5.3 Understand Appendix 7.

1 are the minutes for a ‘PLT’, Professional Learning Team, meeting

and participate from term four of 2019. I met with my grade 3/4 teaching team to moderate
in assessment work samples from a common assessment task we all completed. I had met
moderation earlier in the term with our school literacy coach to plan for and teach my class
activities to the concept of paragraphing. Paragraphing was selected as a priority from the
support grade three NAPLAN data. Together we designed a pre assessment task and all
consistent and completed it in the fortnight before we met. Before this meeting I needed to
comparable assess students writing using the same rubric as the other teachers, appendix
judgements of 7.2. In the meeting on the 22nd of October 2019, appendix 7.1, we spent time
student sharing our combined data and making observations. We then spent the
learning. majority of our meeting time comparing and moderating samples we had all
placed in ‘CrT5’. We all participated in this process and devoted the most
amount of time to moderating to ensure we were each making consistent
judgements across the 3/4 classes. We looked at each other’s ‘CrT5’ samples,
questioned and made our own judgements. We all had some different
judgements and opinions, especially when it came to defining ‘an idea’ in
student writing and paragraphing. We participated in this moderation activity
so that each student at our school in grade three and four was being assessed
consistently and fairly, in relation to the Literacy Progressions and Australian
Curriculum. I participated in the moderation process so I knew that I
understood the grade level expectations and was rating fairly. Moderating with
my team impacted student learning by my being able to confidently give
students a clear rating as I had further developed my knowledge of the
expectations for the grade level of 3 and 4, as indicated in the Australian
Curriculum documents. I also chose to show my students the rubric and discuss
what would need to be included next time to improve. For example, I sat with
student SH and pointed out their strengths, containing one idea in a paragraph,
and discussed that to develop they would need to include a specific topic
sentence at the beginning of each new paragraph. After having the discussion
with student SH and referencing the rubric, comparing work sample one to the
second moderated sample they moved up one criteria, through adding a topic
sentence and articulating subsequent linking sentences in each paragraph. As
a teacher I remain open to the moderating and discussions around student
writing so I can continue to confidently stand behind and justify my ratings and
comments to both students and their families.

5.4 Use student Appendix 7.2 is a rubric and learning lesson sequence for paragraphing. The
assessment ratings in the two rubrics I had assessed and were moderated by my team. The
data to analyse lesson sequence I created with my grade 3 and 4 team. My grade team and I
and evaluate used the student assessment data and work samples to evaluate their
student understanding of paragraphing, as evidenced in the meeting minutes (appendix
understanding 7.1). We spent time together discussing how we can ‘bump’ the students work
of up. I then started with two initial paragraphing lessons, as documented in
subject/content appendix 7.2. One of the things I observed is that many students did not have a
, identifying concept of or could not explain what a ‘paragraph’ is. So we spent some of our
interventions meeting time designing two lessons to look at what a paragraph is and then
and modifying progress to topic sentences. I designed these specific lessons with my team to
teaching address the ‘gaps’ in student understanding and intervene with targeted
practice. lessons. My student’s learning was impacted greatly, as seen in the second
rubric within appendix 7.2. After a targeted series of lessons about
paragraphing and repeated opportunities for practice and feedback most
 students improved in their ratings. I shared the initial rubric with students in a
1:1 conference with their initial pre assessment paragraph. I specifically spoke
about the things they were doing well and the changes they would need to
make to progress along the marking rubric. I then intentionally taught the
lesson sequence, made specific reference back to our learning intentions and
gave individual verbal feedback in 1:1 conferencing. I believe the specific
intervention I placed supported students to improve and progress along the
rubric. For example, ‘FM’ progressed from CrT7 to CrT9 after my explicit
interventions and modified teaching practice. One of the impacts on my
teaching was the increase in my own understanding of paragraphing. After the
pre assessment and meeting with my team I realised I was not clear on what
the year group were expected to know. I was also unclear on the sizing of a
paragraph for this age group. After discussing this with my team, consulting the
Australian Curriculum, referencing the Literacy Progressions and having team
meetings with the schools Literacy Coach I gained a greater understanding of
the subject. Having a greater understanding supported me when explicitly
teaching my students and I had the confidence to provide examples I had
written and give them detailed feedback. Working with a team and a Literacy
Coach not only gave me valuable knowledge but it sped up the process, it
would have taken me a longer time planning and evaluating student
understanding on my own.

3.6 Evaluate Appendix 7.2 is a rubric and learning lesson sequence for paragraphing and
personal appendix 7.3 is student feedback from the ‘Loop’ online program. I conducted
teaching and a pre assessment task with my class, that was moderated in my Professional
learning Learning Team, and recorded their rating in the rubric from appendix 7.2. I
programs using used this student assessment data and the student feedback from ‘Loop’ to
evidence, inform a teaching and learning unit around the concept of paragraphing.
including Through the pre assessment and analysing the student assessment data I
feedback from noted that 48% of my students were writing to the grade three standard, CrT7,
students and although each of these 12 students were grade four. Knowing that almost the
student majority of my class were functioning below grade level expectations
assessment motivated me to evaluate my writing program and create change. I then
data to inform proceeded to plan some introductory lessons to address paragraphing and take
planning. the students back to basics, identifying paragraphs and topic sentences. I also
gathered and used student feedback using the online program ‘Loop’. This was
an invaluable process and program; unlike anything I had done before. In this
program I was able to ask students set questions, such as ‘How well do I
communicate the learning intention?’ and I could choose how students
provided a response. Some questions students needed to provide a scale
rating, an emoji response or a written answer. In the example documented in
appendix 7.3 I asked students ‘How well do I communicate the learning goals
for each class?’. Here the students were required to provide a scale rating
between one and ten and provide an optional written explanation. From the
twenty-four responses I mostly scored a five or below, demonstrating that I
was not communicating the learning goals well. The two student responses I
have captured in appendix 7.3 provided explanation to their answer, stating
that I ‘talk too fast’. This was revolutionary and shocking feedback for me, I had
never realised I spoke quickly. I spoke with other students and colleagues after
who confirmed that I did speak quickly. From this feedback I not only
redesigned the learning sequence, as described above, to respond to student
data but I also evaluated and altered my delivery style through student
feedback. I analysed my current practice of talking through the task and
answering student questions on the mat and made changes. These are changes
that I have maintained; I now write the learning intention, success criteria and
simples task steps on the board and speak to those in a slow and more concise
manner. I then ask students who are comfortable to move off and start so that
those who require more explanation can remain behind where I rephrase the
instructions in reference to the notes on the board. When appropriate, I also
scaffold the task, model an example myself and create an example with the
class. Evaluating my teaching program using student data and student
feedback allows me to teach students the most appropriate and relevant
content to help them succeed. In this particular example the students did
succeed, in appendix 7.2 can be seen that 6 of the 12 students identified at
CrT7 moved one or two criteria above with the second assessment. Referring
to specific student assessment data shares the learning journey with the
students, allowing them to see where they have come from and where they
need to move to progress. For the students to see that their individual
feedback about my teaching empowers them, shows that I value their
contribution and shows that their voices are heard in our classroom
community. As a teacher student assessment data and feedback are the most
accurate pieces of information to inform planning, I know that I am teaching
appropriate and valuable content. Acting on student feedback is the most raw
and powerful feedback I have ever received, as these students are with you
every moment of the day and honestly say what they think. I also felt
privileged that my students valued me and trusted me enough to provide
honest feedback with their name attached, as they did have the option to send
responses anonymously. As I progress through my career student assessment
data will always inform my planning and student feedback will always provide
powerful changes to my teaching practice and delivery.