Designing Teaching and Learning

ASSIGNMENT 2: LESSON PLAN ANALYSIS, REVISION & JUSTIFICATION

Part A: Original Teaching Plan: Math LP (the following is a copy of the original
teaching plan-before revision)

Lesson Plan

Topic area: Timetables Stage of Learner: 11, Syllabus Pages: pp. 34

Date: 23.03.17
Time: 50 minutes
Standard
Location Booked: Classroom
Total Number of students:
30
Lesson number: 8
Printing/preparation: Links
to various transport websites
ready. Print worksheets and
corresponding timetables. Need
access to a Smart Board.

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

Formative The interpretation of Students review how to
assessment takes different timetables interpret timetables and
place throughout and how this can be use this to solve
MS11-3, MS11-4, the lesson. used as a part of life. problems using a range
MS11-9, MS11-10. Teacher walks How public of different timetables,
around and asks transportation can be including ferries, buses
questions, and used as a means of and trains. Incorporate
ensures that promoting 12-hour and 24-hour
students are sustainability. time into understanding
staying on task. timetables.

Time Teaching and learning actions

Intro Teacher greets students and asks them to sit down in their seats. Students take
5 mins out their work book and stationery required for the lesson. Teacher outlines
what the lesson will entail.

Revision Revision
5 mins
Teacher hands back results from the in-class assessment from lesson 7.
Teacher outlines what was done well overall and what the class will work on
together, to improve students’ understanding of content, as a path to achieve
syllabus outcomes.
Body Class discussion
10 mins
Teacher facilitates discussion between students and asks questions about when
and where you may need to use a transportation timetable. Teacher shows a
transport timetable on the Smartboard and asks:
1. What is the purpose of this timetable?

1
 2. What features does this timetable have?
3. What would happen if this timetable did not exist?
Within this section, the teacher briefly discusses with students about how using
public transport can help with sustainability, by reducing carbon emissions and
what the impact human activity has on ecosystems. Teacher asks students what
sustainability means to them.
10 mins Class activity and Smartboard interaction

Students get into pairs and ask each other travel related questions, based on
the ferry timetable that appears on the Smartboard. For example, “What time
do I have to leave Old Cremorne Wharf, if I am to arrive at Circular Quay, Wharf
2 by 2pm?” Teacher walks around the room and checks students are staying on
task, asking relevant questions and helping where necessary. Teacher ensures
that students are helping each other, as a form of social support.
15 mins Worksheet activity*

Teacher hands out bus timetable worksheet activity. Students have the option
of working on this alone, or with another person.

Conclusion Teacher summarises the key points of the lesson. Discusses what the next
5 mins lesson will entail. Asks students if they have any further questions.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

MS11-3 Teacher and student questioning throughout lesson,
timetable worksheet.
MS11-4 Students working in pairs and helping each other
perform calculations based on time.
MS11-10 Timetable worksheet.

Worksheet activity*

Five trains travel from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to London Central on the
same morning. The Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts station 6 minutes after the Gryffindor
Goods Train, but arrives 14 minutes before the Slytherin All-Stations Train. The Gryffindor
Goods Train takes 46 minutes to reach London Central and arrives at 8:53am. The Ravenclaw
Express leaves 10 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express and arrives 14 minutes before the
Gryffindor Goods Train. The Muggle-stops train is running 6 minutes late on this particular
morning, and arrives in London Central at 8:37, after leaving Hogwarts 4 minutes before the

2
Hufflepuff Express. The Slytherin All-Stations Train takes 33 minutes to travel from Hogwarts
to Central London, and arrives 46 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts.

Work out the train timetable for the 5 trains.

Hogwarts London Central

Hufflepuff Express
Slytherin All-Stations
Gryffindor Goods Train
Ravenclaw Express
Muggle-stops

1. What is the latest time train you could catch from Hogwarts to arrive at London
Central before 8:40am? What train is this?
2. Explain what would happen if the Ravenclaw Express train was running 7 minutes
late.
3. Hannah misses the Hufflepuff Express train by 2 minutes. She needs to be in London
Central by 8:45am. What may be a possible solution for her? Justify reasons for your
answer.

3
Part B: QT Analysis of the Lesson Plan (Math LP)

Evaluate the lesson plan according to the following NSW Quality Teaching model elements.

Evaluation score – refer to NSW QTM Classroom Practice Guide for each element
Comments incl. evidence for evaluation score (2 sentences)

1 Intellectual quality
1.1 Deep knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The teaching plan addresses the purposes, features and uses of timetables and it has an
activity to let students figure out how to read the timetable. However, the central concepts are not
sustained throughout the plan and some knowledge is mentioned on a superficial level, such as the
class discussion of sustainability.
1.2 Deep understanding
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: In this lesson, students would have a basic understanding of how to read a timetable and
could solve some transport timetable problems. Understanding of the significance for sustainability,
problem solving skills in travel itinerary issues and application of timetable knowledge across
nations and cultures are still shallow.
1.3 Problematic knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Most of the knowledge is presented as a fact, such as the outlines, reviews, websites and
Smartboard interaction activities. Only class discussion has introduced some multi-perspectives, but
still it lacks political, social and cultural implications and capable students are not challenged.
1.4 Higher-order thinking
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Students are dealing only with factual information and Smartboard activities are
designed based on simple facts under instructions. Students acquire certain knowledge and
reproduced it in routine practice. Again, discussion questions and class environment hardly promote
higher-order thinking.
1.5 Metalanguage
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Very low metalanguage. The teacher mentions sustainability, carbon emission and
ecosystem only in the class discussion part and teacher explains sustainability. But throughout the
lesson, there is no clarification or assistance of language provided to support students’
metalanguage.
1.6 Substantive communication
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: There is no substantive communication throughout the lesson. However, the
introduction, revision, worksheet and conclusion parts are basically following the IRE (initial-
response-evaluate) pattern. Only in class discussion and class activities does the teacher promote
reciprocal interaction by asking relevant questions which might extend the dialogue, but this is
limited.
Quality learning environment
2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The plan explains explicitly the criteria of students’ learning during the lesson. Some of
them are detailed. However, most of the criteria are procedural and there is little evidence that
students are using these criteria to check their work.
2.2 Engagement
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: There is some potential for low engagement in this plan. Students might get bored in the
introduction and revision when teacher-centred teaching is used. Students would engage in the class
discussion but would not show much interest to the questions. Students have not much choice in
their pair-work roles, therefore, students might be off-task in the Smartboard interaction and
worksheet activities. As the plan does not promote student initiatives, students might be passive
rather than proactive.
2.3 High expectations
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The worksheet and class discussion might promote some students in problem solving
and critical thinking. But students are seldom given challenging tasks in terms of concepts and risk
taking in the lesson and the teacher does not express explicitly expectations from all students to
contribute to a challenging task.
2.4 Social support

4
1–2–3–4–5 Comments: The class environment is relatively positive with no undermining behaviours or
comments. The teacher promotes a supportive environment by letting students to take risks in
learning through open-ended discussion. The teacher also demonstrates clear attempts to support
reluctant students by walking around, asking questions, helping and ensuring that students are
helping each other in class activities.
2.5 Students’ self-regulation
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: There are clear instructions in each section of the teaching plan and the contents are
relevant to the topic so that students could keep on track. However, students might get bored or
distracted as most of the class activities are not interesting and the teacher might have to spend time
in regulating students’ movements.
2.6 Student direction
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The plan seldom allows students to have control over the choice, time, pace and
assessment of the lesson except for discussion and class activities. Though students have some
control over the time and pace of these activities, they do not have much control over the choice and
assessment. Overall, students’ control is very limited.
3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Students’ prior learning is mentioned in revision and their background knowledge of 12-
hour and 24-hour time is incorporated and there is some connection to out-of-school knowledge by
using a real-life timetable. However, the connection is not consistent or substantial to school or out-
of-school background knowledge.
3.2 Cultural knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: There is no explicit reference to cultures other than that of Australia (the use of ferry
timetable in Sydney) in this plan. It could be incorporated as reading resources for class discussion.
3.3 Knowledge integration
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: There is one cross-curricular discussion of transport and sustainability in the plan, but
most of the lesson is restricted to the mathematical knowledge of timetables.
3.4 Inclusivity
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: There is no evidence that any specific group of students would be excluded in the
lesson. In some part of the lesson, such as the worksheet or group discussion, less capable students
might feel less engaged than capable students. A range of different roles could be introduced in the
class activities and group work to provide opportunities for students of different backgrounds to
contribute in cooperative learning.
3.5 Connectedness
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The teacher connects classroom timetable knowledge to students’ daily life and students
explores the topic of public transport and sustainability which they might share with people outside
the classroom. But the exploration is not substantial enough to create personal meaning or highlight
the significance of the knowledge.
3.6 Narrative
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Possible narrative might be used in class discussion. However, narratives are not used to
enhance the significance of the lesson.

Identifying Areas for Improvement

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

QT model
1) 1.4 Higher-order thinking 2) 2.2 Engagement
3) 2.3 High expectations 4) 3.3 Knowledge Integration

The Revised Lesson Plan (Math) - The Highlighted parts are revised.

5
Lesson Plan

Topic area: Stage of Learner: Syllabus Pages: pp. 34

Timetables 11, Standard
Date: Location Booked: Lesson number: 8
23.03.17 Classroom
Time: 50 Total Number of Printing/preparation: Links to various transport websites
minutes students: 30 ready. Print worksheets and corresponding timetables. Need
access to a Smart Board.
Link to Kahoot! website ready and 20-40 questions in
Kahoot! pre-set. Research on all resources where we can find
timetables and put the links or descriptions in a document.
Prepare 12 pieces of A2 white paper and testers. Students
need access to computers, laptops, tablets or smart phones.

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

Standardised The interpretation of Students review how to
questions through different timetables interpret timetables and use
Kahoot! ICT and how this can be this to solve problems using a
MS11-3, (Information and used as a part of life. range of different timetables,
MS11-4, Communication How public including ferries, buses and
MS11-9, Technology) transportation can be trains. Incorporate 12-hour and
MS11-10. platform. used as a means of 24-hour time into
Formative promoting understanding timetables.
assessment takes sustainability. Students get to know different
place throughout the ways to locate a timetable, learn
lesson. Teacher walks Public transportation to interpret different timetables
around and asks in NSW, remote areas quickly and accurately, can
questions, and and other countries. solve timetable related
ensures that students problems and can critically
are staying on task. review the principles and
rationale of timetables.

Time Teaching and learning actions

Intro & Teacher greets students and hands back results from the in-class assessment
Revision from lesson 7. The teacher asks students to access classroom computers,
(5-10mins) laptops, tablets or smart phones and get ready for a fun Kahoot! game.
Students access the game and answer 10-20 multiple choice questions.
(Revision questions from the previous lesson are included, especially those the
class need to further work on. There are also questions with basic knowledge
for today’s lesson, including 12-hour and 24-hour time, transport symbols in
different nations, locations of timetables, reading of timetables, some facts
about public transport in diverse cultures.)
The teacher praises the participation of all students and outlines what was
done well overall and what the class will work on together, to improve
students’ understanding of content as a path to achieve syllabus outcomes.
Teacher outlines what the lesson will entail and explains the expectations
required of the students.

6
Part 1 Teacher questions students:1.Where can we find a timetable?
Body
(5-10mins) Students complete a collaborative resourcing brainstorm in small groups using
Google Docs.

Students are to be grouped into 5 groups, 6 in one.

Each group accesses a pre-set Google doc and writes down as many ways to
locate a timetable as possible.

Tips: physical timetables, websites, hotlines, app or others.

The teacher pools answers from different groups on Smartboard and add any
missing resources from prepared documents, if there is any

The teacher generates a list of resources of transportation information

technologies for references.

Teacher questions students: 2.How do we read a timetable?

The teacher asks students to look for quick and accurate fast reading skills of
timetables.

Teacher shows a transport timetable on the Smartboard as an example.

Teacher questions students: 3.How do we solve timetable related problems?

Students are expected to be able to identify the basic elements in a timetable

and the calculation of departure, arrival and duration time.

The teacher encourages students to look for skills to decode mathematical

languages (display the worksheet question on Smartboard as an example) and
the skills of time calculating, identifying alternatives, evaluating choices and
considering real-world elements like delay, ease, fees, and efficiency.

The teacher comments, tells small real-world stories and clarify the math
concepts.
Part 2 Reading: Each of the five groups is given a passage with a different topic to
Group read.
readings and 1. Public transport and sustainability
Class 2. Public transport in remote areas in Australia
discussion 3. History of Australian public transport
(15 minutes) 4. The development of public transport in China (or other Asian countries)
5. NSW transport

After reading, group members discuss their passage and summarise 5 take-
away points or facts to present to other groups.

Teacher facilitates the discussion by explaining some key concepts.

7
 Teacher also asks questions to encourage students’ critical thinking, such as:
What does the information mean to you? Why do you think it is important? What
if we do not have public transport in remote areas? What elements are
supporting the development of public transport in these countries?
Part 3 Class activities
Class Each group is provided with 2 pieces of A2 paper and colouring pens. Extra
activities paper is available. One paper is for a drawing a simplified map. The other is to
create a bus timetable.
(15-20mins) Students are to design a local bus timetable:
Part A: Design a local bus timetable ().
1. Draw a simple local map with at least 6 different places.
2. Design at least 3 bus lines.
a. Each line has to cover at least 3 stops.
b. Each place must have at least 1 bus stop.
c. We assume that it takes 10 mins for the bus to travel between
any two neighbouring places.
d. Write down 3 principles of your design
3. Develop the bus timetable.
4. Design 2 problem-solving questions, such as: What is the earliest time
Ellie can reach her workplace by public transport?
Part B: Swap groups. (Half of the group members shift to the neighbouring
group or the host group.)
Away students:
1. Check the map and the timetable of the host group
2. Solve the problems from your host group.
3. Put forward 2 challenges on the rationale of their timetable design
Home students (Host)
1. Home students explain the local map and present the timetable and
questions.
2. Answer to the challenges. Teacher facilitates students to draw evidence
from the previous readings or their background knowledge. If students
find it hard to answer, teacher documents the challenges for next week’s
discussion.

The teacher walks around and asks relevant questions, such as: Why do you set
these places? How can the public transport meet different people’s needs?

Teacher promotes students to consider social, economic, political and cultural

elements in setting the places and bus lines. Teacher encourages students to
put in their experience from their own communities, their out-of-school life or
public policy knowledge they get from news.

Teacher encourages students to think about the design elements including the
itinerary, the intervals, the frequency, operating hours and express or all-stops.
The teacher facilitates students to justify the rationale of their design.

The teacher documents students’ work and answers for next week’s analysis.

8
Conclusion Teacher uses the class flowchart to facilitate students to summarise the key
3-5 mins points of today’s learning. Asks students if they have any further questions.
Thanks students for their participation and predicts next lesson’s topic.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

MS11-3 Teacher and student questioning throughout lesson,
timetable worksheet, reading, discussion and group
activities.
MS11-4 Students working in groups and helping each other
perform calculations based on time and in design
activities.
MS11-10 Kahoot quiz results. Group reading and
presentation. Group work in design activities.

Worksheet activity*

Five trains travel from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to London Central on the
same morning. The Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts station 6 minutes after the Gryffindor
Goods Train, but arrives 14 minutes before the Slytherin All-Stations Train. The Gryffindor
Goods Train takes 46 minutes to reach London Central and arrives at 8:53am. The Ravenclaw
Express leaves 10 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express and arrives 14 minutes before the
Gryffindor Goods Train. The Muggle-stops train is running 6 minutes late on this particular
morning, and arrives in London Central at 8:37, after leaving Hogwarts 4 minutes before the
Hufflepuff Express. The Slytherin All-Stations Train takes 33 minutes to travel from Hogwarts
to Central London, and arrives 46 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts.

Work out the train timetable for the 5 trains.

Hogwarts London Central

Hufflepuff Express
Slytherin All-Stations
Gryffindor Goods Train
Ravenclaw Express
Muggle-stops

9
4. What is the latest time train you could catch from Hogwarts to arrive at London
Central before 8:40am? What train is this?
5. Explain what would happen if the Ravenclaw Express train was running 7 minutes
late.
6. Hannah misses the Hufflepuff Express train by 2 minutes. She needs to be in London
Central by 8:45am. What may be a possible solution for her? Justify reasons for your
answer.

10
Part C: Academic Justification

The original lesson plan was based on teacher-centred pedagogy instead of student-centred
learning. There is room for improvement of the original plan according to many elements of the
NSW Quality Teaching (QT) Model (Ludwig & Gore, 2003). The new plan chooses to address the
following four elements: 1.4 Higher-order thinking, 2.2 Engagement, 2.3 High expectations and 3.3
Knowledge integration.

1.4 Higher-order thinking

In the original plan, students were instructed to deal with factual information and learn pre-
specified knowledge. In Smartboard activities, students were asked to reproduce the knowledge in a
routine practice by taking turns to ask similar questions. Questions of class discussion tended to ask
students to restate information rather than encouraging critical thinking. Therefore, it resulted in
very low higher-order thinking (Ludwig & Gore, 2003). According to the quality teaching guide
(Ludwig & Gore, 2003, P18), higher-order thinking (HOT) “requires students to manipulate
information and ideas in ways that transform their meaning and implications”. HOT is positively
related to students’ academic achievement in mathematics (Tanujaya, Mumu, & Margono, 2017).
The new plan tries to create what Gonzalez & Narasimhn (2012) termed a HOT learning
environment. Throughout the revised plan, the teacher encourages students to analyse the learning
materials and facilitates them to generate skills which they can apply to other situations, such as the
skills of fast reading. The teacher also provides opportunities for students to put different elements
together to design a local map and bus lines which promotes students to evaluate, criticise and
justify the rationale behind their design. By changing the teaching objectives (Bloom, 1956), the
new plan aims to move students from acquiring factual information or problem-solving skills to
critical thinking by setting an open-ended goal of students’ achievements (Levine et al., 2016).
Ediger (2012) advocates that students decode mathematic languages, as a result the new plan tries
to facilitate students in doing this by analysing the worksheet together. Also, Staplers & Truxaw
(2012) emphasizes the importance of developing students’ proficiency in explaining mathematical
ideas. Therefore, the new plan gives students the chance to express ideas of ‘how’ and ‘why’ in
HOT practice.

2.2 Engagement

According to the NSW QT model (Ludwig & Gore, 2003), high engagement can be found through
on-task behaviours and a serious investment in class tasks. The original plan hardly allowed
students to have choice or control in class work. Most tasks were pre-specified and the lesson was
delivered in a way that seldom promoted students’ interest or related to their background.
Therefore, students would probably get bored or frequently get off-task (Ludwig & Gore, 2003).
Lowrie & Jorgensen (2015) advocates breaking the traditional restrictions of mathematics teaching
to improve student engagement and one of the major improvements in the new plan regarding
engagement is to incorporate information and communication technology (ICT) in the lesson. The
Kahoot! game, Google doc and the resourcing activity of the latest transport information
technology help connect students’ interest to their current learning, which promotes their positive
dispositions towards mathematics (Wake, 2011). Gningue, Peach, & Schroder (2013) emphasises
how the student-centred pedagogy can improve student engagement. The new plan changes the
knowledge teaching in the original plan to task-based student-centred learning which will improve
student engagement in group activities. The new plan allows students to share their background
knowledge and contribute to group achievement (Salomon & Ben, 2016). It also aims to truly
engage students, rather than simply motivate them. Giving them open-ended tasks can lead to a

11
better learning outcome (Kim, Park, Cozart, & Lee, 2015) and a positive culture of mathematics
learning (Perry, MaConney, Flevares, Mingle, & Hamm, 2011).

2.3 High expectations

The new plan aims to set higher expectations for students by encouraging them to participate in
more challenging tasks (Ludwig & Gore, 2003). Studies (Bui, 2007) indicate that there is a positive
path between educational expectations and academic achievements. With the higher expectations of
academic performance in the new plan, students get the information that academic endeavors are
important (Eubanks et al., 2012). In the original plan, students were expected to be able to identify
and read a timetable and be able to solve timetable related mathematical problems. They were not
taking conceptual or other risks in their learning which is a highlight according to Mcdonald’s
research (2014). In the new plan, the expectations go far beyond that in which the teacher expects
students to put effort in understanding more substantive ideas of transport timetable, to be able to
use the latest transportation information technology, and to understand transport from multi-
cultural, environmental, social and economic backgrounds. Rojas & Liou (2017) argue that setting
high expectations for all students in education is part of the social justice. In the new plan, there are
no preconceptions of what particular students can not do and all students are expected to take the
challenges.

3.3 Knowledge integration

The original plan basically focused on mathematical knowledge of timetables and there was only
one minor and superficial connection with sustainability (Ludwig & Gore, 2003). Roulet indicates
that the clear disciplinary boundary might hamper students’ knowledge integration. The original
plan was reluctant to try the practice of knowledge integration which deprived students the
opportunity to learn from the connections. In the new plan, students are expected to apply their
prior mathematics knowledge, background knowledge, cultural knowledge, and cross-curricular
knowledge to the Kahoot! game, the transport information technology resourcing game, group
readings and presentations and design activities (Joslyn, Verspoor, & Gessler, 2007). Schneider
(2012) suggests that connecting relevant topics can help students build up relational knowledge
around their current learning. The new plan arranges different topics of public transport for group
reading and integrates them in class discussion which help students to learn from these connections.
Students also have to use their social skills to negotiate their roles and coordinate with other group
members to achieve better outcomes. This task-based pattern provides a learning opportunity for
students to integrate their knowledge and skills into a new ability to fulfill the team work which is
considered important according to Steiger’s study (2009). Ahlawat & Vincelette (2012) presents an
effective case of knowledge integration through a semester-long project. There is also potential for
this new plan to be extended to a semester-long project which helps scaffold deep understanding of
the core concepts. When students inquire into integrating their ideas, they will be prepared to
connect them to contexts beyond classroom (Linn, Lee, Tinker, Husic, & Chiu, 2006).

12
References
1. Ahlawat, S., & Vincelette, J. (2012). Enhancing knowledge integration with REA
modelling in an AIS Project. Journal of Information Systems Education, 23(2), 119-127.

2. Bloom, B., Krathwohl, D & Masia, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives : The
classification of educational goals. London: Longmans.

3. Bui, K. (2007). Educational expectations and academic achievement among middle and
high school students. Education,127(3), 328-331.

4. Ediger, M. (2012). Quality teaching in mathematics..Education, 133(2), 235.

5. Eubanks, S., Hawley, D., Crowe, E., Nacson, J., O'Flahavin, J., & Rosenfield, S.
(2012). Advancing a culture of high expectations: Academic press, School Conditions and
Student Achievement, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

6. Gningue, S., Peach, R. & Schroder, B. (2013). Developing Effective Mathematics

Teaching: Assessing Content and Pedagogical Knowledge, Student-Centered Teaching, and
Student Engagement. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(3), 621-645.

7. Gonzalez, J., & Narasimhan, R. (2012). Promoting higher order thinking in

mathematics, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

8. Joslyn, C., Verspoor, K., & Gessler, D. (2007). Knowledge integration in OpenWorlds:
Utilizing the mathematics of hierarchical structure. Semantic Computing, 2007. ICSC 2007.
International Conference on, 105-112.

9. Kim, C., Park, S., Cozart, J. & Lee, H. (2015). From motivation to engagement: The role
of effort regulation of virtual high school students in mathematics courses. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 261-272.

10. Levine, F., Mayer, R., Murphy, K., Newcombe, N., Worrell, F., Richland, E., & B egolli,
N. (2016). Analogy and higher order thinking. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 3(2), 160-168.

11. Linn, C., Lee, H., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, L. (2006). Teaching and assessing
knowledge integration in science: Interactive visualizations combined with online inquiry
and embedded assessments can deepen student understanding of complex ideas in
science. Science, 313(5790), 1049-1050.

12. Lowrie, T. & Jorgensen , R. Editor, Springer Link, & Springer Link eBooks
Humanities Social Sciences Law 2015 Collection. (2015). Digital Games and Mathematics
Learning Potential, Promises and Pitfalls, Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, 4.

13. Ludwig, J., & Gore, J. (2003). Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools A classroom practice
guide Retrieved from
http://www.rqt.edu.au/files/5514/1774/9895/NSW_DET_2003-Quality_Teaching_Guide.pdf

13
14. Mcdonald, L., Flint, A., Rubie-Davies, C., Peterson, E., Watson, P., & Garrett, L.
(2014). Teaching high-expectation strategies to teachers through an intervention
process. Professional Development in Education, 1-18.

15. Perry, M., McConney, M., Flevares, M., Mingle, A. & Hamm, V. (2011). Engaging first
graders to participate as students of mathematics. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 293.

16. Rojas, L., & Liou, D. (2017). Social Justice Teaching Through the Sympathetic Touch of
caring and high expectations for students of colour. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1),
28-40.

17. Roulet, G. (1996). Subject integration and mathematics teachers' practical

knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 2(1), 87-103.

18. Salomon, & Ben, K. (2016). High-school students’ perceptions of the effects of non-
academic usage of ICT on their academic achievements. Computers in Human
Behavior, 64, 143-151

19. Schneider, M. (2012). Commentary 2: Knowledge integration in mathematics learning:

The case of inversion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(3), 447-453.

20. Staples, M., & Truxaw, E. (2012). An initial framework for the language of highe r-order
thinking mathematics practices.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(3), 257-281.

21. Steiger, D. (2009). Enhancing knowledge integration: An information system capstone

project. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(1), 17-23.

22. Tanujaya, B., Mumu, J., & Margono, G. (2017). The Relationship between higher order
thinking skills and academic performance of student in mathematics
instruction. International Education Studies,10(11), 78.

23. Wake, G. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: Deepening engagement in

mathematics in pre-university education. Research in Mathematics Education, 13(2), 109-
118.

14
URL of my E-Learning Portfolio
https://xuejunhe.weebly.com/

15