0

Reflection 1: Child Development

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

Reporting:

Vykgotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) describes the optimal zone of

learning as the “difference between what a learner can do by themselves and what they can
do with the help of others” (Duchesne, 2015). Vygotsky’s ZPD in a teaching context focuses
on finding out what a student can do with assistance, rather than assessing what they have
already learnt to do so that teaching can be directed at an optimal level for each student
(Duchesne, 2015).

Responding:

I believe that Vygotsky’s characterization of an optimal zone of learning, and using

teaching strategies to engage student learning within this zone will result in higher student
development. I also agree with Vygotsky’s view of teaching as a facilitating role rather than
instructor, in order for students to develop understanding and to regulate their own learning
(Duchesne, 2015). For instance, I believe that teachers should set personal goals and
expectations for students depending on their learning ability and ZPD.

Relating:

Vygotsky’s theory’s is rooted in cognitive psychology, and is related to Piaget’s

theory of Cognitive Development in that they both aimed to explain children’s cognitive
learning styles and abilities. Piaget’s theory describes a child’s cognitive development by
four universal and consecutive stages, which classify the ability level of a student. Similarly,
certain teaching strategies based upon student’s developmental stage, with an emphasis on
learning styles, have been created. For example, a student in the concrete operations stage
should be taught in a hands-on style, with short instruction and concrete examples (Hoy,
 1

1998). Like Vygotsky’s ZPD, Piaget school of thought is based on teacher strategies to
accommodate for different student needs, abilities and their stage of cognitive development.

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development is linked to Bruner’s notion of

scaffolding, which focused on the importance of supporting learners and adjusting the
amount of assistance depending on their current level of performance. Bruner’s idea of
scaffolding also highlighted the importance of teaching, using certain support strategies, to
enable self-regulated and independent learning (Duchesne, 2015).

Vygotsky’s ZPD relates to standard 1.1 of Australian Institute for Teaching and
School Leadership’s Australian Professional Standard for Teachers (APST), “Know students
physical, social and intellectual development and characteristics”, and standard 1.5
“Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of
abilities”, as they identify the need for teachers to understand and accommodate for students
whose social and intellectual developmental stages may differ, and to cater for differences in
learning abilities and learning styles.

Reasoning:

When reading about Vygotsky’s ZPD, I believed that this could be helpful in my
understanding of student development and catering for student needs. However, I was unsure
exactly how this zone could be characterized as the definition provides a very vague
description. Upon further reading, I realised that applying the ZPD to teaching is basically
pitching what we teach so that it is quite a challenge for students to achieve on their own, but
simple enough to achieve with teacher assistance (Wass & Golding, 2014). I also discovered
applying the Zone of Proximal Development in a teaching context can involve many different
teaching strategies, such as guided participation, scaffolding, and reciprocal teaching
(Stremmel & Fu, 1993). What I gathered is that identifying a student’s ZPD is to be
interpreted by the teacher and is based on their knowledge of students learning styles,
abilities and developmental stage.

Reconstructing:
 2

Teaching within the zone of proximal development is a collaborative process, and the
teacher serves as a co-participant in a student’s construction of knowledge (Stremmel & Fu,
1993). Therefore, it is necessary for me as a teacher to understand and know my students, to
identify their stage of development, and pitch the content, assessment and/or teaching
strategies within each student’s ZPD. I believe Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development
will work well with the concept of differentiation.

Reflection 2: Views of learning

Inquiry Based Learning

Reporting:

Inquiry based learning is a process of learning developed through student discovery

by asking questions, solving problems or evaluating scenarios. It is a collaborative learning
experience in which students answer a question by analysing information themselves
(Blessinger, 2015). It draws on constructivist ideas of learning where students construct new
ideas or concepts based upon their experiences and prior knowledge (Olagoke, Mobolaji, &
A, 2014). Inquiry based learning ranges from a rather structured and guided activity, where
beginner inquiry skills are developed, to the advanced independent research (Olagoke et al.,
2014).

Responding:

I believe Inquiry Based Learning is an effective learning process as it encourages

students to construct their own understanding about topics, ideas, or concepts they are
genuinely interested in (Chin, 2007). I feel that placing student ideas and questions at the
centre of the learning experience will result in increased engagement, participation and
motivation which will lead to a deeper understanding, a higher degree of reflection, and
achievement at a higher order of learning (Berg, Bergendahl, Lundberg, & Tibell, 2003).

Relating:
 3

Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) is a constructivist approach to learning as it draws on

generating information and developing one’s own understanding based on personal or
societal experiences (Bächtold, 2013). The collaborative nature of IBL to promote the
construction of knowledge through interaction with others is a social constructivist approach
to learning (Bell, Urhahne, Schanze, & Ploetzner, 2010). Inquiry based learning also aligns
with concepts of Metacognition such as Regulation of Cognition and Knowledge of
Cognition as students are assumed to undergo processes such as self-reflection, self-
regulation and metacognitive judgements throughout inquiry activities (Bannister-Tyrrell,
Smith, Merrotsy, & Cornish, 2014). Inquiry based learning also aligns with the cognitive
domain of Bloom’s taxonomy, which separates into major subcategories: knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Berg et al., 2003).

Reasoning:

After researching into Inquiry Based Learning I felt a sense of excitement and
motivation to use inquiry activities within my classroom. The thought of getting students
engaged in learning by invoking their own questions and ideas about topics, ideas and/or
concepts of their own interests aligns well with my approach to teaching. Upon further
reading I came to realise that implementing IBL in the classroom would not be an easy or
quick task. IBL requires students to have the fundamental Inquiry skills before progressing to
the more advanced stages of Inquiry learning (Wu & Hsieh, 2006). IBL will also take
thorough planning before implementation (Blessinger, 2015). As a teacher, it is vital that
students’ ideas and interests are placed at the centre or learning. This requires an extensive
understanding of students’ needs, and strong student-teacher relationships which can only be
developed with time (Olagoke et al., 2014). Now, I wonder, how much time it will take to
progress through the stages of Inquiry learning before meaningful and authentic learning
begins?
As Inquiry Based Learning has a strong focus on western scientific processes of
learning, I am also questioning its applicability to a classroom in which students’ ways of
knowing and learning may be diverse. How will IBL fit in with Indigenous students’ way of
learning?

Reconstructing:
 4

To engage students in Inquiry based learning, it is apparent that student ideas and
questions must be placed at the centre of the learning experience. As a teacher, I must be
highly aware of students’ needs to cater for a wide range of abilities and a wide range of
interests in the classroom. Students must be strongly supported. To support students in their
own learning, comes with an appropriate level of scaffolding. For example, dialogic, critical
and thought-provoking questions will give students time to think and answer (Chin, 2007).
According to Olagoke et al. (2014) the teacher is a key factor in a classroom and must
possess certain attitudes and skills to encourage student success in the inquiry-based
classroom. My efforts will ensure that subject matter is of interest to my students and that the
subject matter will offer “inquiry potential” in terms of opportunities for students to engage in
sustained inquiry of their own.

Reflection 3: Inclusive and equitable classrooms

Differentiation

Reporting:

Differentiation refers to the way in which teachers accommodate for students’

different abilities, learning styles and experiences (Bartlett, 2015). The fundamental concept
of differentiation is that all learners are considered as individuals and learning is a
‘personalised process’ (Bartlett, 2015). Teachers employ different strategies to engage each
individual in a deep level of learning, which in turn creates a classroom environment where
all students achieve personal success (Bartlett, 2015; Tomlinson, 1999). The concept focuses
on an individual’s readiness to learn, learning needs and interests (Bartlett, 2015).

Responding:

I believe that differentiation is a very important tool to apply in teaching based on its
aim to manipulate the learning experience to fit all students’ needs. Each student’s learning
journey begins at a different position to the next student’s, and so it makes sense to me to use
 5

a variety of strategies to enable the deepest and most effective learning for each individual. I
believe that it is a simple concept to apply to teaching, and it will have a positive impact on
the engagement, motivation levels and outcomes of all students. I believe to effectively
implement differentiation in the classroom, it would be highly important for the teacher know
their students and be aware of their prior knowledge and experiences.

Relating:

Differentiation is a student-centred learning approach, in which the teacher considers

that each student’s learning path is different. It can be applied to all learning environments,
and would work well for teachers and diverse learners in Australian schools.

Differentiation is a part of Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership’s

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST) in standard 1.5: Differentiate
teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities
(AITSL, 2017). To effectively implement differentiation, a teacher must comply with many
other Professional Standards, in particular under Standard 2 “Know the content and how to
teach it” involves standard 2.1 “Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area”,
standard 2.2 “Content selection and organisation” and within Professional Practice, is
standard 3.1 “Establish challenging learning goals” (AITSL, 2017).

Gathering knowledge of a student not only includes their interests and personal
characteristics, it also includes knowing their learning abilities in terms of developmental,
behavioural and/or cognitive perspectives (Orlich, 2010). Acquiring knowledge of which
developmental stage a student is operating at, according to Piaget’s theory, and/or taking into
account Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, for example, can be useful to
accommodate for each student’s learning needs.

Reasoning:

Upon reading about differentiation and talking about it within tutorial groups, I instantly
agreed that catering for each student’s different learning styles, abilities and personalities
would result in higher student engagement and motivated learning. However, as I did some
further research I started to ask myself a few questions, “Will I have the knowledge and time
 6

to effectively implement differentiation into each of my lessons?”, “How will I ensure that all
students are being challenged and are also meeting their personal goals?”. Before being
introduced to the concept of differentiation, I hadn’t thought a whole lot about varying
assessment types, resources, outcome or task to fit each student’s learning. Now that I am
aware of these ways in which differentiation can be applied, I realise that I can begin
implementing differentiation in small steps. As I become more confident knowing what I am
doing is beneficial for students and as I progressively ‘get to know’ my students, I believe
applying differentiation strategies will become a natural process for myself and for my
students.

Reconstructing:

To effectively apply differentiation in the classroom, the teacher must have a thorough
understanding of each student’s learning style, ability and characteristics. Therefore, I will
aim to create a space where communication and feedback are encouraged. I will also aim to
form positive relationships with my students, to get to know my students. By focussing on
these elements, prior to applying differentiation, will make the process much easier. Some
ways in which differentiation could be applied that stood out to me were changing the content
we teach based on student levels of understanding, which will ensure that the ‘building
blocks’ are in place for students before they are to move on to the next task (Levy, 2008). I
will also provide activities for students differing abilities, learning styles and interests for
example by breaking students into smaller ability-level groups giving each group a problem
based on their level of readiness (Levy, 2008). I will create assessment tasks that differ
according to the students’ ability level and form of communication. For example, allowing
students to give answers or explanations in a verbal format rather than written, based on their
preferred style. In summary, it is the small ways in which I can differ and adapt to different
learners which will support student learning within their zone of proximal development, that
will make differentiation in the classroom an effective process.
 7

Reflection 4: Assessment

Authentic Assessment

Reporting:

Authentic Assessment is characterized by the use of a range of tasks to engage student

learning, employ higher order thinking and position learners as active participants in their
learning (Brady, 2009). Some examples of authentic learning can include portfolios, problem-
based and performance assessment (Brady, 2009). Authentic learning uses assessment tasks
as learning tasks rather than assessment for the measurement of knowledge attained (Hoy,
1998).

Responding:

I believe authentic assessment can be highly beneficial to student learning, and is a

step-forward from traditional forms of assessment which are stagnant and forego the
opportunity to engage students in self-regulated learning. I feel that by giving students
assessment tasks which are engaging and a learning process, will give a better representation
of student ability and learning progress. Students will be more motivated to complete an
assessment if the experience seems real.

Relating:

Authentic assessment is strongly linked to a student-centred approach of teaching,

increasing student engagement in all aspects of teaching, and self-regulated learning.
Ramsden (2003) states that “assessment plays a key role in determining the quality of student
learning” and that “students will not achieve a ‘deep learning approach’ unless they have
been ‘internally motivated to learn to satisfy their own interest or curiosity”. Curiosity and
interest are fundamental to student engagement and motivation.
 8

Currently student assessment takes a more traditional form, focussed on

demonstrating factual knowledge in the form of tests. By implementing authentic assessment
within teaching relates to the APST standard 3.6, “Evaluate and improve teaching programs”
and “Report on student achievement” (AITSL, 2017). If student achievement is to be
indicative of student learning and/or ability, then assessment style must be authentic.

Reasoning:

Upon reading about authentic assessment, I reflected on my own learning experiences

throughout high school and university. Assessment was primarily in a traditional format,
where tests and exams carried the highest weighting. I also remember lacking motivation to
complete exams throughout university although the knowledge to complete the questions was
there. Until reading further into authentic assessment, I hadn’t thought too deeply about the
ways in which assessment type can affect learning and motivation. I know realise that giving
students assessment types which focus on skill-based problem solving, and are targeted at
student interests and real-world problems, will better gauge student learning.

Reconstructing:

By moving from more traditional forms of assessment to authentic assessment, will

hopefully increase student engagement and motivation. As a teacher, I aim to involve
students in creating assessments which best suit their needs, are challenging, motivating and
engaging. I strongly believe in a student-centred approach to learning, and that designing an
assessment task based on students interests and learning styles will result in higher student
achievement, and personal success (Kearney, 2012). In creating authentic assessment tasks, I
will ensure that students have the opportunity to develop critical thinking and problem-
solving skills, as well as cognitive and performance skills which will result in student success
in the ‘real-world’ (Hart, Hammer, Collins, & Chardon, 2011).
 9

References

AITSL. (2017). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers Professional Knowledge

(Vol. 1): Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership,.
Bächtold, M. (2013). What Do Students "Construct" According to Constructivism in Science
Education? Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2477-2496. doi:10.1007/s11165-
013-9369-7
Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Smith, S., Merrotsy, P., & Cornish, L. (2014). Taming a 'many-headed
monster' : Tarricone's taxonomy of metacognition. TalentEd, 28(2014), 1-12.
Bartlett, J. (2015). Outstanding Differentiation for Learning in the Classroom: Taylor and
Francis.
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative Inquiry Learning:
Models, Tools, and Challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3),
349-377. doi:10.1080/09500690802582241
Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B., & Tibell, L. (2003). Benefiting from an
open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository
versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(3), 351-372. doi:10.1080/09500690210145738
Blessinger, P. (2015). Inquiry-Based Learning for Multidisciplinary Programs : A
Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators. Bradford: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Brady, L. (2009). Celebrating student achievement : assessment and reporting (3rd ed. ed.).
Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Education Australia.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate
productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
doi:10.1002/tea.20171
Duchesne, S. (2015). Educational psychology for learning and teaching (5th edition. ed.).
South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage Learning.
Hart, C., Hammer, S., Collins, P., & Chardon, T. (2011). The real deal: using authentic
assessment to promote student engagement in the first and second years of a regional
law program.(Australia). Legal Education Review, 21(1-2), 97-121.
 10

Hoy, A. W. (1998). Educational psychology (7th ed., interactive ed. ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Kearney, S. (2012). Improving engagement: The use of 'Authentic self-and peer-assessment
for learning' to enhance the student learning experience. Assessment and Evaluation
in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.751963
Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the Needs of All Students through Differentiated Instruction:
Helping Every Child Reach and Exceed Standards. Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(4), 161-164.
doi:10.3200/TCHS.81.4.161-164
Olagoke, A., Mobolaji, O., & A, D. (2014). Inquiry-based Learning Approaches: The Best
Practice for Basic Science Teachers. International Journal of Current Research and
Review, 6(15), 15-19.
Orlich, D. C. (2010). Teaching strategies : a guide to effective instruction (9th ed.,
International ed. ed.). Australia ;: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed. ed.): Taylor and
Francis.
Stremmel, A., & Fu, V. (1993). Teaching in the zone of proximal development: Implications
for responsive teaching practice. Child and Youth Care Forum, 22(5), 337-350.
doi:10.1007/BF00760943
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Differentiated Classroom Responding to the Needs of All Learners:
ASCD.
Wass, R., & Golding, C. (2014). Sharpening a Tool for Teaching: The Zone of Proximal
Development. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 671-684.
doi:10.1080/13562517.2014.901958
Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing Sixth Graders’ Inquiry Skills to Construct
Explanations in Inquiry‐based Learning Environments. International Journal of
Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313. doi:10.1080/09500690600621035