Chosen Lesson Plan:

ENGLISH
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: Although knowledge concerns “speeches” as the central idea or

–5 concept of a broad topic, text, it is almost shallow by being treated

superficially by the teacher. He/she attempts to address that speeches are

powerful examples of spoken texts, but the focus is not sustained throughout

the lesson as the majority of class activities circumvent this focus.

1.2 Deep understanding

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: Deep understanding is occasionally evident by students

–5 examining how written language in oral presentation reveals the power of

written words. Shallow understanding is also demonstrated by students as

they provide information that may not truly reflect the theme of the lesson.

1.3 Problematic knowledge

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: Knowledge is treated with multiple perspectives – individual,

–5 small group, and class. Basic assumptions of knowledge is constantly

questioned and explored throughout the lesson.

1.4 Higher-order thinking

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: From doing an initial research of Martin Luther King Jr. and

–5 Richard Gill to writing down and sharing thoughts of their speeches to

constructing own speech, high-order thinking is required for students

throughout the lesson. Learning may not be taken in new directions as lesson
 is structured to achieve a specific result.

1.5 Metalanguage

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: As this English lesson is already about exploring two speeches

–5 and how these texts convey power of words, the use of metalanguage is highly

evident. Comparison and contrast of the two texts also highlight contexts

provided by language.

1.6 Substantive communication

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: Substantive communication sustains throughout the lesson, but it

–5 is forced amongst the students by the teacher. The interaction between

students and the teacher is hardly evident.

Quality learning environment

2.1 Explicit quality criteria

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: The teacher gives students clear, detailed, and specific

–5 instructions on their tasks in terms of procedure. Students have no way of

knowing what the teacher expects of their work quality.

2.2 Engagement

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: This score of 1 does not necessarily reflect poor pedagogy, but

–5 indicates that this particular element of “engagement” is not a feature of the

lesson plan.

2.3 High expectations

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: Students’ participation in challenging work may be evident

–5 through the level of complexity of their research on Martin Luther King Jr.

and Richard Gill. The concluding task of writing own speech could be a

challenging task if one is to use the worksheet, integrate the lesson activities,

and show a clear understanding of audience and purpose altogether.

2.4 Social support

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: By merely facilitating small group and class discussions, there is

–5 some level of social support. Does that mean social support is also directed to

students who are not actively participating in the discussions?

2.5 Students’ self-regulation

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: Although this score of 1 does not necessarily reflect poor

–5 pedagogy, what would happen if some students deviate instead of doing

research on Martin Luther King Jr. and Richard Gill? Teachers then may

spend some time disciplining and regulating such behaviour.

2.6 Student direction

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: The general framework of the lesson is seemed to be determined

–5 by the teacher. Group and class discussions are the only activities in which

students may exercise some control.

3 Significance

3.1 Background knowledge

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: Students’ background knowledge is only mentioned in the

–5 beginning of class by being reminded of various texts studied and presented

with spoken texts being studied for this lesson. The background knowledge

and substance of the lesson are likely to be well connected, but unlikely to

include “out-of-school” knowledge.

3.2 Cultural knowledge

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: Cultural knowledge is recognised and valued in the lesson in a

–5 substantial manner. Different social groupings are identified: King as a Black

American middle class Baptist minister civil rights activist; and Gill as a

white Australian middle class conductor.

3.3 Knowledge integration

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: There is some level of knowledge integration by linking speeches

–5 as spoken texts to other texts studied in the subject area. However, the

knowledge is bound to that of this specific topic and English.

3.4 Inclusivity

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: The lesson plan yields a degree of inclusivity as the two main

–5 texts to be studied in the lesson represent dissimilar social groupings. Students

of more than a social group may relate to either King or Gill and be included.

3.5 Connectedness

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: High connectedness is evident as the value and meaning of King’s

–5 text carries on beyond the classroom. His speech, by many, has been

considered inspirational and transformational for decades, and students have

an opportunity to address practical problems or situations that they may face

in the future.

3.6 Narrative

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 Comments: There is some use of narrative as the texts encompass historical

–5 accounts and cultural texts. However, it is not used for a substantial portion

of the lesson.

Identifying Areas for Improvement

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

QT model
1) 2.1 Explicit quality criteria 2) 2.2 Engagement
3) 2.3 High expectations 4) 2.5 Students’ self-regulation
 Modified Lesson Plan - English

Topic area: Stage of Learner: Syllabus Pages:

Close look at speeches Stage 5 – Year 10

Date: Location Booked: Lesson Number: /

Time: Total Number of students Printing/preparation

1 hour Class set of both worksheets; a

poster of Martin Luther King Jr.;

and a poster of Richard Gill

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

Syllabus outcomes Students present Students learn about Identify and explore the

speeches in class speeches as powerful purposes and effects of

Responds to and composes spoken texts by different text structures

increasingly sophisticated considering two and language features

and sustained texts for speeches from of spoken texts, and use

understanding, interpretation, different contexts. this knowledge to

critical analysis, imaginative create purposeful texts

expression and pleasure that inform, persuade

(EN5-1A) and engage

(ACELY1750)

Time Teaching and learning actions

Intro Remind students of the various text types they have studied and briefly review

them.
 Indicate that this lesson will be focused on speeches as powerful examples of

spoken texts.

Communicate to students that expectations are high and encourage to extend

beyond their comfort zone throughout the lesson.

Body Present to the class a poster of Martin Luther King Jr. and let the students guess

the person on the poster.

Provide students with a short amount of time to research ten most interesting facts

about King in either a list form or a mind map form.

Gather ten most interesting facts about King across students in the class.

Note: If the list exceeds ten, erase least interesting fact(s); and by sharing

their findings, the whole class has a similar level of background knowledge.

Repeat for Richard Gill

Provide students with the ‘I Have a Dream’ worksheet to look over and request

for detailed answers to the last two questions.

View King’s speech (8 minutes).

Note: Make sure your students know that this is only half of the speech.

Students then write down their initial thoughts in answer to the questions

regarding King’s speech.

Facilitate small group discussions where students can share their answers, giving
 more importance to the last two questions.

Provide students with the ‘Value of Music Education’ worksheet to look over and

request for detailed answers to the last two questions

Show students Richard Gill’s The value of music education (13 minutes).

Students have time to write down their initial thoughts in answer to the questions

regarding Gill’s speech, before discussing these answers in small groups, once

again, giving more importance to the last two questions.

As a class, construct a Venn diagram which identifies the similarities and

differences in the speeches of King and Gill with a focus on the language features

used. As more content is added to the Venn diagram, continually highlight the

vastly different contexts of the speeches.

Facilitate a class discussion where students can contribute their ideas about what

it is they thought were features of persuading, informing, motivating, and/or

entertaining of the speeches. This is another way of ensuring that students are

considering the effectiveness of the speeches.

Further discussion can briefly explore the concept of how written language when

presented to an audience orally, can affect the power of the written word.

Conclu Students then commence writing their own short speech using the ‘Plan Your

sion Own Speech’ worksheet. Emphasise the importance of students demonstrating

that they have a clear understanding of audience and purpose

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

EN5-1A Students present their speeches in class. An activity

could then be based around looking at what made the

speeches different with regard to language use,

purpose and intended audience.

WORKSHEETS

Http://www.capthat.com.au/sites/default/files/Close%20look%20at%20speeches%20worksheet

%201.docx

http://www.capthat.com.au/sites/default/files/Close%20look%20at%20speeches%20worksheet

%202.docx
 The original English lesson plan has been modified in an attempt to better its pedagogy in

terms of quality learning environment. The pedagogy nevertheless promotes high levels of both

intellectual quality and significance. Students’ learning is focused on challenging, substantially

deep knowledge, and conceptual ideas, and knowledge is designed to be delivered in a high level

of complexity, promoting higher-order thinking amongst students (Gore, 2007). Students’

cultural knowledge to learning materials applies both inside and outside the classroom, and there

is a clear reason that the learning matters (Ladwig & Gore, 2009). The four elements of the NSW

model of pedagogy targeted for improvement are explicit quality criteria, engagement, high

expectations, and students’ self-regulation (Ladwig & Gore, 2009).

Low explicit quality criteria is identified in the original lesson plan. The teacher gives

students instructions on their imminent tasks only in terms of procedure. When the teacher only

references procedural requirements, students have no way of knowing what is expected of the

quality of their work. Being told to research about Martin Luther King Jr. and Richard Gill and

share the findings later in the class, students are likely to produce work at varying degrees of

quality (Hall & Smith, 2006)). In the modified lesson plan, students are instructed to research ten

most interesting facts about King and Gill in one of two specific ways. By requesting to research

“most” interesting facts, students have reference points of what facts are most interesting, least

interesting, and in between (John, 2006). While the original plan invites students to merely write

down their initial thoughts in answer to the questions in the provided worksheet, the modification

clarify the students of the quality of answers to the answers. As detailed answers are required for

answering the purpose and language techniques employed for each of the text, succinct and

concise answers are assumed to be given for other questions.

 Although engagement in the original lesson plan is not necessarily poor, the element is

essentially absent. The modification thus includes this element of engagement as a feature of the

lesson. Presenting a poster of King and then asking the class to guess the person, for instance,

encourages engagement by switching individuals “on” to the task. The visual stimulus is likely to

play a central role in communicating students to pursue the substance of the lesson (Mathewson,

1999). Another way the modification prompts on-task behaviours of students is them sharing

unique facts about King and Gill amongst peers. As only ten most interesting facts are upheld

throughout the lesson, competitiveness and sense of contribution drive students to engage in

these tasks (Clifford, 1972; Hollander, 2002; Willms, 2003).

High expectations in the original lesson seem to be only evident at the conclusion when

students structure own speech to illustrate clear understanding of audience and purpose. The

lesson plan has been modified in a way that expectations are high throughout the lesson. Teacher

initially informs students to go beyond their comfort zone by constantly challenging and taking

risks. Teacher during class prompts challenge by only allowing ten facts to go on the board and

erasing the rest. This is likely to bring about students trying hard and taking some degree of risks

for their facts to make it to the last ten (Ladwig & Gore, 2009). Teacher leads a challenging class

discussion by addressing students to pool ideas of language features of persuading, informing,

motivating, and entertaining speeches.

Self-regulation is likely to be low when the original activity provides students with a

short amount of time to research on King and Gill. If students are to deviate from the requested

task, the teacher may devote a significant amount of time to disciplining and regulating

inappropriate behaviour, rather than teaching and delivering learning materials (Ladwig & Gore,

2009). To prevent this, a task preceding research is directly linked to it, and instructions are
made specific and clear. Such coherence between adjacent tasks could minimise interruption to

the lesson (Egeberg, McConney, & Price, 2016; Guardino & Fullerton, 2010).
 References

Clifford, M.M. (1972). Effects of competition as a motivational technique in the classroom.

American Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 123. doi: 10.2307/1162055

Egeberg, H., McConney, A., & Price, A. (2016). Classroom management and national

professional standards for teachers: A review of the literature on theory and practice.

Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(7), 1-18. doi:10.14221/ajte.2016v41n7.1

Gore, J. (2007). Improving pedagogy: The challenges of moving teachers toward higher levels of

quality teaching. In J. Butcher & L. McDonald (Eds.), Making a difference: Challenges

for teachers, teaching, and teacher education (pp. 15-33). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:

Sense Publishers.

Guardino, C. A. & Fullerton, E. (2010). Changing behaviors by changing the classroom

environment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 8-13. doi:10.1177/00400599100420

0601

Hall, T. J., & Smith, M. A. (2006). Teacher planning, instruction and reflection: What we know

about teacher cognitive processes. Quest, 58(4), 424-442. doi:10.1080/00336297.2006.10

491892

Hollander, J. A. (2002). Learning to discuss: strategies for improving the quality of class

discussion. Teaching Sociology, 30(3), 317. doi:10.2307/3211480

John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498. doi:10.1080/00220270500363620

Ladwig, J. G., & Gore, J. (2006). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: An assessment

practice guide (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Education and Training.
Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators.

Science Education, 83(1), 33-54. doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(199901)83:13.3.co;2-q

Mutton, T., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing

expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(4),

399-416. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.580516

Willms, J. D. (Ed.). (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and

participation. Paris: OECD.

URL Link to Learning Portfolio: https://jhjchoi.weebly.com/