Stage 6 Mathematics Advanced Lesson Plan

Analysis and Revision

Fareha Faiz
18948501
 Lesson Plan

Topic area:
Using ICT in Maths
Stage of Learner:
Stage 6
Syllabus Pages:
Maths Advances
Date:

Location Booked:
Lesson Number: /
Time: 60 minutes

Total Number of students

Printing/preparation: Print
Handouts

Outcomes
Assessment
Students learn about
Students learn to

Syllabus outcomes
MA11-8 uses appropriate technology to investigate, organise, model and interpret
information in a range of contexts

Lesson assessment

Informal formative assessment.

Formal summative assessment

Usage of words such as equation, axis, linear relationship, non-linear relationship, parabola
and so on are examples of metalanguage used in this lesson.
Students are able to identify the axis of graph and is able to plot points on the graph.
Students are able to join in the discussion activity and justify graphs of non-linear
relationship.
Through the online activity, students are able to change the value of ‘a’ in the equation to
see the changes that happen to the graph.
Students are able to work individually to answer questions

Life Skills outcomes

CCP & GCs

Subject specific concepts

Discipline specific skills

Quality Teaching Elements (lesson focus) Highlight the appropriate areas
Intellectual Quality
This refers to pedagogy focused on producing deep understanding of important, substantive concepts, skills and
ideas. Such pedagogy treats knowledge as something that requires active construction and requires students to
engage in higher-order thinking and to communicate substantively about what they are learning.
1.1 Deep knowledge
1.2 Deep understanding
1.3 Problematic knowledge
1.4 Higher-order thinking
1.5 Metalanguage
1.6 Substantive communication
Quality Learning Environment
This refers to pedagogy that creates classrooms where students and teachers work productively in an environment
clearly focused on learning. Such pedagogy sets high and explicit expectations and develops positive relationships
between teacher and students and among students.
2.1 Explicit quality criteria
2.2 Engagement
2.3 High Expectations
2.4 Social Support
2.5 Students’ self regulation
2.6 Student direction
Significance
This refers to pedagogy that helps make learning more meaningful and important to students. Such pedagogy
draws clear connections with students’ prior knowledge and identities, with contexts outside of the classroom, and
with multiple ways of knowing all cultural perspective.
3.1 Background knowledge
3.2 Cultural knowledge
3.3 Knowledge integration
3.4 Inclusivity
3.5 Connectedness
3.6 Narrative

How the quality teaching elements you have identified are achieved within the
lesson.

Part B: Analysing and modifying the lesson plan

1. Strengths and weaknesses of lesson plan

1 Intellectual quality:
1.1 Deep knowledge
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 A substantive lesson plan requires central ideas incorporated within the plan
to be crucial to the topic being taught. The exemplar lesson plan has
formulated a sound level of deep knowledge as activities and discussions are
centred around the use of ICT and plotting graphs. However, a lack of
resources provided to students may impede on deep student learning.

1.2 Deep understanding

1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Deep understanding is highly centered on the students’ ability to show that
they have obtained a firm grasp of the topic. In the lesson plan students are
given the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding through group work
and peer sharing. However, this may be limited as the lack of individual work
 may weaken the true demonstration of students’ individual understanding of
concepts.

1.3 Problematic knowledge

1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Lesson plans have problematic knowledge when it involves an understanding
of knowledge as being socially constructed. Being a lesson plan for a math
class, problematic knowledge is insignificant. The information presented,
such as parabolic graphs and linear relationships are reliant on a fixed body
of information.

1.4 Higher-order thinking

1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Higher-order thinking is based on manipulating information by synthesising,
explaining and hypothesising. At some points of the lesson students are
prompted to conduct higher-order thinking through stimulating questions such
as ‘what do you think the relationship between these two variables are?’.
Students are also given group work whereby they are asked to manipulate
values of an equation in order to be able to synthesise and explain
differences in a graph.
1.5 Metalanguage
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Lesson plans that have high metalanguage are characterised by high levels
of discussion around language and how texts work. In the exemplar lesson
plan the teacher discusses various functions relating to a parabolic graph
including terms such as axis, linear relationship and non-linear relationship.
1.6 Substantive communication
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Classrooms where substantive communication is high, students and teachers
maintain a sustained interaction level about the content of the lesson. In the
exemplar lesson plan communication is substantive as the teacher interacts
with students through classroom discussions as well as encouraging students
to ‘share and discuss’ with peers.
Quality learning environment:
2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 In the lesson plan explicit quality criteria is high. Under ‘lesson preliminaries’,
the teacher is set to explain the success criteria and learning intention to the
students. This poses a great reference point when teachers and students
check their own or others’ work.

2.2 Engagement
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Engagement in class work seems to be relatively high as demonstrated in the
video. Students are continuously promoted to discuss answers and ask
questions, sustaining interest and attentiveness, as well as collaborate in
groups.
2.3 High expectations
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 High expectations are a great way of ensuring appropriate risks in learning
are taken. However, in the lesson plan expectations can be viewed as being
quite limited. Students are prompted to a website and asked to add ‘different
values of ‘a’ into the equation’. Students are asked little in regards to terms of
conceptual challenges and risk-taking.
2.4 Social support
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 The lesson plan as well as the video exhibits supporting behaviours by the
teacher whereby comments and actions encourage students to participate
and express solutions. However, support is arguably being directed at those
students who are most engaged in the lesson and actively answer questions.
2.5 Students’ self-regulation
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 The exemplar video demonstrates students being self-regulatory and
autonomous in their own learning with no signs of disruptions or poor
behaviour.

2.6 Student direction

1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Students have minimal control regarding the direction of the lesson with
activities, the pace of the lesson, and the assessment mode being
designated by the teacher. However, students are given the opportunity to
conduct group work, delegating authority to students and making them
responsible for specific parts of the lesson
3 Significance:
3.1 Background knowledge
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Classrooms where background knowledge is high allows students to create
connections between their own knowledge and the content. Under the
heading ‘direct instruction’ the teacher links topic to prior learning. However, it
does not state whether students have an active role in recalling their own
experiences.
3.2 Cultural knowledge
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 In the lesson plan there is a noticeable lack of cultural knowledge. Although
 cultural knowledge in a math lesson may be seemingly irrelevant, it’s effects
add to the significance of the lesson. The lesson plan doesn’t make reference
to diverse social groups as to suggest an understanding and valuing of the
different traditions and skills within the classroom.

3.3 Knowledge integration

1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Knowledge integration is somewhat present as there is a basic level of
connections being made with prior knowledge at the start of the lesson.
However, more links between the current topic and other mathematical
topics, such as algebra, can elevate this element.
3.4 Inclusivity
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Through the exemplar video as well as the written lesson plan inclusivity
appears to be high within the classroom. There seems to be a very open and
encouraging classroom environment through the high level of student/teacher
interaction

3.5 Connectedness
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 Connectivity is low whereby there is no indication that students are informed
or understand the value of the use of ICT in math beyond the classroom
setting. There is no interaction between the substance being taught and the
outside community.

3.6 Narrative
1–2–3– Comments:
4–5 The lesson plan has an appreciable flow starting with reminding students of
the topic and its links to prior knowledge. However, the lesson plan lacks the
use of a narrative and stories to help bring alive the substance of the lesson.

Identifying Areas for Improvement

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

QT model
1) Deep understanding 2) High expectations
3) Connectedness 4) Deep knowledge
2. Modified lesson plan

Tim Teaching and learning actions Organisation Centred

e T/S
5 Lesson Preliminaries/Administration Teacher:
 Settle students into the classroom.
 Mark the roll. Student:

 Success criteria and learning intention explained.

 Group students according to levels. Assign Resources:

students to small, intimate groups of around 3-4

pupils, ensuring groups consist of students with
different abilities and skills
10 Direct Instruction Teacher:
5  Welcome students and remind them of the topic
and links to prior learning. Student:
 Brief overview of ICT tools in Maths.
Resources:
Class collaboration
 Discuss with students the significance of the topic,
10 why they are studying the topic and when they may
need to exhaust their skills. Look at public and
community links to topic and how ICT can be useful
in generating graphs and parabolas in our society.
 PARABOLIC GRAPHS: Students draw mind-map
on whiteboard answering following questions
o What is a parabola?
o What are parabolic graphs?
 Functions related to parabolic graphs. Teacher
introduces the concepts listed above using an
interactive infographic.
 Let’s look at how the graph should have been
plotted.
 Ask students: What do you the think the
relationship between these two variables?
30 Group Work Teacher:
10  At the end of the explanation, students are asked to
visit the following website: Student:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/quadraticequat
ion-graph.html Resources:
 to try adding different values of ‘a’ into the equation
and see the difference in the graph.
10 Peer sharing and questioning Teacher:
5  Students peer share and discuss how and what if?
 Collaborate on proposed solutions to address Student:
maths problems.
 Teacher leads brief class discussion to summarise Resurces:

and clarify the applied geometric concepts

Individual work Teacher:

 Textbook questions to be worked on individually.
20 Questions should range from basic to harder Student:
questions. Questions should involve word
problems, geometric and algebraic concepts and Resources:
require students to manipulate numbers to reach a
conclusion and conceptual understanding of the
relationships between graphs and numbers
 Teacher checks students’ progress giving feedback
and individually assists students who may be
struggling and reluctant to engage
5 Direct Instruction Teacher:
 Set homework to be marked next lesson
 Provides students with two YouTube videos and a Student:
handout to consider at home for further assistance.
 Teacher consolidation of the learning and success Resources:

criteria.
Teacher:

Student:

Resources:
40 Teacher:

Student:

Resources:
45 Teacher:

Student:

Resources:
50 Teacher:
 Student:

Resources:
60 Teacher:

Student:

Resources:
Reflection

What have I learned about the teaching and learning process when preparing this lesson?

Preparing and modifying the following lesson plan has lead to the appreciation that teaching
and learning as a multidimensional process permeates fundamental complexities,
necessitating rationalistic planning. It has made apparent that a successful lesson plan
integrates three main components including objectives for learning, teaching and learning
activities, and strategies put in place to check student progress. Additionally, the teaching
and learning process does not require the exhaustion of extensive resources and
descriptions for each classroom scenario. Rather, it acts as a general guideline for teaching
goals and objectives, facilitating student learning.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

MA11-8 uses appropriate Informal questioning of student understanding as the
technology to investigate, lesson progresses.
organise, model and
interpret information in a Formal checking of students’ progress whilst
range of contexts conducting in class individual work

Checking and grading homework the following lesson

Other considerations

Graduate Evidence within this lesson

Standards
Know  Provide students with alternative resources such as YouTube
students and videos and written handouts to cater for different learning
how they preferences
learn

Plan for and  Formulate an effective lesson outline incorporating objectives

implement for student learning, teaching and learning activities, and
effective strategies to check student progress and understanding
teaching and
learning

Create and  Conducting intimate group work to allow for effective idea and
maintain skill transfer between students
supportive  Allow time for class discussions and collaborations
and safe
learning
environment
s

Assess,  Set individual classwork to allow for personalised feedback

provide  Set homework for marking in next lesson in order to assess
feedback student progress
and report on
student
learning

Resources Attached:

 ICT tools
 Mathematics Textbook
 YouTube videos
 Worksheet handouts

Part C: Academic Justification

Teaching as a multidimensional process necessitates rationalistic planning (Hall & Smith,
2006; John, 2006). Modifications to aspects of the lesson plan are made to incorporate an
inquiry-based learning (IBL) approach, essential in ensuring optimal student learning. From
a pedagogical perspective IBL emphasises active participation and learner responsibility
(Pedaste et al., 2015). Keeping IBL in mind, improvements in heightened expectations,
connectivity, deep understanding and deep knowledge are fundamental in ensuring the
lesson plan is supportive of student learning.

According to studies changes occurring to the teaching and learning of mathematics means
basic skills are no longer proficient with students needing to develop conceptual knowledge
(Jamar & Pitts, 2005). This is achieved through development of a high quality-learning
environment, the pedagogy creating productive classrooms where students and teachers
are focused on effective learning. A key aspect of a quality-learning environment is high
expectations. Where teacher’s expectations are high students are likely to be more
intellectually challenged and take systematic risks, leading to greater learning (McDonald et
al., 2016). IBL encourages incorporation of class collaboration and idea sharing as well as
being actively involved in constructing your own understanding through individual work. The
lesson plan is devised for stage 6; however, students are rarely challenged with the only
form of classwork being a 30-minute group activity. The lesson plan has been modified to
reduce the 30-minute group-work in order to include a 20-minute individual activity whereby
students are asked to answer textbook questions. During this time the teacher will walk
around the class giving feedback. Requiring students to work on their own allows them to
utilise high cognitive thinking as they are challenged to think through questions
independently. Further, the individual task allows for differentiation whereby questions range
from basic, to more challenging, for academically advanced students. This encourages risk-
taking behaviours, an important aspect to richer and more rewarding learning, (Neihart,
1999). Finally, another strategy applied is placing students in flexible and different ability,
rather than homogenous, groups. Empirical research suggests that ability grouping creates
greater inequality between high and low achiever (Hallinan, 1987). Thus, the pedagogical
practice of differentiated grouping ensures that students encounter a variety of grouping
configurations as well as students with different abilities and interests (McDonald et al.,
2016). This will assist students looking at themselves in different roles as well as encourage
them to learn from each other’s ideas, especially where groups are small and intimate
(McDonald et al., 2016).

Further, the lesson plan lacks connectedness, obstructing lesson significance. Where
connectivity is high students are able to recognise and explore connections between the
theories they learn in class and situations that go beyond the school realm, creating greater
value and meaning. This pedagogy is an essential element ensuring students are able to
extract deep meaning from the classroom knowledge. The lesson plan has been modified to
address this issue through the introduction of a classroom discussion whereby the teacher
considers with students the significance of the topic. This includes looking at why students
are studying the topic and when they may need to exhaust their learnt skills. The teacher
and students look at public and community links to the topic and how ICT can be useful in
generating graphs and parabolas in our society, producing important data. This modification
is justified through the work of Lawson & Chinnappan (2000) who believe teachers must
help students ‘develop connections, and construct meanings’ (Lawson & Chinnappan,
2000). A study conducted by Lawson & Chinnappan (2000) showed that students who were
exposed to knowledge connectedness could retrieve greater knowledge more
simultaneously and could activate links among given knowledge schemas and related
information, heightening problem solving skills.

A key question asked by teachers is, “how well have students have understood the
content?”, in order to ensure high intellectual quality. The pedagogy of deep understanding
is concerned with whether students have grasped central concepts taught within a
classroom. In accordance with IBL the modified lesson plan incorporates formative and
summative assessments whereby it is believed that a comprehensive assessment program
within a classroom balances both, allowing a clear depiction of where a particular student
lies in comparative to learning targets. Assessment should be ongoing with clear criteria
links as well as focussing on building upon prior knowledge. Research has demonstrated
that formative assessments are ‘practices within a classroom that allow teachers to interpret
student achievement in order to make better decisions about the next steps’ without student
accountability (Andersson & Palm, 2017). The lesson plan incorporates formative learning
through peer questioning and sharing, collaborative mind-mapping and teacher feedback.
Summative assessments are those assessments that determine what students know at a
particular point in time. Changes to the lesson have introduced a homework component that
will be marked in the following lesson, contributing to the students’ academic records. These
newly introduced assessments will allow the teacher and students to form a clearer picture
about students’ deep understanding.

A final modification, central to IBL, seeks to enhance deep knowledge. IBL encourages
students to actively construct meaning through hands on research and processing,
improving critical-thinking skills (Duran 2015). In this case, students need to engage in the
obtainment of deep knowledge, knowledge provided by teacher deemed as being crucial to
the subject. Deep knowledge can be built through the careful selection of resources and
learning tools to connect and clarify information. Thus, the modified lesson plan
incorporates rich resources whereby the teacher provides students with two YouTube
videos and a handout, requiring them to provide a summary of at least one resource the
following lesson. The use of these resources allows students access to alternative
materials, assisting in the obtainment of a more richer knowledge pool. By providing
students with a YouTube video as well as a handout, the teacher is able to differentiate and
tailor instructions and learning to different students’ preferred modes of studying.

Modifications made to the lesson plan aims at introducing an IBL approach. Modifications
intend to enhance the quality of teaching and learning experience, encouraging optimal
student achievement.

Reference

Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017). Characteristics of improved formative assessment

practice. Education Inquiry, 8(2), 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185

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

about teacher cognitive processes. Quest. 58(4), 424-442.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2006.10491892

Hallinan, M. (1987). Ability grouping and student learning, Springer. Boston.

Jamar, I., & Pitts, V. (2005). High expectations: a “how” of achieving equitable mathematics

classrooms’. The Negro Educational Review. 56(2), 127-134.

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

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

Lawson, M., & Chinnappan, M. (2000). Knowledge connectedness in geometry problem

solving. National Council of Teacher Mathematics. 31(1), 26-43.

McDonald, L., Flint, A., Rubie-Davies, C., Peterson, E., Watson, P., & Garrett, L. (2016).

Teaching high-expectation strategies to teachers through an intervention process.

Professional Development in Education, 42(2), 290-307.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.980009

Neihart, M. (1999). Systematic risk-taking. Roeper Review, 21(4), 289-292.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553977
Pedaste, M., Maeots, MM., Siiman, L., Jong, T., Riesen, S., Kamp, E., Manoli, C., Zacharia,

Z., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inguiry-based learning: definitions and the inquiry

cycle. Educational Research Review, 14(1), 47-61.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

URL web link to Learning Portfolio: