102086 Designing Teaching & Learning

Assignment 2: QT Analysis Template

1 Intellectual quality
1.1 Deep knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Teacher addresses multiple facets of transport timetables and their real-world
5 application such as their purpose, the importance of their existence, and the importance of the
maintenance of their accuracy. However, the “Class activity and Smartboard interaction” is done
in pairs which constrains the flow of knowledge to what both interlocutors already have, hence
limiting the complexity of the discussion and the deep knowledge gained.
1.2 Deep understanding
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Too much focus is made on discussions before the delivery of any content which
5 means the discussion has very little depth of understanding of the content that needs to be learned.
Some problem solving is required throughout the lesson, but it is basic and lacks complexity and
depth of understanding of the content. This is particularly the case for students that are already
familiar with timetables based on their own experience.
1.3 Problematic knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: No attempt to discuss the problematic nature of the activities and knowledge being
5 discussed is made; all content is delivered matter-of-factly. Some questions that may improve this
are:
How have timetables existed in the past? What are timetables like in other countries? How do
timetables differ across different modes of transport (or how are they similar)? What happens
when timetables are inaccurate or outdated?
1.4 Higher-order thinking
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Students exhibit a combination of lower-order and higher-order thinking throughout
5 the lesson. Activities range from creating a timetable from written information, which is a
complex problem-solving question that is somewhat repetitive, low-order thinking, to discussing
what would happen if timetables did not exist, which is a difficult question that forces students to
analyse a difficult problem from multiple angles. Most higher-order thinking stems from the
questions at the end of the worksheet which is only a small portion of the lesson.
1.5 Metalanguage
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Metalanguage is used at certain points in the lesson with words such as “arrive”.
5 However, they are not continuously used throughout the lesson, nor are other easy to incorporate
words considered metalanguage, such as “depart”, “via” and “stand” (for buses). It must be noted
though, there is little metalanguage available for use within this topic (and more so within such a
short lesson) and there is no great loss to the overall lesson with their absence.
1.6 Substantive communication
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Sustained bouts of substantive communication are seen throughout the lesson as
5 students and teacher jointly direct the conversation and questions being examined in the class.
Few aspects of the lesson are “initiate-respond-evaluate” (IRE) conversations, however, dialogue
is kept on track of the content of the lesson and there is plenty of time for students to ask question
and discuss other avenues of looking at the content.
Quality learning environment
2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Only during the introduction and the conclusion are the specifics of the desired
5 outcomes stated. Throughout the lesson, on occasion, the teacher will examine students so that
they remain on task, but there is no attempt to aid the students with the quality of their work, nor
is there an explicit mention of what higher-quality work looks like compared to lower-quality
work.

2.2 Engagement
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Students are engaged for majority of the lesson in pair work or class discussion, both
5 of which require high levels of engagement to successfully participate in and are easily monitored
by the teacher. The “Class activity and Smartboard interaction” activity may drop student
engagement when neither student are proficient with understanding timetables.

1
2.3 High expectations
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: The discussions are the only aspects of the lesson that contain higher-order thinking
5 where the students are encouraged to participate in the challenge in whatever ways they can.
Outside of that, students are briefly monitored and are not given expectations about any
conceptual developments in the substance of the lesson, they are only told to complete the
activities and are given the choice to do it in pairs or individually.
2.4 Social support
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: With the exception of one point in the first activity involving pair-work, there is no
5 explicitly clear support from the teacher to those who are reluctant to participate in either the
discussions or activities. However, successful pair work and class discussions have the implicit
ethic to respect and value your peers’ opinions and abilities.
2.5 Students’ self-regulation
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: The teacher sets the student’ expectations at the beginning of the lesson and
5 seamlessly moves through activities without any jarring interruptions. The pair work is most
likely to give the students the chance to not participate in work and instead talk about anything
else. This is offset to some degree by the fact that the lesson plan clearly states that the teacher
should roam the classroom and keep students on task.
2.6 Student direction
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Students are directed completely by the activities and time-restraints laid down by the
5 teacher. Minimal student direction is allowable within the confines of each activity, especially
outside of the discussions which grant some student directed learning.
3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Some small indications of background knowledge are made, for example, in the class
5 discussion, but there is no explicit incorporation or connection to any prior knowledge of the
content with the students. For example, the teacher does not ask the students which of them
already have experience with public transport.
3.2 Cultural knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: No cultural recognition to any foreign entity is given at any point in the lesson. The
5 only cultural reference is the fictional popular culture series Harry Potter which is provided in the
activity worksheet.
3.3 Knowledge integration
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Some lines are drawn between the lesson topic and other topics in the class
5 discussion; for example, the connection to sustainability is made and this opens up the
conversation to other more broadly connected ideas, but more meaningful connections could
easily be made. For example, why is there a difference between the public transport system in
other states or countries? Economic, geographic, historical or political realms could be drawn into
the discussion here.
3.4 Inclusivity
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: Although there is no mention of inclusion in the lesson plan, no division amongst the
5 students is apparent given the nature of the activities; the class discussion and pair work make
inclusion of everyone easy to monitor throughout the lesson. However, students unfamiliar with
timetables, or even Harry Potter with its use in the lesson, may feel excluded from understanding
the content.
3.5 Connectedness
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: The content could very easily be connected to the students’ own lives, but few
5 connections are explicitly made. The inclusion of the ferry on the smartboard adds some
connection to using a ferry in Sydney, but this is not explored. Adding questions of personal
experience to the class discussion could prove fruitful, as well as asking whether or not the
students felt any more comfortable about the idea of using public transport after the lesson (if they
didn’t already use it).
3.6 Narrative
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – Comments: The use of a Harry Potter reference makes some small fictional narrative connection
5 to the content questions, but it is minor and detached reference that is largely made to connect
those students that are familiar with Harry Potter to the problems given to them. No particularly
useful narrative is provided outside of this.
…