102086 Designing Teaching and Learning 2H 2019

SCIENCE LESSON
PLAN ANALYSIS AND
REVISION

Zhuying YANG
Student number:19957858
 1. Lesson Plan Analysis
1 Intellectual quality
1.1 Deep knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The class has covered the knowledge with the focus on cause, effect and
solution of using plastic bags. Teacher provided well-structured activities to clarify those
key ideas and illustrate the connection among them. The only concern is that teacher just
simply mentioned some key concepts, such as high-density polyethylene without deep
explanation.
1.2 Deep understanding
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Most of students generated reasonable answers and explanation regarding the
key ideas of plastic bag when they shared with peers and class. The successful redesign of
renewable alternatives was also the way to demonstrate their deep understanding of
scientific influence on the choice.
1.3 Problematic knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Students highly encouraged to address multiple causes, effects and solutions
regarding plastic bag usage from different perspectives. However, they were more likely
to express their opinion and interpret it without proactive questioning. The redesign of
renewable alternatives allowed students to challenge existing renewable bin liners merely
in a passive manner.
1.4 Higher-order thinking
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The class still involved a range of routine lower order thinking, such as
identify and list the causes and effects. The higher order thinking was involved in judging
the true or false for the factual statement as well as redesign bin liners by evaluating its
pros and cons. Students need to select and put the relevant factors together to form new
alternatives with improved feature.
1.5 Metalanguage
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Teacher stopped to correct the scientific terminology used by students in the
answers only once. Yet, during the class there is no further language clarification
provided for students. The key terminologies were not clearly defined as well
1.6 Substantive communication
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Students were engaged in dialogical classroom in which could communicate
and interact in the pair discussion throughout a large portion of class time. Teacher
provided meaningful feedbacks and comments to students while listen to their point of
view.
Quality learning environment
2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Teacher explicitly illustrated that he expected students to know ‘why do we
use so many plastic bags in Australia?’; ‘what is the effect on the environment?’ and
‘what can government and individual do to solve the problem. He also showed the
process of making bin liner in front the class. However, there was no formal assessment
designed according to the criteria and only informative assessment was to question
students.
2.2 Engagement
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Students had the enthusiasm and initiatives to participate in the activities,
sharing their answers to the class actively. Seldom students were distracted from the lesson
process.
2.3 High expectations
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: To redesign the bin liner was the only activity that challenge students from
the initial design. Teacher did not communicate his expectation and risk recognition
explicitly with students.
2.4 Social support
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Teacher provided opportunities for student to share their opinion to the class
and gave positive feedback and praises for their contribution. The peer support was also
encouraged when students demonstrate their pair work. Students were acted as patient
listener when others express their view, respecting others’ efforts.
2.5 Students’ self-regulation

1
 1–2–3–4–5 Comments: Students followed instruction and participated in the activities throughout the
class. They actively discussed with peers and answered the question. Teacher has never
been interrupted to correct students’ behaviour and distraction
2.6 Student direction
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The activity of redesigning renewable alternatives was designed to be student-
directed. It allowed them to select where and how to improve the bin liners. However, the
other aspects including time, pace and assessment were controlled by teacher in terms of
giving direct instruction.
3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Teacher provided background information of the plastic bag’s features and its
usage in the life in the factual statement only. However, there was little interpretation and
deep explanation about the background knowledge and did not include the prior knowledge
and personal lives.
3.2 Cultural knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The class has only focus on dominant culture and was not recognised any
cultural knowledge regarding diverse social groups. There was no knowledge introduced to
challenge the dominant discourse.
3.3 Knowledge integration
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: There was lack of meaningful connection between science and other KALs.
The knowledge was subject-specific.
3.4 Inclusivity
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Teacher has created a collaborative classroom where all students were engaged
in and worked with their partner. Since the most activities were worked with pair, it
restricted whole class to integrated together.
3.5 Connectedness
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Students might come up with the potential cause and effect of the plastic usage
which were mainly from personal experience and real-life situation. It was possible to come
from own imagination as well. Teacher did not emphasize the connection to real-life
3.6 Narrative
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Narrative was not an emphasis of the class. Students may use narrative to share
their life experience to their peers regarding the waste and environmental issue but seem to
be very small part of the class.

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

QT model
1) Background knowledge 2) High expectations
3) Student direction 4) Metalanguage

2
 2. Modified Lesson Plan – Bin Liners
Syllabus: Science Stage: Stage 4 Topic: Earth and Space

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

SC4-13ES Explains how Informal formative ES3 Scientific knowledge Classify a range of the
advances in scientific assessment. influences the choices Earth’s resources as
understanding of people make in regard to renewable or non-
processes that occur the use and management renewable.
within and on the Earth of the Earth’s resources.
influence the choices Investigate some
people make about strategies used by people
resource use and to conserve and manage
management. non-renewable resources,
e.g. recycling and the
alternative use of natural
and made resources.

Note: Not all activities may be captured by the video. Assume they were covered by the teacher.

Time Teaching and Learning Actions

5 min Lesson Preliminaries/Administration
 Settle students into the classroom.
 Mark the roll.
10 mins  Welcome students and remind them of the topic.
Warm up
 Start from the question of ‘from your observation, how many plastic bags your family
need to use every day? and introduce key ideas for this lesson:
o cause and effect with questions being “why do we use so many plastic bags in
Australia?” and “what is the effect on the environment?”
o solutions with questions being “what have governments done to solve problems
caused by plastic bags?” and “what can citizens do to solve problems caused by
plastic bags?”
 Introduce students to high density polyethylene as a non-renewable resource used to
make plastic bag.

Direct Instruction
 Give overview of activity:
o Designing renewable alternatives to plastic bags using either newspapers,
cardboard or beeswax wraps. Teacher will show students a design and they
will improve that design.
 Give overview of thinking tools to be used:
o Think-pair-share
o Cause-effect map
o Pros-Cons-Questions
 Communicate and set learning goal with the class:

3
 o We are learning how Scientific knowledge influences the choices people make
in regard to the use and management of the Earth’s resources
10 mins Think-Pair-Share Activity
 Exam (recall) the prior knowledge regarding waste management and introduce
background knowledge in this lesson by giving students true/false statements worksheet.
The statements involve:
o Explicit meaning of the key concepts and terminologies in this lesson (e.g. the
definition of high-density polyethylene; classify the renewable and non-
renewable resources in science)
o The prior knowledge based on waste management
o Clarify the background knowledge of plastic bag (e.g. the average plastic bag is
used for only 5 mins but can take up to 1000 years to break down in the
environment)
 Students have 2 minutes to individually answer the questions (think).
 Students then have 1 minute to discuss their responses with the student sitting next to
them (pair).
 Teacher will then lead class discussion based on worksheets for 5 minutes (share)
o Clarify and explain the key ideas by referring to real- life experience
o Assist students in correcting and summarising the language usage during the
activities
10 mins Cause-Effect Mapping Activity
 Switch to new partner
 Give students cause-effect map worksheets
 Give several photographs in each group and ask students to infer the cause or effect
behind them.
 Students have 5 minutes to discuss in pair think of about as many reasons for why we
use so many plastic bags in Australia and many sub-effects of the production and the use
of plastic bag (shown from the photographs)
 Go around the class to check student understanding. Highlight the link between the
causes identified and the production of high-density polyethylene bags. Circulate to assist
students.
 Students have 2 minutes to list as many sub-effects of the production and the use of
plastic bag.
 Teacher leads brief class discussion to summarise the environmental effects identified by
the student potential answers for each photograph
o Ask for how/why/better word/evidence regularly when students share their
opinion to the class
o Assist students in correcting and summarising the language usage during the
activities
5 mins Direct Instruction
 Students can freely choose the biodegradable material provided, including newspaper,
cardboard and beeswax wrap (same size)
 Teacher to show students how to construct a biodegradable bin liner by folding 4 sheets
of newspaper. The bin liner will fit into the teacher’s waste-paper basket.
5 mins Pros-Cons Activity
 Teacher invites students to highlight the pros and cons of the biodegradable bin liners.
15 mins Student-Centred Activity
 Students to identify ways to improve the bin liners using MAS sheet
 Students to work in pair to refine the newspaper bin liners

4
  Explicitly communicate the expectation: design renewable alternatives with improved
feature and more feasible
 Provide options to students
o Choose a partner with the same interests
o Choose any of the material provided to improve your design
 Circulate around the room to assist students
 Students demonstrate their improved designs to the teacher, using teacher’s wastepaper
basket as a test
 Teacher to encourage peer support during demonstrations.
 Take home task: use your own designed bin liner for one week (goal setting)
o Self-assessment of the quality and feasibility of your design
o Share your difficulties and reflection to the class
 Summarise and close the lesson.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

SC4-13ES Informal questioning of student understanding as the lesson
progresses.

5
 3. Academic Justification
Background knowledge, high expectation, student direction and metalanguage are the four elements
can be improved.

First of all, the initial lesson plan merely involved background knowledge in terms of superficial facts of
plastic bags and given a weak connection to background knowledge beyond the school. Fisher (2012)
suggested that students can develop significant background knowledge through direct experience. The
class is redesigned to start from question that ‘from your observation, how many plastic bags your
family need to use every day, which is a personal experience that involved family. The other factor to
improve background knowledge is authentic learning. It means that the teacher needs to provide
opportunities for students to connect with real-world knowledge. This is approved by Deshpande’s
(2016) study where to enhance the text-to-world connections is an effective way to acquire background
knowledge and therefore facilitate text comprehension. In this case, the modified lesson plan has used
real photograph in think-pair-share activity to infer the causes and effects of using plastic bag from
reality rather than students’ own imagination. Moreover, quality teaching model also emphases that
prior knowledge is a critical part of background knowledge. The initial plan failed to include any prior
school knowledge for students. Hence, there are three pieces of information regarding waste
management learnt before added to T/F statement, strengthening its connection towards the
knowledge in this lesson and forming the big picture for students.

Secondly, high expectation teaching can be achieved by implementing flexible grouping; classroom
climate and goal setting (McDonald et al., 2016). In this sense, to explicitly state learning goal through
direct instruction is the key step to approach high expectation teaching, reflecting the enhancement of
goal setting. Teachers’ expectation and learning are clearly communicated at the beginning of the task
in the revised plan. Another goal is settled for take-home task of using own designed bin liners for one
week and share the difficulties to the class, challenging them from their initial thinking and promoting
learning autonomy and self-reflection to the students. According to Davies (2010), to involve challenged
material and tasks in the class provides students with more opportunities to learn, which reflects
teacher’s high expectation. Moreover, flexible grouping is always challenging students from their
interaction and collaborative work with new partner. Hence, the partners are reallocated at the
beginning of every new activity. Throughout the group discussion, teacher needs to question students
more frequently to challenge their thinking. For example, why do you think that is the case? How can
you find that? what is the evidence for you to draw the conclusion. Besides, setting the high standard of

6
correctness in the classroom is also an indicator to form high expectation (Lemov, 2011). It can be
achieved by regularly correcting the students’ answer in terms of language use and expression.

Thirdly, the student direction is enhanced in the way of providing more choice for students, which
promote increased learning autonomy and motivation. Moffett & Wagner (1992) points out that student-
centred learning contained individualization that must ensure learners have options for activity and
authentic material. The modified lesson plan has provided flexible choices in the last activity. Students
are able to make their own decision that which material is better for construct the renewable bin liner
and what features can improve it. The choices encourage students to work according to personal
interests, which is also a characteristic of student-centred learning (Çubukçu,2012). Teacher provides
students with the same size of newspaper, cardboard and beeswax wrap to make the bin liner in a
similar way, and the pace of the task can be controlled by themselves at this time. Likewise, they also
can randomly choose partner with same interest to work with. Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske (2016) have
further approved that both flexible grouping and self-selecting are the strategies to improve student-
directed learning.

Finally, the modified lesson plan emphases more on implementing metalanguage in the class, which is
positively associated with students’ understanding and comprehension. Teacher tends to identify the
terminologies and the key concepts explicitly in T/F statement and classify them in the science context
during the class discussion. Geoghegan, Neill & Petersen (2013) reveals that the high level of
pedagogical metalanguage requires teachers or students to pay attention to particular aspects of the
texts, which can be either the key concepts in the lesson or the terms difficult to understand and
interpret. The lesson plan also draws on assisting students in correcting and summarising the
language used during the activities and asks question about how the better worlds can be used in the
context to increase the awareness of language.

7
Reference List:
Çubukçu, Z. (2012). Teachers' evaluation of student-centered learning
environments. Education, 133(1), 49-66. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&si
d=cf5ca9a9-951e-49c4-9b0b-7312c33fd669%40pdc-v-sessmgr01

Davies, C. (2010). Teacher expectations and perceptions of student attributes: Is there a relationship?
British Journal of Educational Psychological, 80(1),121-135. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary-wiley-
com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/full/10.1348/000709909X466334

Deshpande, S. K. (2016). Activating background knowledge: An effective strategy to develop reading

comprehension skills. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 1(3), 191-202.
Retrieved from http://jeltl.org/index.php/jeltl/article/view/28

Dole, S., Bloom, L., & Kowalske, K. (2016). Transforming pedagogy: Changing perspectives from
teacher-centered to learner-centered. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, 10(1), 45-58. Doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1538

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Building and activating students’ background knowledge: It's
what they already know that counts: Teachers must assess and build on the background
knowledge students possess. Middle School Journal, 43(3), 22-31. Doi:
10.1080/00940771.2012.11461808

Geoghegan, D., O’Neill, S., & Petersen, S. (2013). Metalanguage: The ‘teacher talk’of explicit literacy
teaching in practice. Improving schools, 16(2), 119-129. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480213493707

Lemov, D. (2011). Teach Like a Champion, Enhanced Edition: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the
Path to College (K-12). John Wiley & Sons.

McDonald, L., Flint, A., Rubie-Davies, C. M., Peterson, E. R., Watson, P., & Garrett, L. (2016).
Teaching high-expectation strategies to teachers through an intervention process. Professional
Development in education, 42(2), 290-307.

Moffett, J., & Wagner, B. J. (1992). Student-centered language arts, K-12. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook Publishers Heinemann

Learning Portfolio link: https://yangzyvv.weebly.com/