Artefact One

The spelling groups in the class are differentiated based on student ability. There are four different spelling groups
and each group is given a different spelling list every Monday morning. Spelling lessons are conducted every day,
and on each day, students complete a different spelling activity that allows them to learn their spelling words. Every
four weeks, the spelling test results are evaluated and spelling groups are modified based on student performance.
There is girl with dyslexia in the classroom. Often, she works through the same spelling lists for two to three weeks
at a time, depending on the time required for her to develop confidence and learn her spelling words. She also
receives individual time with the education assistant every Tuesday and Thursday for her spelling. There is also a
boy with a terminal illness in the classroom. He is very ill and has frequent hospital visits and is therefore, often
absent. He also works through the same spelling list for two to three weeks at a time depending on his attendance.

The task was designed to cater to different spelling abilities amongst students. There was a
distinctive range in spelling knowledge in the class and therefore, having one spelling list for all
students was not ideal or productive. The classroom teacher was very thorough in ensuring all
students were working in the zone of proximal development whereby they were all working
towards an achievable challenge. Evidence of student learning (spelling books) were marked
every evening to ensure students were completing their spelling activities each day and the test
marks were recorded and evaluated every four weeks to ensure they were in the group that best
suited their knowledge and ability. Through this, a comprehensive application of assessment to
diagnose learning needs of students (AITSL Standard 5.1). Feedback was offered to students
every Monday based on their Friday spelling test results and every four weeks when their spelling
groups were evaluated. Students struggling were prompted for extra assistance (AITSL Standard
5.2). The task was also diversified for the girl with dyslexia and the boy with the terminal illness
to ensure they were not being directed towards an unreasonable goal and were working towards
a reasonable goal that placed them within their zone of proximal development. There was no
specific student learning that was reported or conveyed to parents and carers. However, spelling
results and improvements were considered towards English grades at the end of every semester
and a there was communication as to student improvement on spelling with parents (AITSL
Standard 5.5).
Although the task attempted to cater for students of different spelling abilities, it was not
diversified in terms of work load, specifically for the students in the weakest spelling group. They
were still expected to learn 20 words every week. It was evident that this was an unreasonable
challenge for some of the students who had reading and spelling of ages almost three to four
years than was expected. Therefore, it is crucial that as future educators, a conscious effort is
made to allow for diversification even if tasks are already designed to cater for students of
different ability levels.

Artefact Two
There were a range of assessment modifications applied to cater for Conor, the boy with a terminal illness. His
medication made his eyes spasm and his hands shaky. He was also reliant on an oxygen machine for his breathing.
Conors end of term Mathematics assessments only contained areas of Mathematic s he had studied and the topics he
had missed due to absence was omitted from his test. His test was printed on A3 sheets so that the font was bigger
and his eyes were able to focus much easier, and he had enough space to record his answers. When Conor reached
halfway through his assessment, the side effects from his medication were too strong, and he was not able to control
the shaking. He was initially given a ten-minute break to rest his eyes and recline his chair for a rest. When Conor
was ready to keep going with the assessment, he was given the option to attempt the test at a later stage or have the
education assistant scribe for him. He chose to have the educations assistance and she read the questions to him and
scribed his answers for him.
This approach to catering for diversity ensured that Conor was allowed to partake in classroom
activities and assessments like all other students but modifications were made to ensure his
medical condition and comfortability was not compromised. By simply enlarging his test,
presentation accommodations were made, allowing Conor better visualisation and space to
record his answers despite his shaky hands. When Conor could no longer complete the activity
on his own, assistance was provided through response accommodations but his learning and
understanding of Mathematical concepts were still evaluated through other means. Providing
him extra time to complete the assessment was also made possible through timing and
scheduling accommodations applied to Conors assessment (Readman & Allen, 2013). The test
also only contained areas of the Mathematics curriculum that Conor had been present at school
for because it was unreasonable to test him on something he had not learnt. Through this a
assessment strategies were imposed in an effort to diagnose Conors learning and assessment
need. Despite high levels of absence, curriculum requirements were still satisfied by diversifying
assessments to suit the impacts of Conors illness on his schooling (AITSL Standard 5.1). This
allowed for identification his misconceptions of Mathematical concepts taught. This was
especially necessary for Conor because he was frequently absent due to hospital appointments .
Feedback based on this assessment was especially conveyed to his mother with the Conors
because every Thursday, the hospital sent a home-school teacher to Conors house catch up on
all the schooling he had missed and it was crucial that his misconceptions were communicated
to ensure these could be addressed with his home-school teacher (AITSL Standard 5.2, 5.5).
Artefact 3
For Science, students researched natural disasters and did a speech about a specific natural disaster in history and the
theory behind how it occurred. One of the students in the class, Reymark, was a selective mute. There was only one
person in the entire school he spoke to, Mrs Van Der Merwe, the Spanish teacher. After the assessment was explained
to the students, it was explained to Reymark that he had the option of either presenting his speech to Mrs Van Der
Merwe in an environment where it would be just the two of them, or he could submit his speech typed up and he
wouldnt have to orally present. These was communicated to Reymarks parents and with their convincing, Reymark
chose to present his speech to Mrs Van Der Merwe.

Reymarks selective mutism was diagnosed as psychiatric disability as a result of social anxiety
due to excessive bullying in his previous school. By providing Reymark response
accommodations, AITSL Standard 5.1 (2013) was complied with, through the application of a
wide range of assessments strategies, complying with curriculum requirements of state and
national regulations in an effort to promote valid participation by students (Readman & Allen,
2013). By allowing Reymark to present his speech with the Spanish teacher, setting and
environmental accommodations were made, to allow for inclusion, accessibility and
unprejudiced assessment (Readman & Allen, 2013). By including a different teacher in the
process of assessment, AITSL Standard 5.3 in regards to moderation was also met whereby
comparable judgments of student learning were made. After the assessment, his performance
was discussed between the two teachers. At the end of this, a list of feedback was devised and
communicated back through to Reymark through written means and verbally by Mrs Van Der
Merwe (AITSTL Standard 5.2). Through the explicit communication maintained with Reymarks
parents throughout his assessment process, informative and timely reports were provided to
Reyamarks parents (AITSL Standard 5.5).
Despite the assessment modifications neither the content expected in Reymarks speech nor his
rubric was diversified in reflection of his abilities. His condition has had a severe, detrimental
impact on his school and as a result, he has very low reading and writing abilities. These coupled
should have resulted in a different rubric and set of expectations for Reymarks presentation and
it is evident that the task was not structured as such.