Task

2 Catering for Diversity

Spelling Pre-test

This artefact shows the results of a spelling pre-test, as part of the Year 2 English
curriculum (ACARA, 2013). This test is taken at the start of the week as a diagnosis of
their spelling ability for the chosen sound. The teacher scores this test and students are
given their score and shown which words they need to practice for the next two weeks.
This shows how the assessment caters for diversity as students have different words to
focus on based on their test result. The test is delivered verbally with each word put
into a sentence for context. The class are divided into three levelled groups so each
group is tested on a different set of words in relation to their ability. This ensures the
test meets a wide range of learners and is relevant and appropriate to students
different abilities (Margetts & Woolfolk, 2013). These groups are also monitored and
changed throughout the year based on the test results.

The feedback, or ideally the feed forward, students receive from their pre-test would
be more beneficial if it were descriptive about where they went wrong and constructive
in what they could do to improve (Fisher & Frey, 2011). For example if there is a
particular letter combination they should focus on such as oo, ew, ue or u_e
which are all combinations that make the oo sound. This differentiates the feedback
and focus for each student in the lead up to the post-test. Assessment accommodations
such as timing, setting, scheduling and methods are not necessary within this class
context as there are no students with a disability, cultural or first language difference or
with mobility problems (Readman & Allen, 2013).

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL] standard 5 is
addressed in this assessment as the teacher is assessing the students learning through
the data collected from the test (AITSL, 2014). This then allows the teacher to make
comparable judgements, AITSL standard 5.3, as the same test is delivered after two
weeks so data can be collected to identify direct improvements. This pre and post-test
occurs throughout the year so the teacher can monitor improvements based on her
records. Aligning with standard 5.4, the teacher can interpret this data to move students
between ability groups (AITSL, 2014). This is important as it ensures the test remains
appropriate to students developing ability and serves its purpose of informing further
teaching and learning (Readman & Allen, 2013).

Olympic Poster

This artefact shows the summative self-assessment checklist for an Olympic athlete
poster. Students were given a research task to choose an Olympian or Paralympian from
any country in this years Olympics, integrating the Year 2 Technologies and HASS
curriculum (ACARA, 2013). Criteria to research and parameters for their final product
were identified, such as presenting it on A2 card and including pictures. Students were
given website suggestions and completed the posters at home. Students in this class are
from a higher socioeconomic area so it is appropriate to assume they all have access to
the Internet and a digital device at home.

As students have varying typing/writing abilities they were given the option to type or
handwrite their information. The word count and amount of information presented was
also left open, allowing students to read and write as much as they can relative to their
ability. These two factors show consideration of different learner strengths and abilities
(Margetts & Woolfolk, 2013).

As the research and poster was completed at home it is possible that some parents
completed the task to varying degrees. In order to be able to accurately report on
students achievement and make judgements about their work (AITSL, 2014) this task
would need to be completed at school, or at least limit how much was done at home.
The self-reflection is a valuable tool for students to assess their work, as they have to be
able to identify if they have covered particular aspects of the task (Readman & Allen,
2013). It also aligns directly with the assessment task intended learning outcomes,
making the assessment highly valid in what it is assessing (Readman & Allen, 2013). The
self-assessment however provided students with no feedback or level of achievement,
as they simply put a tick or a cross next to each heading (AITSL. 2014). This could have
been improved by incorporating a rubric, checklist or comment for the teacher to
provide feedback on what was done well and what could have been improved (Dinham,
2008).

Addition and Subtraction

The following artefact shows an informal checklist to gauge how students understand
addition and subtraction, a Year 2 Maths requirement (ACARA, 2013). The checklist was
based on three pages in their maths books that were completed over three consecutive
days. All Year 2 students completed the same questions and the Year 3 students
completed a different set of questions. This lacks in catering for diverse needs, as there
are a wide range of maths abilities within the class (Margetts & Woolfolk, 2013). The
questions being assessed ranged in how they were set out, requiring students to
conceptually understand the processes in order to determine the answer. Students were
given a tick if they demonstrated a consistent understanding with minimal calculation
errors, a dot if they were on track but lacked consistency and a cross if they required
help or answered many questions incorrectly.

This assessment occurred during the maths unit, to help identify students that needed
extra work on these concepts and which students had achieved them. The formative
nature of this assessment, allowed the results to inform future lessons (Readman &
Allen, 2013). The proceeding lessons to this informal assessment involved teaching
three different mental strategies for addition so students had the foundation for
performing subtractions. Although the teacher used the checklist to shape further
learning, this learning was not differentiated based on the individual needs identified.
To address these needs the teacher could have grouped students with a different focus,
such as focusing on subtraction, focusing on addition or extending addition/subtraction.
Different activities could then be incorporated for the identified groups and the teacher
could circulate between these groups for specific blocks of teaching, similar to a guided
reading format in English (Kalantzis & Cope, 2016).

Being an informal formative assessment, this checklist only achieves AITSL standard 1
(AITSL, 2014). This assessment could be improved to achieve AITSL standard 2, by
providing students with feedback about what they know and where they are making
errors (Dinham, 2011). This would also require the checklist to include more columns,
such as vertical addition and horizontal addition, to identify specific areas to improve.

Reference

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2014). Australian
professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-forteachers/standards/list

Dinham, S. (2011). Feedback on feedback. Teacher, 191, 20-23. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=10
8325815918206;res=IELAPA

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2011). Feed up, back, forward. Educational Leadership, 48(9), 26-
30. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/875538107?OpenU
rlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=10382

Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Chan, E., & Dalley-Trim, L. (2016). Literacies. Melbourne, VIC:

Cambridge University Press.

Margetts, K., & Woolfolk, A. (2013). Educational psychology. French Forest, NSW:

Pearson Australia.

Readman, K., & Allen, B. (2013). Practical planning and assessment. South Melbourne,

VIC: Oxford University Press.