Standard Descriptors
1.1 Use teaching strategies based on knowledge of students’ physical, social and intellectual development and characteristic to improve student learning
1.3 Design and implement teaching strategies that are responsive to the learning strengths and needs of students from diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds
3.6 Evaluate personal teaching and learning programs using evidence, including feedback from students and student assessment data to inform planning
6.3 Contribute to collegial discussions and apply constructive feedback from colleagues to improve practice
What I did and why
Students in my class are of various socioeconomic backgrounds. I ensure that I support all students learning, making sure they get the learning they deserve. One way of doing this is with the PIPS testing data. I use the data to be informed of students strengths and needs (1.3).
My Prep work colleague, the Literacy Coach , Middle Year Literacy Leader and I attended a meeting to discuss the PIPS (Performance Indicator in Primary Schools) data (Appendix 6.1 and 6.2). We discussed where we were at with supporting all students needs, share any concerns and devise a plan to improve our teaching practice (6.3). We named students who were identified as ‘below’ benchmark who required intervention and students who were ‘well above’ who needed extension. Those identified students were placed into small targeted literacy support groups. The Literacy support team devised a timetable where the extension and intervention groups were being taken out for support twice a week at the same time, leaving myself with a small group of students who were going to get targeted explicit learning. Those students are students who are identified as ‘within’ but had a low percentile ranking (1.3).
After looking at the data and gathering my own classroom data, I grouped the students into three groups:
Extension group who were strong in reading and phonological awareness. Expanding their grammar and understanding of the English language focusing on compound words and basic homophones.
My group who were fluent readers but needed some work on sight words. We focused on sight words – both reading and spelling then went onto basic compound words (phonological awareness).
At risk group who were students who needed targeted phonological awareness and phonemic awareness in a smaller group. Below is a comparison of a student who completed a letter sound symbol dictation in Term 1 and Term 4.
We had another ‘check in’ meeting with all parties (Appendix 6.8) a month later to discuss where to for Term 3 for these targeted groups and for my team member and I to share how we were progressing and to share successes within these groups (7.1 & 6.3). We attended the first meeting to discuss the PIPS results, but also to identify focus area needs, group them according to need and then address the needs through targeted and explicit learning. I ensured that i checked in with all literacy support teachers regularly and I was moving students to different groups when their needs were being met to ensure their learning was being scaffolded (1.1, 1.3 & 3.6).
Reflection
Discussing targeting student learning prior to and at the meeting as well as the PIPS data resulted in a positive result for my team member and myself. This shows that I have engaged in discussion with my colleagues where we all agreed that explicit teaching was the best teaching strategy to support need and continue to scaffold student strength. Other teaching strategies being implemented were questioning, modelling, scaffolding, peer work, open questioning, closed questioning and explaining. This has improved my practice and professional knowledge (6.3). As a Foundation year teacher, I feel the pressure to try and give all students the best head start to their schooling life, but it is challenging to give every child what they need to be successful when they are so young, mostly not independent and their capabilities varies from at risk to high achievers. The positive impact that this targeted literacy groups has, means the intervention group is getting support in hearing and blending single letter sounds to read and spelling cvc words, to support them in having the foundation to continue to be successful in Grade 1 and further and the extension group is being extended in their understanding of letter sounds/grammar and spelling. The students that I have focus on phonics and reading which impact’s on their reading data (1.3). Every student attends 2 x 40 minute targeted support twice a week.
Within my class there were a variety of strengths for Literacy and Numeracy (appendix 6.1) but also a percentage of need. I ensured that each student was being placed in a literacy group where their strengths were being identified but their need was being addressed by explicit teaching. The following Appendix 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 work samples demonstrates that students have received explicit targeted teaching, which have had a positive impact on their learning. As you can see from the end of year PIPS results appendix …….. this targeted student learning program, as well as differentiated number groups in the classroom, (see lesson observation 2) has been a factor that has resulted in improved student performance compared to appendix 6.1 in Term 1 (1.1 & 1.3).
I know students learning has been impacted as I have had parent comments made about how their child is going home and telling them about learnt homophones (too,to,two), I have seen an improvement in students reading level data since starting grouped literacy support, intervention students are hearing and blending sounds together and I have overheard students telling other students during Investigations about phonic rules (when two vowels go walking the first one does the talking) that I have explicitly taught my group as a strategy. As a teacher I feel very supported by these targeted literacy groups and I am proud of the positive impact that the literacy groups have had on the students learning and it is evident that students background needs and strengths are being met with explicit teaching and reinforcement (1.1,1.3 & 3.6).
Students who have linguistic, cultural and religious backgrounds, I would look at the PIPS assessment report and identify their strengths and their weaknesses. I would put student/s who were linguistic (depending on their English) into my fourth targeted group to begin with, to work on their phonological awareness – oral language. As the group is a lot smaller and quieter, they would receive beginning language skills between the classroom and the literacy group. They then would have the capacity throughout the year to move groups depending on their developing strengths and needs. In the classroom I would ensure I model precise language to them, using clear instructions, modelling, use questioning, scaffolding and reflecting by engaging in verbal interactions. By using these strategies along with explicit teaching of their identified needs and incorporating their strengths, I would expect the same or similar learning impact (1.3).
AITSL Proficient Standard Portfolio 