Debra da Silva

#18252191

EDU5TEA Professional Experience Reflection Part B.

Introduction
The lesson used as the basis for this case study was undertaken in a Year 11 Business
management class. The lesson was 50 mins in length, and examined the issue of
recruitment and selection of staff in a small business.

Standard 1: Know students and how they learn

Understanding students and how they learn is a central tenet of teaching (Patrick,
Mantzicopoulos, & Sears, 2012). In this area of study a key requirement is that students
are able to understand the processes of employing staff, and a key component of that is
knowing how to recruit. The activity in this lesson was designed to demonstrate to
students how the types of questions asked in an interview can vary, and produce different
types of information (Lave, 1991). After conducting a role play interview in pairs,
students were required to individually write about three questions that were effective, and
one that was not. In each case they were required to detail what type of question it was,
why it worked or didnt.
In the student sample provided, it is clear that the student has some level of understanding
of the key issues and has completed most of what was required. Each of the questions
were identified and explained what insight would be gained from asking this question in
an interview (e.g. helped show the employer..). In each case the student also
considered a different approach, such as extending the question. This response indicates
that the students has understood the key elements of this part of the lesson. However, the
student did not identify the type of each question, so this is material that may need to be
reconsidered to check for understanding. To extend the learning in the following lesson,
Students could be guided to considered issues such as the bias of the interviewer and the
impact that has on the questions being asked (Standard 1.3 and 1.Standard 2: Know the
content and how to teach it (Mortier, Hunt, Leroy, Van de Putte, & Van Hove, 2010).

Debra da Silva
#18252191

Standard 2: Know the content and how to teach it

Demonstrating knowledge of the content in recruitment and selection first required the
class to understand the broader context of the area of study (McGhie-Richmond, & Sung,
2013). It was necessary at the start of the class to spend 10 minutes discussing the
previous work on staffing needs, and how that related to understanding recruitment and
selection. The students needed to be able to view the topics as a series of natural
progressions (McTighe & Wiggins, 2013). This was undertaken as a class discussion, by
presenting the information and calling upon students to fill in the gaps, recount previous
work and recall some of the key issues we had already covered. This also enables me to
check for understanding with the previous material.
The lesson was structured into three key activities: group work examining the pros and
cons of an issue, a role play interview and a think-pair-share activity. The setup and the
class discussion for each activity followed a constructivist approach of shared learning
and understandings (Schreiber & Valle, 2013). This was to introduce the concept at a high
level (Vygotskys (1987) zone of proximal development) and provide the students with
enough information to get started, walking around the classroom to sit with groups/pairs
to discuss specific items, followed by whole class debrief of the key understandings.

Standard 3: Plan for and implement effective teaching and

learning
The lesson was specifically planned to draw on students own experiences beyond the
classroom (Wiggins & McTighe, 2008; Wiggins, McTighe, Kiernan, & Frost, 1998). By
breaking down the content into three key areas that were scaffolded in to the broader
context, students were able to work through the content gradually building up their
understanding. The lesson was also designed to check for student learning at regular
intervals. The nature of the activities allowed me to check in with students and listen to
their discussions, as well as see the outputs of their group/pair work. One key area that
wasnt covered by this lesson plan was to check for solely individual understandings that
a student might face in an exam context.
The work produced during the class, as evidenced by the student sample indicates that
this plan did achieve its content and learning objectives. However, as the student missed
2

Debra da Silva
#18252191

the understanding of they type of interview question, then that material will need to be
recovered. Beyond his particular sample, this item was often overlooked by students in
their written response, indicating it was a broader issue. An example of how the lesson
plan could be modified to account for this would be to restructure the role play activity.
Here, the students could be given criteria by which to select their questions, based on the
question type (e.g. chose one open question and one closed question) (Causton
Theoharis, Theoharis, & Trezek, 2008; John, 2006; McTighe & Wiggins, 2013).

Standard 7: Engage Professionally with colleagues,

parents/carers and the community
The extant literature highlights the significance of effective parent/carer relationships
with the school, as well as the broader school engagement in the community (Hartman &
Chesley, 1997; Keen, 2007; Marshall & Mirenda, 2002; Padak & Rasinski, 2010). As
noted in the research, schools need to undertake a variety of methods by which to
establish successful partnerships (Gelfer, 1991). Galen Catholic College engages with
parents/carers and the broader community in a number of ways. In relation to the work
undertaken in the classroom, a key tool is the Parent Access Module (PAM). This tool
allows teachers to upload comments on student work that is submitted throughout the
term via an intranet that parents can then access. A sample screen shot of this is
highlighted below. Using such a tool allows parents to be actively engaged in their childs
progress as the learning occurs, rather than waiting until the more formal parent- teacher
interviews at the end of term, by which time it may be too late to correct any issues
(Baker & Keogh, 1995; Crozier, 1999; Delpit, 1988).

Debra da Silva
#18252191

The second example of building relationship with parent/carers and the broader
community was the Parent Forum held as a part of the Year 11/12 Re-Connect Day was a
seminar specifically designed for parents to hear from a speaker in the field on a topical
issue (copy of news article attached). The feedback from parents was encouraging, and
they had particularly commented on the opportunity to get new information on how to
better work with their children on a variety of challenging issues. Using forums such as
these also has the advantage of giving the school and the parent a unified perspective on
how to both approach issues with the child.

Debra da Silva
#18252191

Debra da Silva
#18252191

Underlying these approaches to engagement is the weekly newsletter Reflections (see

uploaded copy).

This source provides on ongoing stream of information relating to the schools (dates,
agendas, notices etc.) as well as providing an opportunity for commentary on issues
within the school. Importantly, this source is available via the school website and is
emailed to parents, as well as being available in hard copy if needed. As noted by Barrera
and Warner (2006) this form of communication facilitates a sense of involvement of the
family/carer within the school community.

References
Baker, C., & Keogh, J. (1995). Accounting for achievement in parent-teacher interviews.
Human Studies, 18(2-3), 263-300.
Barrera, J. M., & Warner, L. (2006). Involving families in school events. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 42(2), 72-75.
CaustonTheoharis, J. N., Theoharis, G. T., & Trezek, B. J. (2008). Teaching preservice
teachers to design inclusive instruction: a lesson planning template. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(4), 381-399.
Crozier, G. (1999). Is it a case of We know when we're not wanted'? The parents
perspective on parentteacher roles and relationships. Educational Research,
41(3), 315-328.
Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people's children. Harvard educational review, 58(3), 280-299.
Gelfer, J. I. (1991). Teacher-Parent Partnerships: Enhancing Communications. Childhood
Education, 67(3), 164-167.
Hartman, D. M., & Chesley, G. (1997). When Problems Arise at School: How Schools
and Parents Can Work Together. NASSP Bulletin, 81(591), 81-84.

Debra da Silva
#18252191

John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: rethinking the dominant
model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483-498.
Keen, D. (2007). Parents, Families, and Partnerships: Issues and Considerations.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(3), 339-349.
doi: 10.1080/10349120701488855
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. Perspectives on socially
shared cognition, 2, 63-82.
Marshall, J. K., & Mirenda, P. (2002). Parent-Professional Collaboration for Positive
Behavior Support in the Home. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 17(4), 216-228.
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2013). Essential questions: Opening doors to student
understanding: Ascd.
Mortier, K., Hunt, P., Leroy, M., Van de Putte, I., & Van Hove, G. (2010). Communities
of Practice in Inclusive Education. Educational Studies(3), 345-355. doi:
10.1080/03055690903424816
Padak, N., & Rasinski, T. V. (2010). Welcoming Schools: Small Changes that Can Make
a Big Difference. Reading Teacher(4), 294-297. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.4.12
Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Sears, D. (2012). Effective classrooms. In K. R.
Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA
educational psychology handbook, Vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and
contextual factors (pp. 443-469). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological
Association.
Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social Constructivist Teaching Strategies in the
Small Group Classroom. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395-411. doi:
10.1177/1046496413488422
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in society: The development
of higher psychological processes, 5291.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2008). Put understanding first. Educational Leadership,
65(8), 36.
Wiggins, G., McTighe, J., Kiernan, L., & Frost, F. (1998). Understanding by design:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexandria, VA.