Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Reflection and Critique of Teaching Activity

The teaching activity that was conducted for the student that had a higher level of understanding was
very successful in achieving the learning outcome. The student had the misconception where they
would count an individual object more than once because they would not move it once it had been
counted. The aim of the teaching activity was to get the students in the practice of moving objects to
the side ('inside the gate') once they had been counted. This activity worked quite well, as after the
student completed the teaching activity they were able to transfer what they had just learnt into other
learning activities within the classroom. A secondary interview was conducted after the teaching
activity which determined that the student remembered what they had been taught with moving the
objects to the side once they had been counted. Within the second interview it was clear that the
student was more confident with their counting ability, and that they were now at the mathematics
stage of the language model. Considering the overall outcome of the student now being able to count,
without double-counting, there was nothing evident within the teaching activity that did not work
well. To ensure that the student was able to continue successfully count individual objects correctly, it
would be recommended that the student do the activity again, however with no 'gates'. If the student
still did not move the objects to the side or in a line then this would allow the teacher to see that the
student still has the misconception.

The teaching learning activity that was constructed for students that double-count due to them not
moving the object once it had been counted was carefully planned out by researching information
from different prep teachers within the school. To create a more effective teaching activity, the
decision was made to discuss the misconception that needed addressing and what activity would be
best to rectify. Each prep teacher explained similar activities that would be appropriate to use,
however the opinion that was most valued was that of my supervising practicum teacher. The
supervising practicum teacher knows the students best and is able to identify what activity would be
appropriate for certain students (Wilson & Blednick, 2011). After gaining information, I planned the
teaching activity, keeping in mind the advice and suggestions that had been provided. Presenting the
teaching activity and the responses that the student gave, it was evident that the student knew what
was expected of them. If I asked the student any questions it was in relation to the total that they had
come to, and whether it was correct. The student was able to provide me with the correct answer each
time, whereas in comparison to the initial interview, the student was not able to always give a correct
response due to them often double-counting. The student had gained confidence within their counting
abilities, and did not require any instruction (Clements & Sarama, 2007). One-to-one correspondence Commented [JC1]: AITSL Standard 6.3 & 6.4: This
is important for trying to rectify any misconceptions that the student may have, as it allows the teacher demonstrates an engagement with the other Prep teaching
to work with them closely and see any significant process that they may have (Reys, et al., 2012, pg. colleagues to improve my practice within the classroom. This
professional learning gained from the supervising teacher has
151). been applied to improve the learning experience of the
student’s mathematical understanding.
Commented [JC2]: AITSL Standard 5.5: This demonstrates
a report of significant progress of the student’s mathematical
understanding. This reporting information was delivered to
the supervising teacher, as well as to the student in a modified
and simplified version.