ASSIGNMENT COVERSHEET

Student Number 31856586Surname Doherty

Given name AndreaEmail Doherty.andrea@hotmail.com

Unit Code EDN470Unit name Action learning for reflective practitioners

Enrolment mode Internal Date 24.05.2015

Assignment number 2Assignment name Progress Report

Tutor Rachel Drewry 

Student’s Declaration: Except where indicated, the work I am submitting in this assignment is my own work and has

not been submitted for assessment in another unit.

This submission complies with Murdoch University's academic integrity commitments. I am aware that information about plagiarism and associated penalties can be found at http://www.murdoch.edu.au/teach/plagiarism/. If I have any doubts or queries about this, I am further aware that I can contact my Unit Coordinator prior to submitting the assignment.

I acknowledge that the assessor of this assignment may, for the purpose of assessing this assignment:o reproduce this assignment and provide a copy to another academic staff member; and/oro submit a copy of this assignment to a plagiarism-checking service. This web-based service

may retain a copy of this work for the sole purpose of subsequent plagiarism checking, but has a legal agreement with the University that it will not share or reproduce it in any form.

I have retained a copy of this assignment.

I will retain a copy of the notification of receipt of this assignment. If you have not received a receipt within three days, please check with your Unit Coordinator.

Student’s written signature: Andrea Doherty

Date: 24.05.2012

Optional Comments to Tutor:E.g. If this is a group assignment, list group members here

     

Start your assignment on the next page.

Approved by Academic Council 4 March 2009 (AC/34/2009)

Overview of the teaching context and the action research aim/s

I am currently an intern at South Coogee Primary school (SCPS); with a diversity

of students (21% speak a “language background other than English)” (Australian

Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2014). After working with

some students I found myself asking ‘could I confidently teach students to

‘recognise most sound-letter matches’? (ACARA, 2014). ‘Have I found effective

approaches to facilitate student learning’? These questions allow me to become

a reflective practitioner and thus acting upon them allows me to improve

teaching/learning (Pine, 2009). Following this, I have chosen to focus on year two

students, particularly those who need additional assistance in developing their

literacy capabilities at SCPS. The purpose of this research is to allow me to

discover strategies to assist students with learning difficulties, particularly in

literacy; whilst additionally gaining content knowledge and confidence to be able

to identify them in a classroom setting. I have become involved in the school

‘remedial’ programme called MulitLit (Wheldall & Beaman, 2000), which focuses

on supporting students who are unable to reach the expected learning outcomes

for their year level. During this time I aim to be able to effectively identify the

different abilities in literacy, and assist those who do not reach the expected

standards for their year, whilst incorporating play-based learning (DEEWR, 2009)

as well as becoming more critical in my teaching approach, thereby critiquing

current school programs and discovering the effectiveness of them.

Identification of the strategies undertaken to achieve the aim/s

Following my action research rationale, I plan to develop more content

understanding as to what literacy is, and the expectations various year groups

have. To do this I discussed with the year two classroom teacher how she plans

and sequences her learning (appendix 1). I also sat in on staff meetings which

discussed the whole-school approach to phonics, Letters & sounds (Department

of Education, 2007). I furthered my research and review the MultiLit guide,

Letters & Sounds book and the Australian Curriculum.

As mentioned, I am involved in the MultiLit program, and focus on 6 students

twice a week, following a set lesson structure (appendix 2). From that I have

reflected, using my reflection journals (appendix 3) and modified certain

elements of the program, in the aim to link in the mandated ‘Early Years

Learning Framework’ (DEEWR, 2009) as I believe that whilst these students are

at the brink of ‘early childhood’ they still should be provided with the opportunity

to “...actively engage with people, objects and representations” (p.6).

When reflecting on the above strategies I began to question the influence the

program had on the students once they returned to the classroom. I then had a

meeting with the MultiLit coordinator to address my concerns and supported

them with my classroom observations (appendix 4) which were conducted prior.

It is crucial to complete these reflections and plan and act on them as it allows

me to “understand [more] about (myself) as (an) educator and about the

education in a broader context” (O’Connor & Diggins, 2007, p.58).

Discussion of the data collection and data analysis processes (450)

In order to become a reflective practitioner I need plan-act/observe-reflect

(Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005) which I have done through research of

programmes used in the school, involvement in those programs, classroom

observation, teacher discussions and then modifications to my lesson plans and

a development of understanding of the literacy content.

To begin, I created a diagnostic assessment task using the MultiLit program and

Letters & Sounds to find my outcomes. The purpose for the diagnostic task

(appendix 5) was to assess students and notice if I would have been able to

identify as needing additional support. This was the case for 4 out of 6 students,

whereas the other two I deemed as ‘below satisfaction’. The process of the

diagnostic task was not play-based at all, however the main purpose of the task

was to “diagnose strengths and areas of need in all students” (Department of

Education, 2007). I do believe that when needing such results, there is no need

for a play based activity, instead I aimed to create lessons using the EYLF to

support their learning.

I worked each student individually, for twenty minutes twice a week; following

the strict routine (appendix 2) suggested by MultiLit. I also observed the students

for a full day in the classroom; taking notes on their social interactions, overall

classroom engagement, engagement with structured English lessons, and the

way they settled back into the class after participating in MultiLit. Whilst

observing, I reflected on what I saw, and my own reaction to the lessons and

students; which were noted in my reflective journal. The journal was a great tool

as it allowed me to answer my own questions about practices and become more

willing to research, plan and reflect; as supported by O’Connor and Diggins

(2002).

Additionally, I spoke to different teachers about their teaching style and

approach to literacy. The purpose of this was to allow me to become familiar with

the content within English, as it will allow me to set clear goals and expectations.

A particular meeting was held with the coordinator of MultiLit which was very

beneficial, as it confirmed that the aims of my project are very realistic and in

fact shared amongst other teachers. . From that meeting (appendix 6) I realised

that she had the same concerns, and too wanted to make the program more play

and less structured.

There are work samples (appendix 7) from students who have completed MulitLit

a brief statement (appendix 8) about what they think of it. The purpose of this

was to gain a basic understanding of the child’s point of view, of the program.

Following from the conversations, I created modifications to the lesson;

(appendix 9), which centred more on a play-based style of learning. Again using

the reflective journal and a brief statement from the students, I found that there

was in fact a development in engagement and learning.

Discussion of the preliminary findings

As mentioned above there is a number of processes which I have undertaken

which have allowed me to create particular conclusions (Johnson, 2012). Using

the diagnostic task I was able to identify a majority of the students would were

referred to the remedial program, as needing such assistance, however, I was

also unable to identify two of those students as needing such help. As planned in

cycle two, I hope to reassess all students again aiming to create more accurate

assessments.

After analysing my discussions with the students I came to the conclusion that

many students were unable to see the purpose of the remedial program, as they

did not enjoy it and felt excluded from the class. I soon learned that they found

the program very boring and motivating; they only enjoyed it when they were

taken out of a class activity which they did not enjoy. It was through these

discussions that prompted me to become creative and develop strategies which I

could implement to assist these students in the classroom as well as create

engaging activities with the same outcomes.

During the classroom observation I noted that these students did struggle in

their learning, particularly in their morning writing activities as the teacher did

not seem to have time to cater for their difficulties; for example one of the

students did not have any full stops or capital letters, the entire page was one

sentence. This highlighted the fact that my research project is very narrow, as I

seem to be focusing solely on the writing of sounds and letters, and not a range

of strategies to incorporate language, literacy and literature (ACARA).

During the discussion with the classroom teacher, I had noticed that she had no

mention of how to cater for the students with such low-literacy abilities. This was

the focus of my final research question ‘what can be done to assist low-literacy

students in the classroom’. Collating the discussion with the classroom teacher

and the MulitLit coordinator, I began planning ideas and simple lessons which

could be provided for the student to allow a smoother transition, with the aim of

implementing the new lessons/resources and observing the effectiveness of

such.

Critical Reflections on future strategies/action to be undertaken to achieve

aim/s

So far in my research I have become much more critical of both myself as a

practitioner and of the programs implemented in the school to assist students

learning. The purpose of this project is to be able to effectively identify students

with low-literacy capabilities and through assessment and develop further

understanding of sequences, planning and relevant content. To further this I will

continue to participate in MultiLit, but I will modify the lesson to suit my teaching

philosophy and cater for the ‘Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR, 2009). I

will continue to discuss this progress with the students and classroom teacher as

well as observe the classroom, with the aim of seeing a positive outcome; in both

the academics of each student, but also the child’s belief in abilities.

In the next cycle of learning I will continue to implement the lesson modifications

and create more adoptions based on the student’s response to them as it is

important to reflect on all lessons and adapt (Tice, 2011). I will also develop

some resources or ‘packs’ which I have already discussed with the MultiLit

coordinator to assist the students in a smoother transition from MultiLit back into

the classroom. The purpose of this is to discover various techniques to ‘assist

low-literacy student within the classroom’. The second cycle of my research

project will allow me to continue reflecting and improving my teaching outcomes

and practices (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009).

References

1. Australia. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.

(2014). South Coogee Primary School, Beelair, WA. Retrieved from

http://www.myschool.edu.au/SchoolProfile/Index/89633/SouthCoogeePrima

rySchool/48338/2014

2. Australia. Department of Education. (2007). Diagnostic Assessment. Northern

Territory: Government of Australia. Retrieved from

http://www.education.nt.gov.au/parents-community/assessment-reporting/diagnostic-

assessments/diagnostic-assessments

3. Australia. Department of Education. (2007). Letters and Sounds: Principles and

Practice of High Quality Phonics. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190599/

Letters_and_Sounds_-_DFES-00281-2007.pdf

4. Australia. Department of Education. (2014). Australian curriculum: English

Curriculum. Retrieved from

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/english/curriculum/f-10?layout=1

5. Diggins., C. and O’Connor., A ( 2002).,  On Reflection: Reflective Practice

for Early Childhood Educators., Aoteroa New Zealand., Open mind

Publishing 

6. DEEWR. Australian Government Department of Education, Employment

and Workplace Relations (2009) Belonging, Being and Becoming: the Early

Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth

Australia. Retrieved from:

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/Quality/

Documents/Final%20Framework%20Report%20-%20WEB.pdf

7. Johnson, A.P. (2012). A short guide to action research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education

8. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Communicative action and the public

sphere. Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS (red.), The Sage handbook of qualitative

research, 3, 559-603.

9. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2009). Doing and Writing Action Research.

California: SAGE.

10.Pine, G. (2009). Teacher Action Research: Building knowledge

democracies. Boston College, USA: SAGE. Retrieved from

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/27030_2.pdf

11.Tice, J., (2011). Reflective teaching: Exploring our own classroom practice.

London, UK: British Council. Retrieved from

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/reflective-teaching-exploring-our-own-

classroom-practice

Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (2000). An evaluation of MULTILIT: ‘Making Up

Lost Time

Assignment 2 EDN470 PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT

Student Name: Andrea Doherty

Tutor’s Name: Rachel Drewry 

Your email address (please type): doherty.andrea@hotmail.com

Google Docs/Weebly Address/ Other (please type): http://andreaedn470.weebly.com

1500 words-20 marks Due: Monday 25th May

The Project Progress Report must be submitted electronically via LMS. The Project Progress Report marks are allocated on the extent to which the student does not meet,

meets or exceeds the following criteria:

1) Overview of the teaching context and the action research aim/s

0-1 Does not meet requirements

1-2 Meets requirements

2) Identification of the strategies undertaken to achieve the aim/s

0-1 Does not meet requirements

1-2 Meets requirements

3) Discussion of the data collection and data analysis processes

0-2 Does not meet requirements

3-4 Meets requirements

4) Discussion of the preliminary findings

0-2 Does not meet requirements

3-4 Meets requirements

5) Critical Reflections on future strategies/action to be undertaken to achieve aim/s

0-2 Does not meet requirements

3-4 Meets requirements

-Page 1-

6) Google Doc – inclusion of appendices:

Hyperlink to your Marked Assignment 1 ( Your Rationale and Plan) Hyperlink to one item of evidence (transcript, student work sample etc.)

These appendices are not included in your word count

0-1 Does not meet requirements

1-2 Meets requirements

7) Professional Presentation

Work is presented in a scholarly fashion using APA referencing, correct punctuation, spelling & grammar, clear headings. Assignment adheres to word limit/ and includes a word count.

0-1 Does not meet requirements

1-2 Meets requirements

General Comments: Mark: /20

Evidence

Appendix 1: Discussion with the year two classroom teacher how she plans and

sequences her learning

Appendix 2: Scanned MulitLit lesson plan

Appendix 3: reflective journals

Appendix 4: Classroom observations

Appendix 5: Diagnostic task

Appendix 6: Meeting with MulitLit coordinator

Appendix 7: work samples

Appendix 8: Students’ opinions on MulitLit

Appendix 9: Lesson plan for fly swatter