TPA

PRESENTATION
THOMAS BRAZIL 110172897
PLACEMENT CONTEXT
• Category 6
• 508 students
• Diverse international population
• Strong STEM focus
• Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program
• Specialist subjects:
– Japanese
– Physical Education
– Performing Arts
– Science
– HASS
PLANNING
• Learning Area: 2D and 3D shapes
• Class of year 1/2’s
• Content Descriptors:
Year 1:
Recognise and classify familiar two-dimensional shapes and three-dimensional objects using obvious
features (ACMMG022)
Year 2:
Describe and draw two-dimensional shapes, with and without digital technologies (ACMMG042)
Describe the features of three-dimensional objects (ACMMG043)
• Specific Learning Outcomes:
Students will:
Understand the difference between 2D & 3D shapes Identify and count the features of corners and sides to
identify 2D shapes
Identify and count the features of faces, edges and vertices Be familiarised with drawing and constructing 2D & 3D
to identify 3D shapes shapes
• Assessment: Formative assessment of 2D shapes and their features
Summative assessment of 2D and 3D shapes and their features
UNIT PLAN
PRE-TEST
• Prior Knowledge:
• Essential that teachers are aware of what
students know before beginning a new topic
(Blum 2000, p. 40)

• Enables teachers to understand how and

where to begin communicating with and
providing feedback to students (Blum 2000, p.
40; Fyfe, Rittle-Johnson & DeCaro 2012, p.
1095)

• More detailed and specific plan for 3 students

• Selected to demonstrate range of abilities
STUDENT 1- ASHLEE
• Year Level: 2
• Previous learning level: Higher achieving student, particularly in Maths
• Learning needs: Creative expression, taking risks- lower half of reading levels
• Pre-test results: 2D shapes 3D objects
Triangle ✔ Face ✔ Cube ✔ Faces ✔
Square ✔ Sides ✔ Sphere ✔ Edges
Circle ✔ Corners ✔ Cone Vertices
Rectangle ✔ Features? Pyramid ✔ Features?
Oval ✔ Understood 2D shapes have Rectangular Prism Could identify faces but
1 face. struggled to count them
Semicircle ✔ Triangular Prism
Could identify and count the
Pentagon sides and corners of easier
Cylinder ✔
shapes.
Hexagon ✔ Tetrahedron (triangular Difference between 2D
based pyramid) and 3D
Became confused with more
Octagon complex shapes Octahedron “2D shapes are flat, but 3D
shapes are things that you can
Rhombus
hold”
Kite ✔
Parallelogram
STUDENT 2- NICK
• Year Level: 2
• Previous learning level: Mid-range student across learning areas.
• Learning needs: Easily overwhelmed/confused by new mathematical concepts
• Pre-test results: 2D shapes 3D objects
Triangle ✔ Face Cube ✔ Faces
Square ✔ Sides ✔ Sphere Edges
Circle ✔ Corners ✔ Cone ✔ Vertices
Rectangle ✔ Features? Pyramid Features?
Oval ✔ Did not understand 2D Rectangular Prism Unfamiliar with terminology.
shapes have 1 face. Could identify edges when
Semicircle ✔ Triangular Prism they were compared with
Could identify and count the sides.
Pentagon sides and corners of easier
Cylinder ✔ Confused by faces & vertices
shapes.
Hexagon Tetrahedron (triangular Difference between 2D &
Became confused with more based pyramid) 3D
complex shapes
Octagon Octahedron
“2D shapes are like on paper,
Rhombus but 3D shapes can be round”

Kite
Parallelogram
STUDENT 3- AARVI
• Year Level: 1
• Previous learning level: Lower mathematical capabilities- mid-range in other learning areas
• Learning needs: Struggles to grasp new mathematical concepts
• Pre-test results: 2D shapes 3D objects
Triangle ✔ Face Cube ✔ Faces ✔
Square ✔ Sides Sphere Edges ✔
Circle ✔ Corners ✔ Cone Vertices ✔
Rectangle ✔ Features? Pyramid Features?
Oval ✔ Did not understand 2D Rectangular Prism Could identify all features and
shapes have 1 face. knew 3D specific terminology.
Semicircle Triangular Prism Struggled to count features.
Could identify and count
Pentagon corners.
Cylinder
Hexagon ✔ Octahedron Difference between 2D &
Became confused with more
complex shapes 3D
Octagon ✔
Rhombus Does not understand

Kite ✔
Parallelogram
LESSON 1
• Demonstrate difference between 2D & 3D shapes
• 2D shape sorting:
– Pair work- Ability grouping (Prast et al 2018, p. 22)
– Open-ended- elicits higher-order thinking (McKnight & Mulligan 2010, p. 4)
– Investigative (Sangster 2012, p. 40)
– Concrete materials- promote and consolidate understanding (Cook 2012, p. 12)
• Shapes Pizza
– Focus on introducing new shapes: Rhombus, Kite and Parallelogram
– Relevant to student interests/experiences
– Opportunities for extension (Sullivan 2011, p. 27)
• Reflection
– Class circle to share pizzas
• Which shapes did you use? How many?
• What are the features of those shapes?
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
Ashlee:
Identified each of the shapes
Did not use the kite
Required extension:
Listed features of the shapes
Confused by circle
Nick:
Correctly labelled most
shapes
Did not use the kite
Confused rhombus with
diamond
Observation: asked for
assistance regarding pentagon
Aarvi:
Correctly labelled all shapes,
but missed pentagon
Extended herself with
parallelogram shape
EVALUATION
Self Evaluation
What went well? What would I do differently?
Students were engaged Students required more direction and
Students were familiarised with new instruction in sorting activity
shapes: rhombus, kite, parallelogram Only provide some shapes- have students
In reflection, students: cut out their own
- Demonstrated improved
understanding
- Engaged in productive discussion
LESSON 2
• Label 3D shapes
– Student-assisted instruction (Grundey 1998, p. 36)
– Predominantly teacher-directed to introduce new concepts
• 2D Assessment Task
– Written form to show evidence
– Formative assessment to provide feedback for potential modifications (Fry 2012, p. 34)
• 3D object construction- photos with iPads
– Manipulative materials to assist understanding of key concepts (Cook 2012, p. 12)
– Use of technology is an essential aspect of Australian classrooms (Attard 2013, p. 38)
• Reflection:
– Put up photos of constructed objects- have students share
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
Ashlee:
Proficient understanding of 2D and
3D shape features.
Drew and created shapes correctly
Took few risks/challenges
Nick:
Counted 2D shape features correctly
but confused by incorrected drawings.
Created 3D shape correctly- faces and
vertices correct but not edges.
Aarvi:
Did not write features for some. 2D
counted features shown were correct.
Edges for cube incorrect, all other 3D
features correct.
Shapes drawn and created accurately.
EVALUATION
Self Evaluation
What went well? What would I do differently?
Manipulative materials greatly assisted A more engaging learning activity for the
student understanding of 3D shape formative assessment.
features. Model how to create the 3D shapes
Students were engaged throughout the (construction challenges)
lesson.
Formative assessment task provided clear
information for future modifications
(pentagon/octagon/hexagon knowledge;
focus on edges)
LESSON 3
• 3D shape sorting
– Pair work- Ability grouping (Prast et al 2018, p. 22)
– Open-ended- promote concept development and allow for a range of abilities (McKnight & Mulligan
2010, p. 4)
– Investigative (Sangster 2012, p. 40)
– Concrete materials- promote and consolidate understanding (Cook 2012, p. 12)
• Summative Assessment Sheet
– Measures achievement of accumulated knowledge towards specific outcomes (Buchholtz et al 2018,
p. 716)
EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING
Ashlee:
Correctly identified most shapes.
Accurately drew and labelled both
2D and 3D shapes.
Confused side and edge
terminology.
Would benefit from further
extension (more difficult shapes).
Nick:
Demonstrated increased
recognition of new shapes, both
3D and 2D.
Understood what key features
were and drew accurately.
Needs further teaching on
different feature terminology.
Struggles to count from drawings-
only counts what he can see.
Aarvi:
Still confused the ‘gon’ shapes-
could not identify octagon but
drew and labelled one accurately.
Almost all features correct- one
edge inaccurate
Used correct terminology.
Challenged herself with difficult
shapes.
EVALUATION
Self Evaluation
What went well? What would I do differently?
Received a clear understanding of student Have concrete materials ready for those
development throughout the unit students who struggled to count the
features of their drawings.

Overall Unit
Students all showed understanding of Greater focus on ‘gon’ shapes- connect
new shapes. name to number of sides.
Students demonstrated ability to identify
2D and 3D shape features and count Lesson focused only on edges.
mostly accurately.
Students could all explain the difference 2D and 3D shape terminology.
between 2D and 3D shapes.
REFERENCES
• Attard, C 2013, ‘Teaching with technology: iPads and primary mathematics’, Australian Primary Mathematics
Classroom, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 38-40.
• Blum, K 2000, ‘Students’ prior knowledge- some implications for teaching mathematics’, Teaching Mathematics,
vol. 25, no. 24, pp. 35-40.
• Buchholtz, N, Krosanke, N, Orschulik, A, Vorholter, K 2018, ‘Combining and integrating formative and summative
assessment in mathematics teacher education’, ZDM, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 715-728.
• Cook, N 2012, ‘Concrete materials’, Prime Number, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 12-14.
• Fry, K 2012, ‘Formative assessment in mathematics inquiry: principles of feedback deepening mathematical
understandings’, Teaching Mathematics, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 34-36.
• Fyfe, E, Rittle-Johnson, B, DeCaro, M 2012, ‘The effects of feedback during exploratory mathematics problem
solving: prior knowledge matters’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 1094-1108.
• Grundey, S 1998, ‘The curriculum and teaching’, in E Hatton (ed.), Understanding teaching : curriculum and the
social context of schooling, 2nd edn, Harcourt Brace, Sydney, pp. 27-37.
• McKnight, A & Mulligan, J 2010, ‘Using open-ended tasks to build models and construct patterns’, Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 4-9.
• Sangster, M 2012, ‘An investigative approach to teaching primary mathematics’, Journal of the Association of
Teachers of Mathematics, vol. 231, no. 4, pp. 40-41.
• Sullivan, P 2011, ‘Teaching mathematics: using research-informed strategies’, Australian Education Review, ACER
Press, Camberwell.