INQUIRY WRITTEN REPORT

DOES COOPERATIVE LEARNING PROMOTE COGNITIVE

ENGAGEMENT AND HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS IN
HIGH ACHIEVING STUDENTS?

JOSHUA LOWE

BACHELOR OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY AND MIDDLE)

School of Education

Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences

University of South Australia

OCTOBER 2019

1
1 Introduction
The school is situated in the northern suburbs of Adelaide and is part of a College that operates numerous sites.
The Blakeview site (see Appendix A) utilises the Junior School/Middle School model and has a student body of
638 students, 421 of which are in the Junior School. The student body comes from predominately less affluent
families, with 111 recipients of financial assistance through School Card. This study was conducted in a Year 6
generalist classroom consisting of 29 students, 15 girls and 14 boys. The subjects taught include English,
Mathematics, Humanities and Social Sciences, Visual Arts, Health and Physical Education. Students within the
class come from various cultures and enter with learning needs including social emotional, cognitive and other
general learning needs including dyslexia. After thirty years of operation, the school has become widely
recognised for the realisation of its stated ethos - excellence for all.
Lesson planning needed to consider the differentiation of content to meet the learning needs of all students.
Teaching strategies aimed to accommodate students with dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia. The broad range of
learning capabilities presented an opportunity to explore the benefits of cooperative learning in diverse classroom
environments with a focus on engaging high achieving students and promoting higher order thinking skills.
Furthermore, it enabled an analysis on the potential benefits of utilising peers as more knowledgeable others
during learning activities. The study included two participants and utilised a broad range of data collection
methods, data sources and analysis methods. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive literature review, an
overview of the methodology and participants and will discuss the study’s findings, and implications of those
findings.
2 Literature Review
Current research acknowledges that cooperative learning is an effective pedagogy for achieving cognitive and
non-cognitive learning outcomes (Ghaith 2018, p. 385). Cooperative learning is an umbrella term that
encompasses a plethora of educational approaches in which intellectual effort is shared among students (Delucchi
2006, cited in Chan, Ong & Mohd Salleh 2016, p. 37). ‘One of the most significant features of cooperative
learning is that it enhances and improves group and team work which creates a productive environment in the
class’ (Evcim & İpek 2013, p. 1657). Johnson & Johnson (cited in Dyson, Linehan & Hastie 2010, p. 113) state
that five essential elements are required to fully implement cooperative learning, and these are positive
interdependence, individual accountability, promotive face-to-face interaction, interpersonal and small group
skills, and group processing.
The Jigsaw II method is one such approach outlined in the following explanation:
Students read randomly assigned topics in their “expert” groups and return to their home teams to teach their teammates.
Individual quizzes covering all topics are given to each member and the team average is computed to determine the
winning teams (Ghaith 2018, p. 387).

Overall, students of all ages and levels find Jigsaw learning to be an engaging and beneficial experience (Aronson
2005; Dori et al. 1995; Fennel 1992). Furthermore, a recent investigation into teachers’ perceptions of the
challenges of implementing effective cooperative learning revealed that fifty percent of the participants expressed
favourable views about the Jigsaw II method (Ghaith 2018, p. 396). The Jigsaw cooperative learning model
enables students to learn in groups and develop an open learning environment together and collaborate in the
personal relationship of mutual need (Miaz 2015, p. 3). Ghaith (2018, p. 396), states teachers who expressed
favourable views on the jigsaw II method considered it to be ‘important and efficient in reading as well as in
sharing ideas and encouraging cooperation among students.
Lev Vygotsky viewed interaction with peers as an effective way of developing skills and strategies and suggested
that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where less competent children develop with help from more
knowledgeable others (McLeod 2014, p. 3). The more knowledgeable other (MKO) refers to someone who has
better knowledge, experience or skills in a particular task, process, or concept (Ahsan & Smith 2016; McLeod
2014). One important role of MKOs is to provide guidance for others as they progress through the zone of
proximal development (Ahsan & Smith 2016, p. 133). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) ‘relates to the
difference between what a child can achieve independently and what a child can achieve with guidance and
encouragement from a skilled partner’ (McLeod 2014, p. 3). It can be defined as the distance between actual
learning level and potential learning level (Ahsan & Smith 2016, p. 133). While it is often implied that the MKO
is a teacher or an older adult, a child's peers or an adult's children may be the individuals with more knowledge or
experience (McLeod 2014, p. 3).

2
 It is also important to outline the defining characteristics of high-achieving students. Some psychosocial factors
that have been associated with high academic achievement include persistence, passion, risk taking, self-
regulation, and resilience (Lohman, 2005; Worrell, Olszewski-Kubilius & Subotnik2012; Subotnik, Olszewski-
Kubilius & Worrell 2011). High-achieving students get high marks and good grades. They complete work and
complete it to a high standard. Other charceteristics include organisation and good time-management skills. They
also tend to avoid behaving problematically and adjust well to the classroom environment, participating
enthusiastically in learning activities. Furthermore, high achieving students are often intrinsically motivated.
Intrinsic motivation can be defined as ‘the natural tendency to seek out and conquer challenges as we pursue
personal interests and exercise capabilities’ (Hoy & Margetts 2013, p. 353). Students who are intrinsically
motivated engage in activities simply because they enjoy them or are excited by them. (Deci & Ryan, cited in
Taylor et al. 2014, p. 342).
3 Methodology
3.1 Action research
The cooperative learning methodology implemented in this health unit is an adapted version of the Jigsaw II
method (see Ghaith 2018, p. 387). It was implemented over three weeks. During this time, students were divided
into five home groups. Each member of the group was tasked with researching one of six nutrition topics and
becoming a subject matter expert (SME). The students then broke off from their original groups and formed SME
groups with peers who were researching the same topic. Once the research was completed the members of each
SME group returned to their home group to teach what they had learnt. A Kahoot was carried out at the end of the
unit as a form of summative assessment with the goal of testing the students’ knowledge and understanding of the
content.
3.2 Case study
A case study can be defined a research method in which one or more cases are studied in detail, using whatever
methods and data seem appropriate (Punch & Oancea 2014, p. 147). Case studies are often used in qualitive
research and they can enable the generation of new ideas that might be researched using other methods. The case
study aims to understand the case its depth in its natural setting and recognise its complexity and its context
(Punch & Oancea 2014, p. 148). The implementation of the case study method in this action research proved to be
beneficial as it provided a detailed illustration of the two participants in the study. Furthermore, it provided a
comprehensive insight into the effectiveness of utilising cooperative learning methodologies to motivate and
challenge high achieving students.
3.3 Research questions
This study attempted to investigate whether cooperative learning exercises motivated and challenged high
achieving students in health education. This inquiry focus encompassed several key questions. Do cooperative
learning methodologies such as the Jigsaw II method encourage talented students to embrace their roles as MKOs?
Does the Jigsaw II method successfully challenge high achieving students by requiring them to become subject
matter experts (SMEs)? What behaviours do talented students display when they are sufficiently challenged? Do
cooperative learning methodologies enable teachers to differentiate the curriculum content to meet a broad range
of learning capabilities?
3.4 Participants
3.4.1 Case 1
Name (pseudonym): Jessica
Age: 11
Significant relationships:

 Jessica’s table group consists of 5 other students with mixed abilities, most of which are her friends.
 Unfortunately, Jessica will resort to distracting the other students from her table group if a task is not
cognitively challenging enough or if she is not given extension work.
 If she has completed a task before a lesson is over, she will eagerly ask the teacher for extension work
before behaving problematically
3
Significant learning information:

 She is a passionate learner who frequently displays high level cognitive skills and regularly completes
learning tasks before lessons are over.
Significant information gained from analysis of observation and/or work samples:

 While she considers her best subject to be English, she displays strengths in both literacy and
numeracy, and these strengths often benefit her in other learning areas.
Focus for learning/teaching:

 The teaching methodologies implemented in the classroom focused on providing opportunities to

extend her learning and further develop her critical and reflective thinking skills.
 The cooperative learning strategy presented in this study attempted to challenge Jessica on a cognitive
level by allowing her several opportunities to embrace the role of a more knowledgeable other
(MKO). A role which required her to be successful in retaining and facilitating her knowledge and
understanding to her peers so that they too could achieve a similar level of academic success.
Related teaching strategies:

 Jigsaw cooperative learning model

 Constructivism
 Sociocultural theory (MKOs)
 Social learning theory (Modelling)
 Peer assessment to provide an element of student voice
 Summative assessment in the form of a Kahoot to provide data on retention and facilitation of
knowledge
3.4.2 Case 2
Name (pseudonym): Rebecca
Age: 11
Significant relationships:

 Rebecca’s table group consists of 5 other students with mixed abilities, two of which are her friends.
 Unlike Jessica, Rebecca does not resort to distracting others when she finishes her work, instead she
will often help the students she sits with at her table group.
Significant learning information:

 She is another academically successful student. While her literacy skills are comparable to those of
case study 1, there are gaps present in her numeracy knowledge.
 Like Jessica, Rebecca also has a strong passion for learning and displays a growth mindset when
cognitively challenged.
Significant information gained from analysis of observation and/or work samples:

 She will often apply her problem-solving skills to the best of her abilities before seeking out help from
the teacher or another student.
 Rebecca has a strong love for reading and will quickly pick up a book when she has spare time.
 This love of reading has enabled her to develop an expanded vocabulary which helps her to flourish in
other aspects of literacy.
 Rebecca’s high-level literacy and reading skills have also scaffolded her short-term and long-term
retention of knowledge, and this benefits her in other content heavy subjects such as history.
Focus for learning/teaching:

4
  The teaching and learning methodologies chosen for this study required Rebecca to engage in a higher
level of cognitive learning as she took on the responsibility of retaining and facilitating new
information to her peers.
Related teaching strategies:

 Jigsaw cooperative learning model

 Constructivism
 Sociocultural theory (MKOs)
 Social learning theory (Modelling)
 Peer assessment to provide an element of student voice
 Summative assessment in the form of a Kahoot to provide data on retention and facilitation of
knowledge
3.5 Data Collection
3.5.1 Methods
The type of data required in any research project is highly dependent on the research question itself (McAteer
2013, p. 63). Observations were the first approach to data collection selected for this study. These
observations were unstructured, and notes were often taken on a blank page in a notebook or word document
during the lessons. A more unstructured and naturalistic approach will be the most appropriate if the
observation is more to see ‘in general’ what interactions, conversations and behaviours are happening
(McAteer 2013, p. 73).
The second method of data collection implemented in this study was participant reflections. At the end of
every presentation, each of the six group’s members would answer a series of reflective questions (see
Appendix E). The presenters reflected on their own performance as subject matter experts (SMEs) while the
other members of each group reflected on their presenters’ performance as SMEs. This enabled an opportunity
for self-reflection among the students and provided a critical insight into the strengths and shortcomings of the
cooperative learning model implemented in this study.
Interviews were the third method approach to data collection. Interviews often form the mainstay of the data
for action research projects, as they are particularly useful in helping the researcher to ‘get inside’ the story
(McAteer 2013, p. 73). Initially, capturing the content of the interviews presented a problem. ‘Interviews have
the potential to produce large quantities of unstructured, free-text data and, as such, a key decision
accompanying the decision to undertake interviews is that of how to capture and record the interview’
(McAteer 2013, pp. 77-78). In order to capture the content of the interviews, a series of prompting questions
were drafted up to guide the interviewer, notes were taken during the interviews and a transcript was written
up afterwards (see Appendix E).
3.5.2 Data sources
The data sources included in this study were planning documentation, lesson evaluations and reflections,
supervising teacher feedback on practice, children’s/student’s feedback on their learning, and work samples.
3.5.3 Ethical considerations
Due to the nature of this study, some ethical considerations were the person, knowledge, democratic values,
justice and equity, the quality of educational research, and academic freedom. Another ethical consideration
was anonymity. Menter et al. (2011, p. 58) state that:
Commitments to anonymity should not be made lightly. Even if you give a commitment not to use the real
names of your respondents in the report that you prepare and any publications that may emerge from it, do
remember that if you are circulating outcomes of your study within your own institution or in the local
professional community, it may be very difficult to fully protect the identity of some of the participants.

In order to preserve anonymity pseudonyms were used to replace the participants’ real names.
3.5.4 Analysis

5
 Regarding the analysis of observations, participant reflections and interviews, thematic analysis was chosen as
the most appropriate method as it emphasises identifying and interpreting patterns of meaning (or themes)
within qualitative data (McAteer 2013, p. 84). In this case, each data source mentioned above was analysed
with the intention of identifying the behavioural patterns of case 1 and 2 and interpreting whether they could
establish a potential link between cooperative learning and cognitive engagement. McAteer (2013, p. 84)
states that:
Thematic analysis is both more accessible to practitioner-researchers in that it is not dependent on specialised
theory and is more relevant in that the purpose of the research is usually to uncover meaning.

While different versions of thematic analysis tend to share some degree of theoretical flexibility, they can
differ enormously in terms of both underlying philosophy and procedures for producing themes.
The results for the Kahoot implemented at the end of the unit were presented in tabular form and on graphs. A
particular strength in using this method was that it allowed the collection of a large data set in a relatively
time-efficient way. It also hastened the process of thematic by providing a visual aid from which I could
interpret patterns of meaning and themes within the data set.
4 Findings
4.1 Case 1
Prior to the beginning of this unit, Jessica had not really considered her role as an MKO. Still, she found
prospect of becoming an SME exciting because it gave her an opportunity to display her intellectual abilities
which she had always taken pride in. During their inquiry into sodium, her SME group ran into several issues,
as two members did not get along. This was resolved when Jessica took leadership of the group and assigned
each member an individual PowerPoint slide to complete for their presentation. When she had completed her
PowerPoint slide, she began to help the other students in her SME group to finish their slides and together
they put together a detailed presentation on sodium (see Appendix G). This resource could then be used by
each SME group member when presenting to their home groups. While Jessica initially saw this learning
experience as an opportunity to ‘show off’, she eventually accepted her role as an MKO and successfully
upskilled her SME group members.
When it came to her presentation, Jessica displayed competency in facilitating information to the students in
her home group. Overall, her presentation style was engaging, and she utilised several effective
communication skills such as questioning, confidence, clarity and concision, and eye contact. At the end of
her presentation she implemented a small quiz which received positive feedback from members of her home
group. This teaching strategy was highlighted during a whole-class discussion and other students began
integrating it into their presentations as well. While she did not assess her own performance as an SME, she
did provided feedback on other student’s presentations (see Appendix G). Once again, this was reflected upon
in a whole-class discussion and used to upskill other students. These findings seem to suggest that Jessica was
cognitively challenged and engaged, and that cooperative learning enabled her to further develop her higher
order thinking skills further and apply them.
It was clear that Jessica’s affinity for literacy had served her well in a content heavy subject such as nutrition.
A literacy unit that was being run at the same time as this health unit focused on improving students’
vocabulary through the exploration and use of ‘wow words’ (unfamiliar or expanded vocabulary). If her SME
group came across unfamiliar terminology related to nutrition, she would often highlight those words as ‘wow
words’ and research and provide a definition. Her ability to successfully utilise the vocabulary skills she had
learned in literacy in other curriculum areas was indicative of her higher order thinking skills. She also
prepared herself by attempting to predict potential questions that might be asked by the peers in her home
group and researched additional answers to those questions.
Jessica was among the highest achieving students in the nutrition Kahoot, answering 15 out of 20 questions
correctly (see Appendix I) Her home were among the highest achievers with all members scoring between 60-
75% in the quiz (see Appendix I). In a brief conversation, Jessica stated that she found the Kahoot engaging
and that it was good to see how her presentation had enabled other students in her home group to score highly
in the quiz. However, the data collected from this quiz does not capture the whole picture of students’ learning
in this health unit. If time had allowed, it would have been interesting to observe and analyse how Jessica
6
 applied her higher order thinking skills in a more open-ended summative assessment task. Unfortunately, this
is just one of the limitations present in this study. Despite these limitations, the results highlight the potential
of utilising cooperative learning experiences to promote cognitive engagement in high achieving students.
4.2 Case 2
At first Rebecca was somewhat anxious at the aspect of being a subject matter expert (SME) whose
responsibility was to teach her home group about Carbohydrates. However, despite her initial reluctance, she
quickly embraced her role as an MKO and took on more of a leadership position in her SME group. Together,
her SME group put together a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation on the subject matter which could be
used by each of the subject matter experts when teaching their home groups (see Appendix H). They also
considered how they would engage their peers and discussed several strategies for conveying the content.
Each member of Rebecca’s SME group was designated a role during their research, and this enabled a state of
flow that carried on throughout the rest of the inquiry phase of the unit. Rebecca even went as far as producing
a series of prompting cards for another student in her SME group who was feeling nervous about the
upcoming presentations.
During her presentation, she displayed competence in facilitating information to her peers. Her presentation
style was engaging overall, as she constantly interacted with the members of her home group, asked questions,
and prompted discussions based on the content she was teaching. However, her confidence began to fade
slightly when she was confronted with two students in her group who began talking over her and yelling out.
At this point she began to show some visible signs of impatience and frustration, but she overcame this and
was able to finish her presentation within the set time limit. Rebecca reflected on this later during the
reflection phase of the lesson and discussed how she could have been more patient with her group throughout
the presentation (see Appendix H) It was interesting to observe how she took some responsibility for the
behaviour of her group and considered how her own behaviours might have contributed. This was another
skill that was indicative of Rebecca’s higher order thinking skills and acknowledgement of her role as an
MKO.
Her reflection on the behaviour of her group during her presentation was crucial and sparked an important
whole-class discussion on the behavioural expectations during the presentations and influenced future
planning (see Appendix H). Throughout this discussion, several other students shared their positive and
negative experiences and this element of student voice provided an insight into the strengths and shortcomings
of this cooperative learning model. Problematic behaviour is a significant risk in student led inquiry projects
of this scope and magnitude and must be managed efficiently by teachers. If not, it can be detrimental to
students’ progress and the overall learning intention of the unit. The reflective whole-class discussions proved
to be one of the most beneficial aspects of this unit, as they provoked rigorous and in-depth dialogue on the
advantages and disadvantages of cooperative learning experiences for both students and teachers. They also
enabled Rebecca to model her higher order thinking skills and potentially upskill her fellow students.
Rebecca performed highly in the nutrition Kahoot conducted at the end of the unit, answering 75% of the
quiz’s twenty questions correctly (see Appendix I). The rest of her home group’s scores ranged between 50-
75% (see Appendix I). While small, these findings seem to highlight Rebecca’s potential for success as a more
knowledgeable other. Furthermore, the overall class score for the Kahoot suggests that the Jigsaw II method
can enable opportunities for higher order thinking and the facilitation of knowledge through MKOs. However,
these findings also raise the question of how potential gaps in knowledge of the content can be addressed once
the Jigsaw learning process has been completed. If time had allowed, it would have been interesting to
observe and analyse how Rebecca’s high order thinking skills would serve her and others in a more open-
ended summative assessment task. Despite this, the data collected indicates that tasks in which students are
responsible for upskilling their peers can potentially promote cognitive engagement in high achieving
students.
5 Discussion
The finding presented in this report suggest that cooperative learning experiences can invoke cognitive engagement
and higher order thinking. Both case 1 and 2 showed signs of cognitive engagement, as evidenced by work samples,
observations, interviews, and participant reflections (see Appendices G & H). This idea supported by literature from
Webb (cited in Laal & Ghodsi, 2012, p. 488) who states that cooperative learning can develop high level thinking
7
skills. The study also highlighted that cooperative learning methodologies such as the Jigsaw II method can enable
students to become MKOs and facilitate curriculum content to their peers. This coincides with Lev Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory which described interaction with peers as an effective way of developing skills and strategies
(McLeod 2014, p. 3). Both Jessica and Rebecca provide guidance for others as they progress through the ZPD and this
is evidenced by the results of the Kahoot presented in appendices G and H. Both students also attempted to resolve the
conflicts and behavioural issues that arose with in their groups. Johnsons (1990, cited in) claim that cooperative
encourages ‘positive societal responses to problems and fosters a supportive environment within which to manage
conflict resolution’ (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012, p. 488).
While it can be argued that the use of the Jigsaw II method proved to be beneficial for the participants learning,
several concerns were also raised. At times, behaviour management was taking precedence over providing effective
feedback and formatively assessing students’ understanding of the content. This was comparative to a study conducted
by Ghaith (2018, p. 396) in which 61.1% of respondents expressed some concerns over using the Jigsaw II method in
their classrooms. These concerns revolved around the role of the teacher who needs to carefully monitor the noise
level and manage the classroom effectively (Ghaith 2018, p. 396). The time it took for students to complete a concept
presented another problem, as they had to research their nutrition topic, collate that research in their subject matter
expert groups, return to their home groups, and share their research. Furthermore, students’ overall achievement was
dependant on whether their peers presented their topics effectively. Several respondents in the study from (Ghaith
2018, p. 397) also expressed similar views and considered the Jigsaw II method to be time consuming and problematic
when it comes to assessment.
Several limitations were encountered throughout this action research process. Despite the integration of one on one
student interviews and participant reflections, whole-class discussions facilitated the highest level of reflection and
higher order thinking. However, no available method of data collection was able to truly capture the natural and
uninterrupted flow of these discussions. It was enlightening to see how a less formal setting in which students were
simply given the opportunity to speak about their experiences encouraged the sharing of ideas. Another limitation was
time constraints. The Jigsaw II method took longer than initially expected and the second summative assessment did
not get implemented as a result of this. Finally, the Kahoot hosted at the end of the unit was a comprehensive data
source provided a limited scope of the students’ learning, as it was designed to coincide with the second summative
assessment.
6 Conclusion
Cooperative learning is an effective pedagogy for achieving cognitive and non-cognitive learning outcomes (Ghaith
2018, p. 385). It is an umbrella term that encompasses numerous educational approaches in which intellectual effort is
shared among students (Delucchi 2006, cited in Chan, Ong & Mohd Salleh 2016, p. 37). The five essential elements
are required to fully implement cooperative learning, and these are positive interdependence, individual
accountability, promotive face-to-face interaction, interpersonal and small group skills, and group processing (Johnson
& Johnson, cited in Dyson, Linehan & Hastie 2010, p. 113). Interaction with peers as an effective way of developing
skills and strategies and suggested that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where less competent children
develop with help from MKOs (McLeod 2014, p. 3).
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether cooperative learning motivated and challenged high achieving
students in health education. Observation, participant reflections and interviews were the methods utilised for data
collection. Thematic analysis was the primary form of analysis chosen for this study, as it is not dependent on
specialised theory and is more relevant in that the purpose of the research which was to identify patterns and themes
within a data set. The Jigsaw II method was the cooperative learning model, as it enables students to learn in groups
and develop an open learning environment together dimensions, collaborating in the personal relationship of mutual
need (Miaz 2015, p. 3). The findings presented in this study seem to suggest that cooperative learning strategies can
facilitate higher order thinking and cognitive engagement among high achieving students.

8
Reference list
Ahsan, SUMERA & Smith, WC 2016, Facilitating student learning: a comparison of classroom and accountability
assessment, The Global Testing Culture: Shaping Education Policy, Perceptions, and Practice, pp. 131-152.
Chan, WY, Ong, ET and Mohd Salleh, S 2016, ‘The use of jigsaw in primary science: what do year 5 children say on
its influence on their attitudes towards science’, Jurnal Pendidikan Sains dan Matematik Malaysia (JPSMM UPSI),
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 32-43.
Dyson, BP, Linehan, NR & Hastie, PA 2010, ‘The ecology of cooperative learning in elementary physical education
classes’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 113-130.
Evcim, H, & İpek, ÖF 2013, ‘Effects of jigsaw II on academic achievement in English prep classes’, Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 70, no. C, pp. 1651–1659.
Ghaith, GM 2018, ‘Teacher perceptions of the challenges of implementing concrete and conceptual cooperative
learning’, Issues in Educational Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 385-403.
Hoy, AW & Margetts, K 2013, Educational psychology, 3rd edn, Pearson Australia, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.
Laal, M & Ghodsi, SM 2012, ‘Benefits of collaborative learning’ Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 31,
pp. 486-490.
Lohman, DF 2005, ‘An aptitude perspective on talent: implications for identification of academically gifted minority
students’, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, vol. 28, no. 3-4, pp. 333-360.
McAteer, M 2013, Action research in education, SAGE Publications Ltd, London.
McLeod, S 2014, Lev Vygotsky, Simply psychology, viewed 12 August 2019,
<https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-vygotsky.pdf>
Menter, I, Elliot, D, Hulme, M, Lewin, J & Lowden, K 2011, A guide to practitioner research in education, SAGE
Publications Ltd, London
Miaz, Y 2015, ‘Improving students’ achievement of social science by using jigsaw cooperative learning model at
primary school’, IOSRJournal of Research & Method inEducation, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 01-07.
Punch, K & Oancea, A 2014, Introduction to research methods in education, 2nd edition., SAGE, London.
Subotnik, RF, Olszewski-Kubilius, P & Worrell, FC 2011, ‘Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: a proposed
direction forward based on psychological science’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3-
54.
Taylor, G, Jungert, T, Koestner, R, Mageau, GA, Schattke, K, Dedic, H et al. 2014, ‘A self-determination theory
approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation', Contemporary
Educational Psychology, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 342-358.
Worrell, FC, Olszewski-Kubilius, P & Subotnik, RF 2012, ‘Important issues, some rhetoric, and a few straw men: a
response to comments on “rethinking giftedness and gifted education”’, Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 4, pp.
224-231.

9
Appendices
Appendix A: Map of the school/preschool (highlighting relevant structures/resources)

10
Appendix B: Photographs of the classroom/preschool environment (*NB you may not include children/staff in
photographs. Site must not be identifiable)

11
Appendix C: Analysis of learning for case 1 & 2
Analysis of general and
behavioural observations
Analysis of observations of
learning
Jessica
Jessica’s table group consists
of mixed ability students.
While they can do good work
in class, they can get quite
chatty. Jessica’s interaction
with her peers is generally
quite pleasant and she has a
friendly and polite demeanour.
However, she has displayed a
tendency to distract others
when she has either completed
her tasks before the lesson is
over, or she is not cognitively
challenged (bored) by the
content of the lesson.
Jessica displays several
behaviours associated with
high self-efficacy. She displays
a strong passion for learning
and even (as she herself as
stated to me in passing
conversations about her
learning) that she likes to show
off her capabilities from time
to time. She is intrinsically
motivated by academic success
and rarely needs extrinsic
motivation.
Jessica has displayed
competency in problem
solving, and when she is
challenged by a task in any
subject, she will apply her
problem-solving skills to the
best of her ability before
Rebecca
Rebecca’s table group also
consists of mixed ability
students. Rebecca herself is
quite a reserved individual. In
the morning’s when I am on
my way to the classroom she is
often sitting alone reading. She
has stated that she loves
reading and she tries to make
as much time for it as possible.
While she is introverted in
nature, she is more than
capable of working with and
getting along with other
students and is rarely in
conflict situations.
Rebecca displays several
similar characteristics to
Jessica regarding learning
behaviours. The biggest
difference is that Rebecca
doesn’t consider herself to be a
social butterfly. In fact, when
she finishes her work before
the lesson is over, she will
either read (if not provided
extension work) or she will
help the students in her group,
embracing her role as a more
knowledgeable other. Like
Jessica, she displays higher
order thinking skills and
problem-solving skills and will
apply these to the best of her
abilities when challenged
before seeking help from a
peer or teacher. She seeks
12
 seeking help from a peer or
teacher.
Analysis of work samples Jessica is highly competent in
both literacy and numeracy.
Her grades are often in the As
or high Bs. Analysis of her
work in maths reveals that she
is a highly numerate
individual. Her test scores for
their most recent units on
decimals and percentages were
amongst the highest in the
class.
feedback eagerly and is always
looking to improve her work.
Rebecca’s strongest area is
literacy. Her grades are often in
the As or high Bs
She has sufficient skills in
numeracy but there are some
gaps in her knowledge. Her test
scores in the previous units on
decimals and percentages
between the highest scores and
the median/average scores.
13
Appendix D: Anticipatory planning web

14
Appendix E: Data collection method templates (at least 3)

Data collection method 1: Observation notebook/diary

Data collection method 2: Participant reflection prompting questions

15
Data collection method 3: Interview questions

16
Appendix F: Time line (adjusted to reflect actual)

Week 1 Data Collection Data Analysis Reflection on Reflection on

children/student practice
learning
Who will be Me Me Me Me
involved and what Students Mentor Teacher Mentor Teacher
action will they Analysis of work
take? Observations and samples and One on one One on one
participant participant discussions and discussions and
reflections reflections reflection in reflection in
evaluation section of evaluation section
lesson plans of lesson plans
When will this take During lessons During and after After lessons After lessons
place? lessons
Where will this Classroom Classroom Classroom or staff Classroom or staff
happen? room room

Week 2 Data Collection Data Analysis Reflection on Reflection on

children/student practice
learning
Who will be Me Me Me Me
involved and what Students Mentor Teacher Mentor Teacher
action will they Analysis of work
take? Observations, samples and One on one One on one
whole-class participant discussions and discussions and
discussions and reflections reflection in reflection in
participant evaluation section of evaluation section
reflections lesson plans of lesson plans
When will this take During lessons During and after After lessons After lessons
place? lessons
Where will this Classroom Classroom Classroom or staff Classroom or staff
happen? room room

Week 3 Data Collection Data Analysis Reflection on Reflection on

children/student practice
learning
Who will be Me Me Me Me
involved and what Students Mentor Teacher Mentor Teacher
action will they Analysis of work
take? Observations, sample, of One on one One on one
whole-class participant discussions and discussions and
discussions, reflections, and data reflection in reflection in
participant collected from evaluation section of evaluation section
reflections, nutrition Kahoot lesson plans of lesson plans
interviews, and
nutrition Kahoot
When will this take During lessons During and after After lessons After lessons
place? lessons
Where will this Classroom Classroom Classroom or staff Classroom or staff
happen? room room

17
Appendix G: Case 1 evidence (students/child’s feedback x 3, work samples x3, feedback from Supervising Teacher x
3, planning x 3, evaluation of planning x 3, any other evidence)

Student feedback sample 1

Transcript: [Student name] did not know some of her stuff, though she was wonky on some of it.

Student feedback sample 2

Transcript: Our SME could improve by not putting so much on one slide and reading every word.

Student feedback sample 3

Transcript: I did enjoy their teaching method especially the quiz on the subject at the end.

18
Work sample 1

Work sample 2

19
Work sample 3

Evidence of ST feedback, planning and evaluation of planning x3

LESSON PLAN (1)

Pre-service Teacher ‘s name: Joshua Lowe Date: 05/09/2019

Year level/ age range & number of children: Year 6, ages Highlight planning process:
11-12, 29 students Planned collaboratively with Supervising Teacher
Planned collaboratively with peer
Planned independently based on ST lessons
Estimated duration of the learning experience: 40 Planned Independently
minutes Deconstruction of Supervising Teacher’s lesson

Prior learning and background of the children: Year 6 generalist classroom consisting of 29 students, 15
girls and 14 boys. Subjects taught include English, Mathematics, Humanities and Social Sciences, Visual Arts,
Health and Physical Education. Students within the class come from various cultures and enter with
learning needs including social emotional, cognitive other general learning needs including dyslexia.

Learning intention (aim): To assess students’ knowledge of terminology related to nutrition i.e.
carbohydrates, fats, dietary fibre etc.

Learning area: Health and Physical Education

Specific Topic: Nutrition

Strand and sub-strand from the Australian Curriculum: Personal, Social and Community Health - Being
healthy, safe and active

Australian Curriculum content description(s):

 Investigate community resources and ways to seek help about health, safety and wellbeing
(ACPPS053)

Relevant parts of the achievement standard from the Australian Curriculum: They access and interpret
health information and apply decision-making and problem-solving skills to enhance their own and others’
health, safety and wellbeing.

20
Success criteria for children (objectives): Students successfully display their knowledge of terminology
related to nutrition and create a mind map individually in their health books. They then share the
terminology on their mind maps during a whole-class discussion during which a whole-class word wall will
be constructed.

Success criteria for the teacher: Students successfully display their knowledge of terminology related to
nutrition and create a mind map individually in their health books. They then share the terminology on
their mind maps during a whole-class discussion during which a whole-class word wall will be constructed.
Student engagement.

Teaching strategies: Preparation/ organisation/ resources:

 I’ll provide explicit instruction at the start of  Health books
the lesson regarding the expectations of the  Coloured pencils
task.  Smartboard
 At the conclusion of the lesson I will then  Flipchart
invoke a whole-class discussion and  PowerPoint
construct a whole-class word wall.

Differentiation (pre-core/core/extension/acceleration): Students can turn and talk to members of their

table group about their mind maps. Those students who wish to use laptops may do so.

Opportunities to provide feedback: I will be walking around during the lesson and talking to students about
their mind maps. A whole-class discussion will be implemented at the end of the lesson and this will
provide another opportunity for feedback.

LESSON RUNNING SCHEDULE: Time frames

(Approximate time frames
need to be flexible, tweak
these to match context)
Transition: Students are expected to have their books out ready for the next 2-3 minutes
lessons before the lunch bell. Those that do not have their books ready will have to
catch up on any instructions they miss.

Introduction: Students will quickly brainstorm some of their favourite foods or 5-10 minutes
foods they eat regularly and list them down in their health books. I will then (Adapt for younger
explain that for the next few weeks we will be looking into nutrition and I will children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))
provide instructions for the task they will be completing during the lesson.

Development: Students will then write the word nutrition in the middle of a blank 10-15 minutes
page and brainstorm as many words related to nutrition as they can and create a (Adapt for younger
mind map. children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

21
Consolidation and practice: They will continue with their mind maps for most of 20-30 minutes
this lesson. Once they have completed their mind maps, we will do a gallery walk. (If the work period is
Students will leave their books open on their desks so that others can observe their longer, ensure children are
engaged in learning by
mind maps. using different types of
teaching strategies,
moving between explicit
and guided teaching each
10-15 minutes or for
younger children (age + 2
mins as an indicator))
Conclusion WWW reflection: The lesson will be concluded with a whole-class 5-10 minutes
discussion during which we will construct a whole-class word wall. (Adapt for younger
children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

PST Evaluation: The lesson went as planned. I think getting the students to brainstorm their favourite foods
was a suitable method for introducing them to the content we will be exploring over the next few weeks.
Students mind maps were quite varied. Some students had well over 10 words, while some only had 5 or 6.
Given this was a prior knowledge task, so we can work on expanding students throughout the unit. Most
students were engaged, and I only had to remind one or two students about their behaviour. The noise
level was acceptable overall.

Supervising teacher feedback on the implementation of the lesson: A well planned and structured lesson
overall. Where will you go from here? There was some good terminology being shared by the students e.g.
carbohydrates, fibre, protein etc. Could you implement an inquiry project based on this terminology? Craig
uses a cooperative learning method called jigsaw learning. I will see if he can have a chat with you either
during or after tonight’s staff meeting if you like. He has a lot more experience with it than I do, so he’d
probably be the best person to talk to. We can discuss your unit and inquiry project further as well.

LESSON PLAN (2)

Pre-service Teacher ‘s name: Joshua Lowe Date: 05/09/2019

Year level/ age range & number of children: Year 6, ages Highlight planning process:
11-12, 29 students Planned collaboratively with Supervising Teacher
Planned collaboratively with peer
Planned independently based on ST lessons
Estimated duration of the learning experience: 90 Planned Independently
minutes (double lesson) Deconstruction of Supervising Teacher’s lesson

Prior learning and background of the children: Students have begun exploring the topic of nutrition. Last
lesson they created mind maps as a prior knowledge task, and we created a whole-class word wall on
flipchart.

Learning intention (aim): Students begin a group inquiry into the nutritional information found on food
labels. Students from each group will be assigned one of six nutritional categories: carbohydrates, dietary
fibre, protein, sodium and sugars. They will collate their research and consider how they will teach their
peers about their nutritional category.

22
Learning area: Health and Physical Education

Specific Topic: Nutrition

Strand and sub-strand from the Australian Curriculum: Personal, Social and Community Health - Being
healthy, safe and active

Australian Curriculum content description(s):

 Investigate community resources and ways to seek help about health, safety and wellbeing
(ACPPS053)

Relevant parts of the achievement standard from the Australian Curriculum: They access and interpret
health information and apply decision-making and problem-solving skills to enhance their own and others’
health, safety and wellbeing.

Success criteria for children (objectives): Students will have begun researching their nutritional in their
Subject Matter Expert (SME) groups and preparing their presentations for when they return to their home
groups

Success criteria for the teacher: Students will have begun researching their nutritional in their SME groups
and preparing their presentations for when they return to their home groups Student engagement.

Teaching strategies: Preparation/ organisation/ resources:

 I’ll provide explicit instruction at the start of  Smartboard
the lesson regarding the expectations of the  PowerPoint
task.  Excel Spreadsheet with students’ home
 This is a student-inquiry so I’ll be taking on a groups listed on it
background role, assisting students when  Laptops
they need it and providing feedback where I
can.
 Whole-class reflection at the lesson
Differentiation (pre-core/core/extension/acceleration): This is a cooperative learning experience so
students will be able to engage with peers and learning is a shared effort.

Opportunities to provide feedback: I will be walking around during the lesson and talking to students about
providing feedback where I can. Students will be given the opportunity to provide feedback during the
reflection phase of the lesson.

LESSON RUNNING SCHEDULE: Time frames

(Approximate time frames
need to be flexible, tweak
these to match context)
Transition: Students are expected to have their books out ready for the next 2-3 minutes
lessons before the lunch bell. Those that do not have their books ready will have to
catch up on any instructions they miss.

23
Introduction: This lesson uses the Jigsaw II cooperative learning method. Students 5-10 minutes
will get into their assigned home groups. They will assign each member of their (Adapt for younger
group to a nutritional category and report back to me. children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

Development: Once each member of each group has been assigned to a nutritional 10-15 minutes
category, they will break off and form SME groups with students who are (Adapt for younger
researching the same categories. children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

Consolidation and practice: They will then begin researching their nutritional 20-30 minutes
categories in their SME groups and collating that research. (If the work period is
longer, ensure children are
engaged in learning by
using different types of
teaching strategies,
moving between explicit
and guided teaching each
10-15 minutes or for
younger children (age + 2
mins as an indicator))
Conclusion WWW reflection: At the end of the lesson I’ll give details on the 5-10 minutes
presentations. As well as researching, students must consider what methods they (Adapt for younger
are going to utilise when teaching their home groups. children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

PST Evaluation: I was worried that the lesson would get off to a bit of a rocky start due to the students
having to get into their groups. However, having the instructional PowerPoint up on the smartboard as a
visual prompt for the students to coincide with my verbal instruction really helped the flow of this portion
of this lesson. It also prompted me and helped me to stay on track with my instructions.

Supervising teacher feedback on the implementation of the lesson: I was initially worried that the splitting
off into groups and then splitting off into groups again afterwards would be a little chaotic, but you and the
students seemed to handle it well and having the names and groups up on the board helped to hasten this.
Once the students were in their SME groups there was almost a sense of flow in the classroom, the only
thing that interrupted this was the drama and infighting within Jessica’s group. I like how you prompted
them to assign individual responsibilities to each member of the group, and other groups seemed to adopt
this method as well which was a good sign. Start thinking about how much time you want to give the
students to finish their research and complete their presentations. Good use of the PowerPoint and
prompting questions for the inquiry.

LESSON PLAN (3)

Pre-service Teacher ‘s name: Joshua Lowe Date: 05/09/2019

Year level/ age range & number of children: Year 6, ages Highlight planning process:
11-12, 29 students Planned collaboratively with Supervising Teacher
Planned collaboratively with peer
Planned independently based on ST lessons
Estimated duration of the learning experience: 90 Planned Independently
minutes (double lesson) Deconstruction of Supervising Teacher’s lesson

24
Prior learning and background of the children: Students have been inquiring into the nutritional
information found on food labels. Students from each group will be assigned one of six nutritional
categories: carbohydrates, dietary fibre, protein, sodium and sugars.

Learning intention (aim): Students begin learning about all the carbohydrates, fats, protein, sugars, sodium
and dietary fibre.

Learning area: Health and Physical Education

Specific Topic: Nutrition

Strand and sub-strand from the Australian Curriculum: Personal, Social and Community Health - Being
healthy, safe and active

Australian Curriculum content description(s):

 Investigate community resources and ways to seek help about health, safety and wellbeing
(ACPPS053)

Relevant parts of the achievement standard from the Australian Curriculum: They access and interpret
health information and apply decision-making and problem-solving skills to enhance their own and others’
health, safety and wellbeing.

Success criteria for children (objectives): Students will participate during each of their group members
presentations. The presenters will teach their home groups in a manner that is engaging. The presenters
will also reflect upon their performance as SMEs while and the successes and challenges they experienced.
The audience members will reflect on each SMEs performance and provide constructive feedback.

Success criteria for the teacher: Students will take participate during each of their group members
presentations. The presenters will teach their home groups in a manner that is engaging. The presenters
will also reflect upon their performance as SMEs while and the successes and challenges they experienced.
The audience members will reflect on each SMEs performance and provide constructive feedback. Student
engagement.

Teaching strategies: Preparation/ organisation/ resources:

 I’ll provide explicit instruction at the start of  Smartboard
the lesson regarding the expectations of the  PowerPoint
task.  Excel Spreadsheet with students’ home
 I’ll be taking more of a background role, groups listed on it
listening to students’ presentations,  Laptops
providing feedback and managing behaviour
where appropriate.

Differentiation (pre-core/core/extension/acceleration): This is a cooperative learning experience so

students will be able to engage with peers and learning is a shared effort.

25
Opportunities to provide feedback: I will be taking on a background role, providing feedback on students’
presentations where appropriate. The students will also be given the opportunity to provide feedback
during the reflection phase of the lesson.

LESSON RUNNING SCHEDULE: Time frames

(Approximate time frames
need to be flexible, tweak
these to match context)
Transition: We will head down to the gym. Laptops will be taken down as well. 2-3 minutes
Each of the five groups will spread out across the gym.

Introduction: The structure of the presentations was explained in detail at the end 5-10 minutes
of last lesson, so the first lot of presenters will be given 10 minutes to set up. (Adapt for younger
children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))
Development: The first lot of presenters will start their presentations. They will be 10-15 minutes
given a time limit of 10 minutes. (Adapt for younger
children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

Consolidation and practice: These presentations will continue throughout most of 20-30 minutes
the lesson. At the end of each presentation the audience members will reflect on (If the work period is
their SME’s performance while the presenters will reflect on their performance as longer, ensure children are
engaged in learning by
SME’s and highlight the challenges and successes they experienced along the way. using different types of
Students will be given 2 minutes complete these reflections before moving into the teaching strategies,
next lot of presentations. moving between explicit
and guided teaching each
10-15 minutes or for
younger children (age + 2
mins as an indicator))
Conclusion WWW reflection: Finish off reflections. Whole-class discussion on 5-10 minutes
students’ reflections and experiences. (Adapt for younger
children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

PST Evaluation: The lesson got off to a rocky start. The laptops were playing up and the school’s intranet
was not functioning properly. Presentations finally got underway, albeit at different times which made time
difficult to manage. I ended up letting the first presentations go for an extra 5 minutes to compensate.
Some of the students’ presentations were highly engaging and it was exciting to see the amount of
preparation that went into some of these. My favourite part of the lesson was the whole-class discussion at
the end. It was so natural and free-flowing and some students had some good insights into the strengths
and limitations of cooperative learning. It was also nice to see some students calling out problematic
behaviours and this provoked further discussions on behavioural expectations.

Supervising teacher feedback on the implementation of the lesson: Technology can be a pain, and even
some of the best planning flies out the window when the tools and resources aren’t working. However,
once the presentations got underway and everything was working, the lesson started to run a lot smoother.
I like how you got around to each group and provided some feedback on presentations and prompted
reflections. The whole-class discussion at the end was a good way to round off the lesson and some of the
students had some interesting opinions. Start putting together a quiz you have planned for the summative
assessment. Kahoot is popular, but I’m not sure what it provides you in terms of raw data and results.

26
Appendix H: Case 2 evidence (students/child’s feedback x 3, work samples x3, feedback from Supervising Teacher x
3, planning x 3, evaluation of planning x 3, any other evidence)

Student feedback sample 1

Student feedback sample 2

Student feedback sample 3

27
Work sample 1

Work sample 2

28
Work sample 3

Evidence of ST feedback, planning and evaluation of planning x3

LESSON PLAN (1)

Pre-service Teacher ‘s name: Joshua Lowe Date: 05/09/2019

Year level/ age range & number of children: Year 6, ages Highlight planning process:
11-12, 29 students Planned collaboratively with Supervising Teacher
Planned collaboratively with peer
Planned independently based on ST lessons
Estimated duration of the learning experience: 40 Planned Independently
minutes Deconstruction of Supervising Teacher’s lesson

Prior learning and background of the children: Year 6 generalist classroom consisting of 29 students, 15
girls and 14 boys. Subjects taught include English, Mathematics, Humanities and Social Sciences, Visual Arts,
Health and Physical Education. Students within the class come from various cultures and enter with
learning needs including social emotional, cognitive other general learning needs including dyslexia.

Learning intention (aim): To assess students’ knowledge of terminology related to nutrition i.e.
carbohydrates, fats, dietary fibre etc.

Learning area: Health and Physical Education

Specific Topic: Nutrition

Strand and sub-strand from the Australian Curriculum: Personal, Social and Community Health - Being
healthy, safe and active

Australian Curriculum content description(s):

 Investigate community resources and ways to seek help about health, safety and wellbeing
(ACPPS053)

Relevant parts of the achievement standard from the Australian Curriculum: They access and interpret
health information and apply decision-making and problem-solving skills to enhance their own and others’
health, safety and wellbeing.

29
Success criteria for children (objectives): Students successfully display their knowledge of terminology
related to nutrition and create a mind map individually in their health books. They then share the
terminology on their mind maps during a whole-class discussion during which a whole-class word wall will
be constructed.

Success criteria for the teacher: Students successfully display their knowledge of terminology related to
nutrition and create a mind map individually in their health books. They then share the terminology on
their mind maps during a whole-class discussion during which a whole-class word wall will be constructed.
Student engagement.

Teaching strategies: Preparation/ organisation/ resources:

 I’ll provide explicit instruction at the start of  Health books
the lesson regarding the expectations of the  Coloured pencils
task.  Smartboard
 At the conclusion of the lesson I will then  Flipchart
invoke a whole-class discussion and  PowerPoint
construct a whole-class word wall.

Differentiation (pre-core/core/extension/acceleration): Students can turn and talk to members of their

table group about their mind maps. Those students who wish to use laptops may do so.

Opportunities to provide feedback: I will be walking around during the lesson and talking to students about
their mind maps. A whole-class discussion will be implemented at the end of the lesson and this will
provide another opportunity for feedback.

LESSON RUNNING SCHEDULE: Time frames

(Approximate time frames
need to be flexible, tweak
these to match context)
Transition: Students are expected to have their books out ready for the next 2-3 minutes
lessons before the lunch bell. Those that do not have their books ready will have to
catch up on any instructions they miss.

Introduction: Students will quickly brainstorm some of their favourite foods or 5-10 minutes
foods they eat regularly and list them down in their health books. I will then (Adapt for younger
explain that for the next few weeks we will be looking into nutrition and I will children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))
provide instructions for the task they will be completing during the lesson.

Development: Students will then write the word nutrition in the middle of a blank 10-15 minutes
page and brainstorm as many words related to nutrition as they can and create a (Adapt for younger
mind map. children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

Consolidation and practice: They will continue with their mind maps for most of 20-30 minutes
this lesson. Once they have completed their mind maps, we will do a gallery walk. (If the work period is
longer, ensure children are
30
Students will leave their books open on their desks so that others can observe their engaged in learning by
mind maps. using different types of
teaching strategies,
moving between explicit
and guided teaching each
10-15 minutes or for
younger children (age + 2
mins as an indicator))
Conclusion WWW reflection: The lesson will be concluded with a whole-class 5-10 minutes
discussion during which we will construct a whole-class word wall. (Adapt for younger
children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

PST Evaluation: The lesson went as planned. I think getting the students to brainstorm their favourite foods
was a suitable method for introducing them to the content we will be exploring over the next few weeks.
Students mind maps were quite varied. Some students had well over 10 words, while some only had 5 or 6.
Given this was a prior knowledge task, so we can work on expanding students throughout the unit. Most
students were engaged, and I only had to remind one or two students about their behaviour. The noise
level was acceptable overall.

Supervising teacher feedback on the implementation of the lesson: A well planned and structured lesson
overall. Where will you go from here? There was some good terminology being shared by the students e.g.
carbohydrates, fibre, protein etc. Could you implement an inquiry project based on this terminology? Craig
uses a cooperative learning method called jigsaw learning. I will see if he can have a chat with you either
during or after tonight’s staff meeting if you like. He has a lot more experience with it than I do, so he’d
probably be the best person to talk to. We can discuss your unit and inquiry project further as well.

LESSON PLAN (2)

Pre-service Teacher ‘s name: Joshua Lowe Date: 05/09/2019

Year level/ age range & number of children: Year 6, ages Highlight planning process:
11-12, 29 students Planned collaboratively with Supervising Teacher
Planned collaboratively with peer
Planned independently based on ST lessons
Estimated duration of the learning experience: 90 Planned Independently
minutes (double lesson) Deconstruction of Supervising Teacher’s lesson

Prior learning and background of the children: Students have begun exploring the topic of nutrition. Last
lesson they created mind maps as a prior knowledge task, and we created a whole-class word wall on
flipchart.

Learning intention (aim): Students begin a group inquiry into the nutritional information found on food
labels. Students from each group will be assigned one of six nutritional categories: carbohydrates, dietary
fibre, protein, sodium and sugars. They will collate their research and consider how they will teach their
peers about their nutritional category.

Learning area: Health and Physical Education

31
Specific Topic: Nutrition

Strand and sub-strand from the Australian Curriculum: Personal, Social and Community Health - Being
healthy, safe and active

Australian Curriculum content description(s):

 Investigate community resources and ways to seek help about health, safety and wellbeing
(ACPPS053)

Relevant parts of the achievement standard from the Australian Curriculum: They access and interpret
health information and apply decision-making and problem-solving skills to enhance their own and others’
health, safety and wellbeing.

Success criteria for children (objectives): Students will have begun researching their nutritional in their
Subject Matter Expert (SME) groups and preparing their presentations for when they return to their home
groups

Success criteria for the teacher: Students will have begun researching their nutritional in their SME groups
and preparing their presentations for when they return to their home groups Student engagement.

Teaching strategies: Preparation/ organisation/ resources:

 I’ll provide explicit instruction at the start of  Smartboard
the lesson regarding the expectations of the  PowerPoint
task.  Excel Spreadsheet with students’ home
 This is a student-inquiry so I’ll be taking on a groups listed on it
background role, assisting students when  Laptops
they need it and providing feedback where I
can.
 Whole-class reflection at the lesson
Differentiation (pre-core/core/extension/acceleration): This is a cooperative learning experience so
students will be able to engage with peers and learning is a shared effort.

Opportunities to provide feedback: I will be walking around during the lesson and talking to students about
providing feedback where I can. Students will be given the opportunity to provide feedback during the
reflection phase of the lesson.

LESSON RUNNING SCHEDULE: Time frames

(Approximate time frames
need to be flexible, tweak
these to match context)
Transition: Students are expected to have their books out ready for the next 2-3 minutes
lessons before the lunch bell. Those that do not have their books ready will have to
catch up on any instructions they miss.

32
Introduction: This lesson uses the Jigsaw II cooperative learning method. Students 5-10 minutes
will get into their assigned home groups. They will assign each member of their (Adapt for younger
group to a nutritional category and report back to me. children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

Development: Once each member of each group has been assigned to a nutritional 10-15 minutes
category, they will break off and form SME groups with students who are (Adapt for younger
researching the same categories. children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

Consolidation and practice: They will then begin researching their nutritional 20-30 minutes
categories in their SME groups and collating that research. (If the work period is
longer, ensure children are
engaged in learning by
using different types of
teaching strategies,
moving between explicit
and guided teaching each
10-15 minutes or for
younger children (age + 2
mins as an indicator))
Conclusion WWW reflection: At the end of the lesson I’ll give details on the 5-10 minutes
presentations. As well as researching, students must consider what methods they (Adapt for younger
are going to utilise when teaching their home groups. children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

PST Evaluation: I was worried that the lesson would get off to a bit of a rocky start due to the students
having to get into their groups. However, having the instructional PowerPoint up on the smartboard as a
visual prompt for the students to coincide with my verbal instruction really helped the flow of this portion
of this lesson. It also prompted me and helped me to stay on track with my instructions. Rebecca’s group
began to misbehave in the middle of her presentation. I removed [student name] from the group as he was
ripping up his book and throwing it around and Rebecca carried on without any issues afterwards. Next
lesson I will reinforce behavioural expectations.

Supervising teacher feedback on the implementation of the lesson: I was initially worried that the splitting
off into groups and then splitting off into groups again afterwards would be a little chaotic, but you and the
students seemed to handle it well and having the names and groups up on the board helped to hasten this.
Once the students were in their SME groups there was almost a sense of flow in the classroom, the only
thing that interrupted this was the drama and infighting within Jessica’s group. I like how you prompted
them to assign individual responsibilities to each member of the group, and other groups seemed to adopt
this method as well which was a good sign. Start thinking about how much time you want to give the
students to finish their research and complete their presentations. Good use of the PowerPoint and
prompting questions for the inquiry.

LESSON PLAN (3)

Pre-service Teacher ‘s name: Joshua Lowe Date: 05/09/2019

Year level/ age range & number of children: Year 6, ages Highlight planning process:
11-12, 29 students Planned collaboratively with Supervising Teacher

33
 Planned collaboratively with peer
Estimated duration of the learning experience: 90 Planned independently based on ST lessons
Planned Independently
minutes (double lesson) Deconstruction of Supervising Teacher’s lesson

Prior learning and background of the children: Students have been inquiring into the nutritional
information found on food labels. Students from each group will be assigned one of six nutritional
categories: carbohydrates, dietary fibre, protein, sodium and sugars.

Learning intention (aim): Students begin learning about all the carbohydrates, fats, protein, sugars, sodium
and dietary fibre.

Learning area: Health and Physical Education

Specific Topic: Nutrition

Strand and sub-strand from the Australian Curriculum: Personal, Social and Community Health - Being
healthy, safe and active

Australian Curriculum content description(s):

 Investigate community resources and ways to seek help about health, safety and wellbeing
(ACPPS053)

Relevant parts of the achievement standard from the Australian Curriculum: They access and interpret
health information and apply decision-making and problem-solving skills to enhance their own and others’
health, safety and wellbeing.

Success criteria for children (objectives): Students will participate during each of their group members
presentations. The presenters will teach their home groups in a manner that is engaging. The presenters
will also reflect upon their performance as SMEs while and the successes and challenges they experienced.
The audience members will reflect on each SMEs performance and provide constructive feedback.

Success criteria for the teacher: Students will take participate during each of their group members
presentations. The presenters will teach their home groups in a manner that is engaging. The presenters
will also reflect upon their performance as SMEs while and the successes and challenges they experienced.
The audience members will reflect on each SMEs performance and provide constructive feedback. Student
engagement.

Teaching strategies: Preparation/ organisation/ resources:

 I’ll provide explicit instruction at the start of  Smartboard
the lesson regarding the expectations of the  PowerPoint
task.  Excel Spreadsheet with students’ home
 I’ll be taking more of a background role, groups listed on it
listening to students’ presentations,  Laptops
providing feedback and managing behaviour
where appropriate.

34
Differentiation (pre-core/core/extension/acceleration): This is a cooperative learning experience so
students will be able to engage with peers and learning is a shared effort.

Opportunities to provide feedback: I will be taking on a background role, providing feedback on students’
presentations where appropriate. The students will also be given the opportunity to provide feedback
during the reflection phase of the lesson.

LESSON RUNNING SCHEDULE: Time frames

(Approximate time frames
need to be flexible, tweak
these to match context)
Transition: We will head down to the gym. Laptops will be taken down as well. 2-3 minutes
Each of the five groups will spread out across the gym.

Introduction: The structure of the presentations was explained in detail at the end 5-10 minutes
of last lesson, so the first lot of presenters will be given 10 minutes to set up. (Adapt for younger
children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))
Development: The first lot of presenters will start their presentations. They will be 10-15 minutes
given a time limit of 10 minutes. (Adapt for younger
children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

Consolidation and practice: These presentations will continue throughout most of 20-30 minutes
the lesson. At the end of each presentation the audience members will reflect on (If the work period is
their SME’s performance while the presenters will reflect on their performance as longer, ensure children are
engaged in learning by
SME’s and highlight the challenges and successes they experienced along the way. using different types of
Students will be given 2 minutes complete these reflections before moving into the teaching strategies,
next lot of presentations. moving between explicit
and guided teaching each
10-15 minutes or for
younger children (age + 2
mins as an indicator))
Conclusion WWW reflection: Finish off reflections. Whole-class discussion on 5-10 minutes
students’ reflections and experiences. (Adapt for younger
children (age + 2 mins as
an indicator))

PST Evaluation: The lesson got off to a rocky start. The laptops were playing up and the school’s intranet
was not functioning properly. Presentations finally got underway, albeit at different times which made time
difficult to manage. I ended up letting the first presentations go for an extra 5 minutes to compensate.
Some of the students’ presentations were highly engaging and it was exciting to see the amount of
preparation that went into some of these. My favourite part of the lesson was the whole-class discussion at
the end. It was so natural and free-flowing and some students had some good insights into the strengths
and limitations of cooperative learning. It was also nice to see some students calling out problematic
behaviours and this provoked further discussions on behavioural expectations.

Supervising teacher feedback on the implementation of the lesson: Technology can be a pain, and even
some of the best planning flies out the window when the tools and resources aren’t working. However,
once the presentations got underway and everything was working, the lesson started to run a lot smoother.
I like how you got around to each group and provided some feedback on presentations and prompted
reflections. The whole-class discussion at the end was a good way to round off the lesson and some of the

35
students had some interesting opinions. Start putting together a quiz you have planned for the summative
assessment. Kahoot is popular, but I’m not sure what it provides you in terms of raw data and results.

36
Appendix I: Kahoot scores for Jessica’s and Rebecca’s groups

37