SCHOOL OF Education

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

STUDENT DETAILS

Student name: Owen Gates Student ID number: 18354629

UNIT AND TUTORIAL DETAILS

Unit name: Designing Teaching and Learning Unit number: 102086

Tutorial group: Tutorial day and time: Wed 10:30
Lecturer or Tutor name: Kelly Parry

ASSIGNMENT DETAILS

Title: Science Lesson Plan Evaluation and Modifications

Length: 2000ish words Due date: 17/5/2019 Date submitted: 17/5/2019
Home campus (where you are enrolled): Penrith

DECLARATION

I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged.

I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any other student’s work or from
any other source except where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment.
I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been submitted by me in another (previous or
current) assessment, except where appropriately referenced, and with prior permission from the Lecturer /
Tutor / Unit Coordinator for this unit.
No part of the assignment/product has been written/produced for me by any other person except where
collaboration has been authorised by the Lecturer / Tutor /Unit Coordinator concerned.
I am aware that this work will be reproduced and submitted to plagiarism detection software programs for the
purpose of detecting possible plagiarism (which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism
checking).

Student’s signature: Owen Gates

Note: An examiner or lecturer / tutor has the right to not mark this assignment if the above declaration has not been
signed.

00380 09/16

1
102086 Designing Teaching & Learning
Assignment 2: QT Analysis of a Science lesson plan

1 Intellectual quality
1.1 Deep knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Generally, there is a sustained focus on the central concept – freezing and the impact
5 of catalysts – throughout the lesson, with most of the knowledge being of a good depth. The
lesson begins with a brainstorm/discussion around the concept of freezing; which then moves to a
short experiment on freezing, salt and sugar; physical modelling; prediction of results and then
discussion of results. Finally, the lesson is rounded out with a video on how salt impacts the
freezing point of water – all consistently focused around the core concept of the lesson in good
depth.

1.2 Deep understanding

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Due to the nature of this element, it is difficult to assess in a lesson plan, however, this
5 lesson would likely occur with uneven understanding between students and different levels of
both high and low understanding. Despite the difficulty in assessing this element, the consistent
focus on freezing and frequent discussion points throughout the lesson provide many
opportunities for students to display deep understanding.

1.3 Problematic knowledge

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Knowledge of freezing is treated as complex and socially developed, with various
5 perspectives presented and questioned throughout the lesson. The initial discussion on freezing
asks students for their ideas on what freezing is and means; student’s then conduct an experiment
to generate knowledge regarding freezing; and students attempt to model what is happening and
make predictions of results. Whilst science often trends towards facts, the scientific process they
partake in is inherently high in problematic knowledge, as information is generated, ideas attempt
to explain the process and information confirms or denies the ideas.

1.4 Higher-order thinking

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Difficult to assess fully as there is a requirement for student demonstration of this
5 element, however, this lesson plan would probably result in most students demonstrating higher
order thinking at various points in the lesson. Students are asked to predict the results of their
experiment and then using the data they generate develop ideas of how each chemical is affecting
the freezing process.

1.5 Metalanguage
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Exploration of metalanguage occurs primarily in a single instance to better facilitate
5 deep knowledge. The explicit integration of metalanguage is limited to the beginning of the lesson
during the discussion around the concept of “freeze”, with some opportunities at other moments
but they are not explicitly expanded upon in the lesson plan and are hard to assess without seeing
it in practice.

1.6 Substantive communication

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Again, another hard element to assess purely from the lesson plan, however it appears
5 there would be a high chance of substantive communication across the lesson between the teacher
and students. There are a number of discussion points throughout the lesson where students could
reasonably be suspected to communicate in a significant manner, primarily at the beginning and
end – before they’re taught about particular concepts and afterwards respectively.

Quality learning environment

2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: The lesson plan only includes vague mentions of the quality of work expected from
5 students. Aside from discussions, the only part of the lesson that involves student work is the
experiment itself which is briefly described but not clearly outlined, nor is there a clear indication
of the results students should get. A methods sheet is mentioned but not attached to the lesson

2
 plan.

2.2 Engagement
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Difficult to gauge from a lesson plan, however, variable engagement is likely: most
5 students would be engaged throughout the lesson with some indifferent and off task. Given the
lesson involves interactive discussion, practical elements, engaging ICT and little to no
handwriting tasks most students will be engaged. Despite this however, the practical itself is very
simple and some students’ roles are likely to lead to boredom.

2.3 High expectations

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Another difficult to assess element as some degree of student performativity is
5 required, however, given the tasks in the lesson plan most students will be undertaking
challenging work for the majority of the lesson and encouraged to take risks in their thinking.
Prediction and analysis of results and physical modelling of the freezing process taking place is
expected of all students in the class indicating expectations of relatively higher order tasks.

2.4 Social support

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Hard to determine from a lesson plan alone, although likely neutral to positive social
5 support occurring with most of it directed towards students engaged in the lesson. Discussion
activities are mostly neutral but are collaborative, helping to develop social support for those
engaging, and the practical activity is again collaborative with students working as teams to
complete the experiment.

2.5 Students’ self-regulation

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Near impossible to accurately assess. However, most students self-regulating with
5 minimal disruption or teacher comments on behaviour is predicted. Given the more engaging
nature of this lesson plan, and lack of activities that are likely to result in boredom that drive
aberrant behaviour and the assumption that this kind of lesson is common, it is reasonable to
assume most students would be well behaved, with only a few instances of disruptive behaviour.

2.6 Student direction

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Lesson plan is heavily scripted with teacher direction and no instances of student
5 choice or control over the lesson. Discussion points are collaborative with students, however there
is no real student direction or choice in any of the activities of the lesson.

3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Background knowledge of students is elicited and connected to the content of the
5 lesson multiple times within the lesson plan. The initial discussion at the start of the lesson has
students share their ideas and background knowledge of freezing, which is then followed by them
predicting the results of the experiment which will involve them evaluating both information
gained in the lesson and previous knowledge to make an accurate prediction.

3.2 Cultural knowledge

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Whilst not as explicit as background knowledge, the lesson does promote some
5 degree of cultural knowledge being shared and valued. The same activities that illicit background
knowledge have the potential to draw out and value cultural knowledge students may have: the
initial discussion at the start and the predictions around the experiment results.

3.3 Knowledge integration

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Hard to assess due to student interaction inherent in element, potential for meaningful
5 connection between topic of the lesson and other subjects by the students. There is no explicit
points where the teacher connects content to other KLAs although the large amount of discussion
could result in students making the connections – this could be aided with teacher direction.

3.4 Inclusivity
1–2–3–4– Comments: Difficult to assess from lesson plan – most students would be included in most aspects
5 of the lesson, with variable inclusion probable. The planned lesson involves plentiful discussion
and an experiment that requires all students participate in groups which would promote a

3
 reasonable level of inclusivity – however there are no explicit strategies to improve inclusivity
within the lesson. It is probably assumed these strategies are common across lessons but still
should be included.

3.5 Connectedness
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Token connectedness to the world outside the classroom that is mostly irrelevant to
5 students. Whilst there is discussion present throughout the lesson, at no point is it explicitly
directed towards outside applications of the knowledge discussed. In addition to this, the one point
of connectedness/relevance to the outside world is a YouTube clip concerning the use of salt as a
de-icer for roads in North America – far too distant from the Australian context where relatively
few students live in snowy areas.

3.6 Narrative
1–2–3–4– Comments: Narrative use is minimal in the lesson, albeit still connected to the content. The
5 YouTube clip used at the end of the lesson has some measure of narrative in it, however
throughout the rest of the lesson narrative use is absent.

Identifying Areas for Improvement

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

QT model
1)Connectedness 2)Metalanguage
3)Explicit Quality Criteria 4)Student Direction

4
 Modified Lesson Plan

Topic area: Stage of Learner: Stage 4 Syllabus Pages:

Temperature, Freezing points and Years 7/8
Chemical reactions.
Date: Location Booked: Lesson Number: /

Time: Total Number of students Printing/preparation

Materials for students: 100mL clear
plastic test tubes, test tube lid or cork,
test tube rack, water at 5oC, salt,
sugar, periodic table, freezer,
teaspoon., marker, timer, foam
spheres of different sizes and colours
to represent the molecules: Na, Cl,
H2O, Sucrose (table sugar). Small
wooden sticks to represent
connections between the elements

Additional Materials: Freezer,

monitor in front of classroom, access
to the internet, large bottles of water
at 50C, correct chemical and physical
equations for both salt water and
sugar water.

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

Chemical World 1: The properties Informal diagnostic ad The students will: SCLS-4WS: Asks questions
of the different states of matter formative assessment  Explain how that can be tested and makes
can be explained in terms of the via discussion and dissolving salt predictions (New South
questions and sugar into Wales. Board of Studies,
motion and arrangement of
particles. (ACSSU151) water will affect 2012).
the freezing point
depression of SCLS-22CW: Recognises
water. the properties of common
 Predict the substances
freezing points of
the water SCLS-23CW: Explores how
solutions common chemicals affect
containing either everyday life
salt or sugar and
which will freeze
first.
 Demonstrate the
ability to record
and analysis the
data collected
from the
experiment as
they engage in
critically thinking

5
 about the topic.
 Display the
ability to
formulate
equations of salt
dissolved in water
and sugar
dissolved in
water.
 Explain the
differences
between a
physical and
chemical
reactions.

Time Teaching and learning actions

5 min
Start the class with a brain storm to draw out students current understanding and knowledge of freezing
points and common chemical reactions.

Write the word “Freeze” on the board with a circle around it.

Ask the question “Ok class what comes to mind when you think about the word freeze?

Ask how is relates to the topic chemical world.

Guide their thoughts to the lesson’s focus without influencing their responses.

By asking:
How does something freeze?
Why does it freezes?
What happens when something freezes?

State that freezing, in the scientific context, refers to a liquid (particularly water) becoming solid as it cools
– that is loses energy and solidifies.

5 min Explain to the class the aim of the today lesson will be on the freezing points of water, salt water and sugar
water.

Explain safety procedures of the experiment before it commences.

10 Assign students into groups. 4-5 students per group. Allow students to volunteer for roles within the group:
min timer (keeps track of the time), recorder (writes down results), handler (mixing the solutions together) and
retriever (takes and places the test tube rack in the freezer).

Say: the aim of this experiment is to observe the impact of salt and sugar on the freezing time of water.
 Ask students to convert this aim into a hypothesis.

Explain what to do in the practical and to follow the methods sheet that was handed out. Method:
1. Fill three test tubes with 50mL of 5oC water.
2. Number them 1, 2 and 3.
3. Add 1g of salt to tube 2, and 1g of sugar to tube 3. (Weights should be within +/-0.1g.)
4. Mix well by gentle stirring and cap them. (Demonstrate mixing method to be followed.)
5. Place all three tubes within the freezer at the same time and begin timing.
6. Record how long until the water in each test tube freezes solid, up to a maximum of 10 minutes.
(Times should be recorded to a specific second.)

6
 Ask the students to make their predictions on what will happen to the three solutions before and during the
practical. Predict the aim of the experiment, if students are confused or haven’t identified the correct aim
help them factor it out or provide the aim if necessary.

Guide or provide assistance at the start of the experiment without influencing the students’ thought
processes. Walk around the classroom.

After the students record the results for the practical introduce the chemical formulae for sugar, table salt
and water and ask students to what the formulae mean. Direct them to identify the elements first, and then
20 the full meaning of the formulae.
min  Explain that sugar’s (sucrose’s) formula C12H22O11 means it is comprised of 12 carbon atoms, 22
hydrogen atoms and 11 oxygen atoms – likewise for water (H2O) and table salt (NaCl)

Next introduce the box of foam spheres representing the elements H, O, C, Na and Cl, and the compounds
they form. Have students distinguish between what elements, molecules and compounds refer to and which
models/parts represent which.
 i.e. which molecular model represents each salt, water and sugar.

Next, start with saying: Ok class lets zoom in on what’s happening to the three solutions in the freezer.

Instruct the students to predict what is happening to all three solutions using the foam spheres.

Prepare a table for the combined results of the class. Have the recorder of each group write down their
result on the table.

Discuss the predictions and errors from each group and compare them with the rest of the class. Correct any
misconceptions the students may have.
Ask questions as to why they thought that way and how it relates to the topic.

Discuss if dissolving salt and sugar is a chemical change or physical one referring to the experiment the
students performed and foam models.
 Distinguish between ionic bonds found in salt and the covalent bonds in water/sugar
o Relate to formulae for salt and sugar water, noting the charges on Na and Cl when
dissolved indicating they are ions.

Demonstrate how the freezing point of water is reduced using the foam spheres.

Ask students what real world applications for the knowledge are there.
 Share examples of: flexible icepacks that are more effective for medical treatment (hard ice makes
poor contact); road de-icer in areas that get very cold; in drink coolers at BBQs to make them more
effective (again hard ice poor contact surface)
 Propose the concept of salt water as a windscreen de-icer and discuss pros/cons
o Effective but risks damaging car via rust or abrasion of windscreen

Give students homework choice to find and watch a good video on how salt lowers the freezing point of
water OR identify other applications for the knowledge that salt and sugar alter the freezing point of water.

Yellow indicates modifications to improve QTM elements

Blue indicates modifications to improve the overall grammar and scientific accuracy of the
lesson plan

7
 Justification of modifications

Overall this is a reasonably good lesson plan, with good Intellectual Quality and acceptable
Significance and Quality of Learning Environment. However, there are several areas that can be
improved. The four areas selected to be improved are: connectedness due to its minimal
presence; metalanguage which is present but important to science education and so needs to be
increased; the lack of explicit quality criteria to guide students work; and student direction that is
otherwise missing that could disengage students (Gore & Ladwig, 2006).

Connectedness:
Connectedness of the content between the lesson and the outside world has been improved by
substituting the end video with an actual discussion regarding the application of content in the
real world (Gore & Ladwig, 2006). Students may think or know of applications teachers are
unaware of, however some examples are provided that are likely to be relevant to students,
namely: flexible icepacks that improve contact surface for injuries, as almost every student has
experience with injuries; depending geography of the school, students may have experience with
icy roadways and hence salt’s common use as a de-icer; and most students will have experienced
social situations involving a cooler full of ice for keeping drinks cold – salt will allow for cooler
water that cools drinks more effectively. Additionally, the use of salt as a windscreen de-icer is
also relevant to students and provides a good discussion of pros and cons. This modification
improves best practice by increasing connectedness with students lives, subsequent relevance,
engagement and student learning of material that shifts from a routine learning task to actionable
information in their lives (Baki, Çatlıoğlu, Coştu & Birgin, 2009; Butcher & McDonald, 2007; Gore &
Ladwig, 2006; Irish & Kang, 2017).

Metalanguage:
Metalanguage is critical to students engaging with content, particularly in science where the
language used is almost foreign to everyday English. Metalanguage use in this lesson has been
improved by adding more explicit and in-depth explanation of the term “freeze” in the scientific
context; having students convert the aim of the experiment into a hypothesis; and exploring the
nomenclature of elements, compounds and molecules. Metalanguage helps students to better
understand the content they interact with and break down its meaning into more manageable
pieces (Butcher & McDonald, 2007; Gore & Ladwig, 2006). Chemical nomenclature is a secondary
language of science that carries unique meaning and knowledge that can be better understood by
unpacking and discussing, similar to learning a foreign language (Schleppegrell, 2013). Integration
of metalanguage discussion in lessons is shown to accelerate student learning and understanding
(Schleppegrell, 2013).

Explicit Quality Criteria:

Explicit expectations of the quality of work are necessary to provide students with high goals to
aim for, otherwise their effort and work quality will vary massively (Butcher & McDonald, 2007;
Gore & Ladwig, 2006). Given that the experiment is the only activity where students produce
work, other than discussion, a more specific method has been provided with requirements for
how the experiment must be done to achieve the correct results. Measurement precision in
particular has been specified as weights to within +/- 0.1g, volumes to 50mL and times to the
nearest second. Clearer expectations enable students to distinguish on their own if their work

8
meets the standards of the lesson and improve on their own (NSW Department of Education,
2014). Precision and accuracy of measurements are particular important in science and reinforcing
this through quality expectations helps students to better appreciate science as a whole.

Student Direction:

Student direction has been improved in relatively minor yet significant ways as this is a year 7/8
class that may become less self-regulated if granted too much perceived control. Instead of
teacher allocate roles, students are instead allowed to organise and distribute their roles amongst
themselves for the experiment. This gives them a better sense of control and self determination
that is otherwise entirely absent from the lesson, increasing engagement and learning potential
(Butcher & McDonald, 2007; Gore & Ladwig, 2006). Additionally, a small but interesting
homework task has been added that gives students the choice of expanding their understanding
of the lesson by finding a YouTube video of their own that explains freezing and the impact of salt,
or to seek out other potential applications for salt altering water’s freezing point in their lives. By
giving students a choice of which homework task they undertake there is a greater likelihood they
will engage with at least one of them and better their learning (Hattie, 2008).

References:

Baki, A., Çatlıoğlu, H., Coştu, S., & Birgin, O. (2009). Conceptions of high school students about

mathematical connections to the real-life. Procedia - Social And Behavioral Sciences, 1(1),

1402-1407. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.247

Butcher, J., & McDonald, L. (2007). Making a difference (pp 15-32). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Gore, J., & Ladwig, J. (2006). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: A Classroom Practice Guide

(2nd ed.). Ryde: NSW Department of Education and Training.

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. London: Taylor and Francis.

Irish, T., & Kang, N. (2017). Connecting Classroom Science with Everyday Life: Teachers’ Attempts

and Students’ Insights. International Journal Of Science And Mathematics Education, 16(7),

1227-1245. doi: 10.1007/s10763-017-9836-0

9
NSW Department of Education. (2014). What works best: Evidence-based practices to help

improve NSW student performance. Sydney: NSW Centre for Education Statistics &

Evaluation.

Schleppegrell, M. (2013). The Role of Metalanguage in Supporting Academic Language

Development. Language Learning, 63, 153-170. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00742.x

Learning Portfolio:

https://opgates.weebly.com/
Lesson plan under PLANNING tab

10