102086 Designing Teaching & Learning

Assignment 2, 19277194

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 content of the lesson is superficial, unclear and does not identify key concepts or
ideas to be learnt. Key concepts should be clear, especially in the introduction, linking to previous
lessons. However, lessons are not numbered as part of a scope and sequence, and it is not clear at what
point this lesson occurred in a scope and sequence. Additionally, the purpose for learning about
speeches and how students will achieve significant intellectual quality based on the lesson plan is not
evident.

1.2 Deep understanding

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The central concepts to be learnt are imprecise. Students are not given the purpose of this
topic, the time given to research on the context of the speeches is brief and does not guide them to
deep understanding through the development of strong open questions about the context. No key
themes or language features are identified, there is no modelling of how to analyse and then evaluate
a speech then apply their knowledge and skill except by writing a speech at the end of the lesson.
Again there is little or no scaffolding and modelling ensure that students demonstrate deeper
knowledge.
1.3 Problematic knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The importance of social context is vaguely highlighted, and through contrast of speeches
there are attempts to highlight social construction. There is also class discussions throughout
suggesting the lesson is open to different perspectives however, for all of these elements, there is no
clarity in what knowledge is being learned and why. Knowledge is descriptive and factual for the most
part instead of students enabling to understand the social importance of the King speech and how this
is a paradigm shift in equality of individuals. The conflicting points of view about the speech and the
social context are not specifically explored highlighting in the lesson plan that some students may
achieve this but it is not tied in explicitly.
1.4 Higher-order thinking
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Some students could engage in higher order thinking and problem solving through
discussion, depending on the questions posed. However, there is little evidence that this would
happen for all students because there are no checkpoints to determine where students are up to and
what they have achieved at various points in the lesson. The lesson plan requires students to analyse
both speeches but there is little opportunity for students to be challenged by working together to
identify and analyse the speeches by explaining the effect and then linking this to the constructed
nature of each speech. At best the lesson is descriptive and there is very little opportunity for critical
thinking and evaluation. This is evident with the worksheets which are generic and not created for a
specific Year 10 group. It should be noted the activity sheets for each speech were obtained from the
internet and not developed for the students in mind. They are extremely basic and lack
sophistication. They do not seem age appropriate to the stage 5 syllabus

1.5 Metalanguage
1–2–3–4–5 Comments: There is no evidence of metalanguage associated with the speech and language analysis
of speeches. For example, there is no demonstration of how to analyses a speech using structure and
techniques specific to speeches such as anaphora, parallelism and allusion. Furthermore, the
terminology or toolkit needs to be unpacked with shared analysis using a program such as Keynote.
1.6 Substantive communication

1
1–2–3–4–5 Comments: According to the lesson plan and with out observing the lesson, substantive
communication seems neutral. There is indication of student discussion throughout and the Venn
diagram could be used for this element. However, communication about what students are learning
does not seem clear, and the lesson plan is poorly time managed and flows awkwardly, so while there
maybe class discussion, students will quite possibly be confused about the substance of the lesson and
what they need to know and what they need to learn. This needs to be more reciprocal through group
work and interactive technology which shares developing knowledge and understanding.
Quality learning environment
2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Student objectives and what is expected of them are not communicated strongly. There
is an expectation to write their own speech at the end of the lesson, but it is not mentioned before
that point, or the purpose for doing this. The worksheet for the speech does not challenge students to
produce a quality speech, particularly for a Year 10 group moving into the senior years. Merely the
technical and procedural criteria is articulated and not the ‘how’ linking to the outcomes or the
process to achieve these outcomes, basically the Why? What are they considering? They are not
made to evaluate either speech to have a critical understanding to apply to their own speech writing.
It is not noted if the students need to learn about how to construct an effective speech for a specific
context, or if they are learning to write a particular type of speech, or what scaffolding are they
going to use to achieve this.
2.2 Engagement
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Student engagement would be sporadic although student focus could be high if classroom
discussion and student group work is led well by the teacher. There is no evidence of this though as
the lesson plan is vague. It is assumed then, if the lesson plan is unclear then so is the lesson and
therefore, student engagement will be low. There is no note for differentiation for students of varying
abilities and needs, nor contingencies or mention of different strategies to keep students engaged. It
goes back to the objectives not being clear.

2.3 High expectations

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Expectations of the class seem very low and prescriptive as students do not seem to
engage in challenging work with the expectation of producing quality work. It is factual, shallow and
with reference to the worksheets, does not seem age appropriate and is not engaging or challenging.
There is no communication on the expectations that students can learn important knowledge and skills
and from this be challenged to produce an engaging speech.

2.4 Social support

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: With out actually observing the lesson, it seems that social support is neutral. There is
engagement of social participation and contribution as there are discussion and group work
throughout. However, it is not clear how receptive the teacher would be to student contribution and a
supportive social environment does not seem to be valued as evident through a lack of articulation on
the lesson plan through student discussion and interaction over the importance of the speeches.

2.5 Students’ self-regulation

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: With out observing the lesson, students’ self-regulation seems neutral. It is evident for
successful class discussion and group work students need not to interrupt or distract, highlighting self
regulation however, the lesson plan is poorly timed and does not flow. There are no contingency plans
or how to move students forward if students are not receptive to certain classroom activities. The
poor, unclear structure of the lesson plan assumes time used to manage student behaviour could be
significant.

2.6 Student direction

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Class discussion indicates some student direction however, the rest is teacher led. This
indicates a lack of trust and inexperience regarding student led activities. It also highlights the teacher
may not have a deep professional relationship with their students. No clear goals, no negotiation and
no clear encouragement of students.

3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Although background knowledge is mentioned, it is only used in regards to obtaining
information about the two speeches the students are engaging with in class and does to extend to the

2
 students themselves. There is no pre-learning about student knowledge of speeches, their purpose and
forms is investigated.
3.2 Cultural knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: No real engagement of cultural knowledge is evident in the activities, except the assumed
dominant culture. No acknowledgement of other cultures or even the student diversity in the
classroom. This could be particularly significant in this topic, especially Martin Luther King’s speech
and its historical and social importance.

3.3 Knowledge integration

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Some limited connection to past learning is made in the introduction. Beyond that
knowledge the connection is cursory, shallow and not significantly tied to the lesson. For example,
there is no evaluation at the end of the lesson by students about what they have learnt and how this
new knowledge and skill set will be applied to their own speech..

3.4 Inclusivity
1–2–3–4–5 Comments: Inclusivity is neutral as there is evidence student interactivity is high however, the lack
of articulation as to the ‘hows’ and whys’ of the lesson content stipulates students may be confused
or reluctant to include themselves.

3.5 Connectedness
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The lesson does not address public problem or how this lesson could relate to student
experience and their future experiences. No articulation of why speeches are an important textual form
or that students could learn and use these skills beyond the classroom.

3.6 Narrative
1–2–3–4–5 Comments: Human beings are natural story tellers and learning can be strengthened significantly if
students can engage in an over arching narrative. This is not mentioned at all in the lesson plan, even
though at least one of these speeches of great historical value and can even be relayed into the overall
cultural narrative of the world, but no connection to this is made. Furthermore, narrative form is a
technique used in speeches to persuade. Lacking these connections show that the lesson plan is shallow
at best.

Identifying Areas for Improvement

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

QT model
1) Deep Knowledge 1.1 2) Explicit Quality Criteria 2.1
3) Connectedness 3.5 4) Substantive Communication 1.6

3

Topic area:
Speeches as powerful spoken
text types (This week
persuasive speeches)
Date: 14/05/2018 (Week 3,
Term 2)
Time: 60 Minutes
Lesson Plan
Stage of Learner: Stage 5
(Year 10)
Location Booked:
G22 (Regular Classroom)
Total Number of students: 24
Syllabus Pages:
52
Lesson Number: 1 / 15
Printing/preparation/Resource
s
● 24 copies: Speech
Techniques ‘Toolkit’
● Smart Board with
Internet Connection
● White Board Markers
● Video file (YouTube clip)
Illustrating Persuasive
Speeches: Martin Luther
King Jr I Have a Dream
● 12 IPADS with the
Explain Everything App
downloaded and
installed and a copy of
the speech imported.
● Photo file of Martin
Luther King Jr
● 24 copies-transcripts of
the King speech.
N.B. Check function and
compatibility of all
technological elements before
lesson starts
4
 Outcomes
Syllabus outcomes:
Outcome 1:
ACELY1750: Identify and
explore the purposes and
effects of different text
structures and language
features of spoken texts,
and use this knowledge to
create purposeful texts that
inform, persuade and
engage.
Assessment Students learn Students learn to
about
Lesson assessment: Speech conventions Understand and
Brief annotated of persuasive identify the structure
presentation in pairs speeches e.g. and language
on selected rhetoric, rhetorical techniques of
paragraphs of Martin questioning, use of speeches, specifically
Luther King Junior’s I pausing, anaphora. persuasive speeches.
have a Dream speech,
using the Explain
Everything App.
Students will highlight
their knowledge of
speech conventions
and the major
thematic concerns of
the speech.
‘In your view, Why is
Martin Luther King Jr’s
speech important?’
5
 Time Teaching and learning actions
Intro
Remind students of the range of texts types they have studied and indicate that
5 minutes the next unit will be focussed on speeches as powerful examples of spoken texts.
This leads into a brainstorming activity on the white board and with the use of the
Socratic method, exploring ‘what makes a great speech? Why study speeches?
Why are they important? How are they different from other texts?’

N.B. Conclude brainstorming activity outlining to the students the scope and
sequence of the unit, that they will study a suite of speeches and critically analyse
speech structure, purpose, audience and context. As an introduction in this lesson
they will examine in detail Martin Luther King Junior’s I Have a Dream speech and
evaluate how the speech is constructed through language techniques and structure
and its cultural and social significance. In form them that they will write their own
persuasive speech on an issue important to them, presented towards the end of
the unit.

Body
Handout techniques and structure sheet to students. Go through the terms with
5 minutes students, highlighting that some language techniques are used in many text types
and some are unique to speeches such as rhetorical question. Make sure students
understand that this sheet will be used to learn the metalanguage, and is
effectively their ‘tool kit’ for analysing the speeches throughout the unit.

Whiteboard discussion clearly defining what purpose, audience and context are in
all texts and in particular speeches e.g. is it to entertain? Persuade? Provide
15 minutes insight? To effect change? Who is it for? Is it a speech aimed at certain gender or
demographic? Or a particular minority group? Record on whiteboard and students
to note in workbook.

A photo of Martin Luther King Jr will be shown on the Smart Board and students
will be asked to identify him and his historical significance thus, assessing their
background knowledge. His speech I Have a Dream will then be contextualised as
to its importance and significance. A a brief outline on Martin Luther’s historical
context will be given and why he is still significant today, relating directly to the
#Blacklivesmatter movement.

Instruct students that they will observe and excerpt of Martin Luther King Jr’s I
have a Dream Speech that will run for 5 minutes.

Have a student hand out IPADS for 12 pairs and instruct them to open the Explain
Everything App. Get students to read through transcript together.
Lead with a series of questions linking back to the beginning of the lesson: What is
the purpose? Who is the audience? What is the context?
20 minutes

6
 After the viewing facilitate a class discussion: What makes Martin Luther King Jr
speech so powerful? These are closed questions leading the students to focus on
two answers: 1. The content of their speech, that is, what are the big ideas and 2.
The way he has delivered it.
Record student response on whiteboard.

Instruct them that for the first two paragraphs of the speech they will annotate
with them on the Smart Board and "group analyse" the speech together,
annotating speech conventions with use their toolkits as support. This satisfies
substantive communication. This will be saved to a Dropbox document which can
be accessed beyond the classroom.

Then instruct that with their partner they are going to use the Explain Everything
App (they have used it before) and annotate the transcript for the next two
paragraphs again with their tool kit to identify the techniques and themes (or big
ideas that hey identify).

Students will then briefly present the annotation to the class using the Explain
everything app on the Smart Board, demonstrating they have an introductory but
deep understanding of the ideas, language techniques and features of speeches,
specifically persuasive speeches.

Set for homework short response: In your view, Why is Martin Luther King Jr’s
speech important? Students provided with a scaffold demonstrating structure
10 minutes including using MEETAL paragraph (main point, elaboration, example, technique,
analysis, link) based on their ideas and the form.
Explain that they need to ‘have a go’ and to ‘take risks’ even if they find this
challenging.
Conclusion
For the next lesson articulate draft that is 200 words of your evaluation of the
5 minutes speech.

Evaluation of what has been learned and touched upon, and why this is important
and that this will be examined in further depth next week, including analysing
Adam Goodes’ Australian of the Year Acceptance Speech.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

Identify and explore the Group analysis of speech text;
purposes and effects of Pair work: analysis of next part of the speech
different text structures Group feedback to class giving analysis of a section of
the speech;

7
and language features of
spoken texts
Use this knowledge to Structured draft homework response
create purposeful texts
that inform, persuade and
engage.

8
 Academic Justification

Despite many assertions that expert teachers have trouble articulating what they do, and compared

to novice teachers, formulate plans mentally rather than be explicitly written, the detail of this

lesson plan reflects little time invested (Ayres, Sawyer, & Dinham, 2004; Mutton, Hazel &

Hagger, 2011; John, 2006; Hall & Smith, 2012). Thus, the lesson plan has been modified in four

crucial areas according to the Quality Teaching Model (QTM). These areas are: Deep Knowledge

1.1, Explicit Quality Criteria 2.1, Connectedness 3.5 and Substantive Communication 1.6

(Department of Education and Training, 2006, p. 3).

Examining deep knowledge, identified as both teachers and students providing reasoning,

information and arguments that address the centrality of key concepts or ideas (Department of

Education and Training, 2006, p. 12), the original lesson plan indicates students will receive

superficial knowledge because it is addressed in cursory ways. For example, the worksheets

provide no opportunity for deep knowledge, nor did it identify and link to syllabus outcomes or

crucial English schemas such as purpose, audience and context highlighted as quality teaching

(Ayres, Sawyer, & Dinham, 2004). To address this, identification of significant concepts are

articulated and recur throughout the lesson to develop deep knowledge and therefore,

understanding. Firstly, the students participate in a brainstorming activity exploring underpinning

questions such as ‘why study speeches?’ ‘Why are speeches important?’, this immediately

identifies and directs students to significant concepts in the lesson, linked to syllabus outcomes and

QTM markers such as reviewing and assessing student background knowledge (Board of Studies,

2012; Department of Education and Training, p.13). Furthermore, students are provided with a

variety of resources such as a ‘tool kit’ to clearly identify language techniques in speeches, an

historical biography on Martin Luther King Jr and a transcript of his speech to explicitly reinforce

key concepts and ideas of speeches and how they are different to other text types. As this lesson

9
introduces speeches as a text type, it enables the students to learn specific language techniques,

structure and features of speeches and understand how speeches are constructed (Hattie, 2012;

Department of Education and Training, p.12). Students are encouraged to think critically and

evaluate the content of the speech according to Blooms Taxonomy a successful strategy to engage

higher order thinking and therefore, deeper knowledge. (Gross, Macleod & Pretorius, 2001).

To protect against student disengagement explicit quality criteria is stated and reinforced through

out the lesson. Students of all levels are provided with explicit examples speech techniques such as

the audience, purpose and context and the central ideas and significance of the speech. An in depth

analysis of one speech also sets the tone and level of engagement for students, emphasising strong

delivery of the lesson (Dorovolomo, Phan & Maebuta, 2010). With all activities for example,

annotating Martin Luther’s speech using the ‘tool kit’ and interactivity through the Explain

Everything App and the scaffolded extended homework response with explicit examples of the

quality of work expected and further articulated with clear, concise instruction which is identified

as an effective teaching strategy (Ladwig, 2005). The in depth analysis of one significant speech

supported by in class activities ensures that the students understand that quality is expected and that

high expectations have been set, in accordance with QTM (Department of education and Training,

2006, p. 26).

Connectedness as identified in QTM is when learning has meaning well beyond the school

(Department of Education and Training, 2006, p. 48). This is evident by highlighting Martin Luther

King’s historical value and allowing students to understand the social context and the social issue

he is addressing. The civil rights movement is recognised as relevant by linking to current social

movements such as #Blacklivesmatter. Thus, making it immediately relevant. This allows students

to explore classroom knowledge outside the classroom in ways that create personal meaning and

10
highlights the significance of the knowledge (Department of Education and Training). Specifically,

in examining persuasive speeches, students learn that speeches can influence society on a macro

and micro scale and through their own mastery and learning of speeches and their techniques; they

will be stronger, persuasive communicators which can profoundly benefit them outside the

classroom (Allison, Tharby & Lemov, 2015). Furthermore, identifying and applying their

knowledge of language forms and techniques without “spoon feeding them” as exemplified in the

pair annotation activities (Ayres, Sawyer, & Dinham, 2004, p. 144). Here, students are learning

skills that make them informed critical thinkers by giving an informed evaluation. Arguably, this

could extend to objectives of the Melbourne Declaration: creating students that are an informed

active citizenry (The Melbourne Declaration, 2008, p. 8).

Finally, substantive communication is important as it is directly linked to intellectual quality of the

lesson and gaining deeper understanding that is required for the unit and its objectives as stipulated

in the syllabus (Ladwig, 2009; Department of Education, 2006 p. 22). The suggested activities

support substantive communication through detailed guided discussion and pair working,

articulating dialogue between students as valued by sharing their point of view to gain deeper

understanding about the ideas and techniques, highlighted as good practice (Hattie, 2012). Guided

classroom discussion is an important tool to discover the meaning and the constructed nature of text

by using Socratic method exemplified with the brainstorming activity (why are speeches important)

thus, framing students to provide a more in depth response and reflect on the knowledge they are

learning and engaging with (Sorvatzioti, 2012). Further, the use of ICT through the Explain

Everything App supports Substantive Communication through interactivity, making the classroom

democratic and student guided (Livingstone, 2011; Romeo, Lloyd & Downes, 2012; Department of

Education and Training). The use of ICT is especially important in engaging contemporary students

11
and is a cross-referenced standard with the Australian Professional Standards of Teaching, Standard

2, 2.6.1 (NESA, 2012, p. 11).

12
References

Allison, S., Tharby, A., & Lemov, D. (2015). Making every lesson count: six principles to support

great teaching and learning. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com.

Australian professional standards for teachers. (2012). Sydney, NSW: NSW Education

Standards Authority.

Ayres, P., Sawyer, W., & Dinham, S. (2004). Effective teaching in the context of a grade 12

high-stakes external examination in new south wales, australia. British Educational

Research Journal, 30(1), 141-165. Doi:https://doi-

org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1080/01411920310001630008

Dorovolomo, J. P., Phan, H., & Maebuta, J. (2010). Quality lesson planning and quality delivery:

Do they relate? International Journal of Learning,17(3), 447-456.

Gross, M., Macleod, B., Prestorius, M. (2001). Gifted students in secondary education:

Differentiating the curriculum (2nd ed). University of New South Wales, Australia:

Gifted Edcuation Research, Resource and Information Centre.

Hall, T., & Smith, M., (2012) Teacher planning, instruction and reflection: What we know

about teacher cognitive processes. Quest, 58:4, 424-

442, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2006.10491892

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for teachers: Maximising impact on learning. Oxon, England:

Routledge.

John, P., D. (2007). Lesson planning and the student teacher: re‐thinking the dominant model.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38:4, 483-498, DOI: 10.1080/00220270500363620

Ladwig, J. (2005). Monitoring the quality of pedagogy. Leading and Managing, 11(2), 70-83.

Ladwig, J. (2009). Working backwards towards curriculum: On the curricular implications of

quality teaching. Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 271-286.

13
Livingstone, S. (2011). Critical reflections on the benefits of ict in education, Oxford Review of

Education, 38:1, 9-24, DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2011.577938

Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young australians. (2008). Retrieved from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educa

tional_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Mutton T., Hagger H., & Burn, K. (2011) Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing

expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 17:4, 399-

416, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2011.580516

Romeo, G., Lloyd, M., & Downes, T. (2012). Teaching teachers for the future: Building the ict in

education capacity of the next generation of teachers in Australia. Australasian Journal

of Educational Technology, 28(6), 949-964.

Sorvatzioti, D. (2012). The socratic method of teaching in a multidisciplinary educational

setting. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 5(5), 61-71.

NSW syllabus for the Australian curriculum: English k-10 syllabus. (2012). Sydney, NSW: Board

of Studies NSW.

Quality teaching in nsw public schools: A classroom practice guide (2nd ed). (2006). Ryde,

NSW: Department of Education and Training.

E-portfolio Web Link:

14
15