teaching practice demonstrates AITSL Standard 5.4.
It should be noted that this assessment was not conducted in a
manner that advantaged the student in comparison to his peers by
having the assistance of an educator. The assistance provided
simply enabled accessibility and inclusion of the assessment for this
student (Readman & Allen, 2013).
Evidence of this students learning was collected through
observation and thorough antidotal notes. This catered to the
students diversity as it enabled the educator to see the process of
the students thinking in regards to spelling and writing. Rather then
simply reading a work sample that he may have done
independently, through this assessment instrument the educator
was able to see that the child even after being reminded wrote the
letter b instead of d or skip words. Through gathering this
information, the educator is able to exactly pinpoint a few areas that
the child may need assistance with and then focus of those areas
such as remembering to write d instead of b, rather than
overwhelming the child with correcting his writing process as a
whole. This enables the educator to then report on the childs work
and demonstrate AITSL Standard 5.2.
AITSL Standard 5.5 was met though ongoing verbal feedback given
to the student throughout the course of the activity. This immediate
feedback encouraged the student as this child does struggle with his
challenges to read and write therefore positive and encouraging
words are important for him. At the same time constructive
feedback was given to this child throughout the course of the writing
procedure. This enabled the child to immediately understand how
his work could be improved and then work on correcting this
element throughout the rest of the work piece, demonstrating AITSL
Standard 5.2. These judgments about the childs work were based
on his individual learning place and achievement goals, hence
allowing for consistent judgments about his work to be made,
demonstrating AITSL Standard 5.3.

References
ACARA. (2014). English as an Additional Language or Dialect
Teacher Resource.
Retrieved from
http://www.acara.edu.au/_resources/EALD_Resource__EALD_Learning_Progression.pdf
AITSL. (2014). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.
Retrieved from
http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professionalstandards-forteachers/standards/list?&s=5
Readman, K. & Allen, B. (2013). Practical Planning and Assessment.
South
Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.
Foreman, P., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2014). Inclusion in Action (4th ed.).
South

Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning Australia.