You are on page 1of 17

Tarnya Keayes

18577583
https://tekeayes.weebly.com/

Stage 4 Science Lesson


Plan Analysis

Designing, Teaching & Learning


102086

University of Western Sydney


18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

Table of Contents
Original Lesson Plan for Science ................................................................................................ 3

Lesson Plan Analysis................................................................................................................... 6

Identified Areas for Improvement ......................................................................................... 8

Modified Lesson Plan for Science .............................................................................................. 8

Academic Justification ............................................................................................................. 11

Higher-Order Thinking (1.4) ................................................................................................. 12

Student Direction (2.6) ......................................................................................................... 12

Explicit Quality Criteria (2.1) ................................................................................................ 12

Connectedness (3.5) ............................................................................................................. 13

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 13

Learning ePortfolio .................................................................................................................. 14

References ............................................................................................................................... 14

2|Page
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

Original Lesson Plan for Science


Topic area: Stage of Learner: Stage 4 Syllabus Pages:
Temperature,
Freezing points and
Chemical reactions.
Date: Location Booked: Lesson Number: /

Time: Total Number of students Printing/preparation

Materials for students: 100mm clear plastic test


tubes, test tube lid or cork, test tube rack, water
at 10oC, salt, sugar, periodic table, freezer,
teaspoon., marker, timer, foam spheres of
different sizes and colours to represent the
elements: Na, Cl and H2O. Small wooden sticks to
represent connections for the elements and
compound.

Additional Materials: Freezer, monitor in front of


classroom, access to the internet, large bottles of
water at 100C, correct chemical and physical
equations for both salt water and sugar water.

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn


to

Chemical World 4 (CW4): Different The students will: C. Describe the


types of chemical reactions are effects of factors,
used to produce a range of  Explain how eg temperature
dissolving salt
products and can occur at different and catalysts, on
and sugar into
rates and involve energy transfer the rate of some
water will affect
(New South Wales. Board of the freezing point common chemical
Studies, 2012). depression of reactions (New
water. South Wales.
 Predict the Board of Studies,
freezing points of 2012).
the water
solutions
containing either
salt or sugar and SCLS-4WS: Asks
which will freeze questions that can
first. be tested and
 Demonstrate the makes predictions
ability to record (New South
and analysis the Wales. Board of
data collected Studies, 2012).
from the
experiment as
they engage in

3|Page
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

critically thinking
about the topic.
 Display the ability
to formulate
equations of salt
dissolved in water
and sugar
dissolved in
water.
 Explain the
differences
between a
physical and
chemical
reactions.

Time Teaching and learning actions

5 min Start the classroom with a brain storm to draw out students current understanding and
knowledge of freezing points and common chemical reactions.

Ask the question “Ok class what come to mind when you think about the word freeze?

Write the word freeze on the board with a circle around it.

Ask how is relates to the topic chemical world.

Guide their thoughts to the lessons focus without influencing there the responses.

By asking:

How does something freeze?

Why it freezes?

What happens when something freezes?

5 min Explain to the class the aim of the today lesson will be on the freezing points of water, salt water
and sugar water.

Explain safety procedures of the experiment before commences.

10 Assign students into groups. 4-5 students per group. Give the students roles within the group:
min timer (keeps track of the time), recorder (writes down results), handler (mixing the solutions
together) and retriever (takes and places the test tube rack in the freezer).

Explain what to do in the practical and to fellow the methods sheet that was handed out.

Ask the students to make their predictions on what will happen to the three solutions before and
during the practical. Predict the aim of the experiment, if students are confused or haven’t
identified the correct aim help them factor it out or provide the aim if necessary.

Guide or provide assistance at the start of the experiment without influencing the students’
thought processes. Walk around the classroom.

After the students record the first lot of results for the practical introduce the boxes foam spheres
representing the elements: Na (Sodium), Cl (Chloride), C12H22O11 and H2O to each group.

4|Page
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

Start with saying: Ok class lets zoom in on what’s happening to the three solutions in the freezer. I
have a box of elements and compounds of the water, salt and sugar

Ask if the students know the common names of elements and compounds of chemical symbols on
the foam spheres. Allow them to refer to their periodic table for guidance.

Use sugar as an example:

“Sugar is make up of these elements Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen which of the spheres has
these elements?”

Followed by: “Now what can Hydrogen and Oxygen make and which of the spheres represents
water?”

Instruct the student to predict what is happening to all three solutions using the foam spheres.

Discussion and evaluation of the practical.

Prepare a table for the combined results of the all class. Have the recorder of each group write
down their result on the table.
20
min Discuss the predictions and errors from each group and compare them with all class. Correct any
misconceptions the students may have.

Ask questions to why the thought that way and how it relates to the topic.

Discuss if by dissolving salt and sugar is a chemical change or physical one referring to the
experiment the student preformed and foam modals.

Demonstrate what the correct formula for salt water and sugar water and the how the freezing
point of water is reduced using the foam spheres.

Video representation of why salt reduces the freezing point of water with similarities to the foam
models (only if time is available)

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhWV2uaHaA

Similarities in 0:50 seconds to 1:12 minutes of the video.

Discuss and compare the video with the experiment the student preformed and demonstration
with the class.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

5|Page
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

Lesson Plan Analysis


Evaluation score – refer to NSW QTM Classroom Practice Guide for each element

Comments incl. evidence for evaluation score

1 Intellectual quality
1.1 Deep knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Deep knowledge is observed through the application of freezing points as
the key concept throughout the lesson content. It is deep and has sustained focus.
However, the practical use of foam spheres seems superficial, as it is appears to be an
underdeveloped idea and not well explained. (47)

1.2 Deep understanding


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Students are provided numerous opportunities to show deep understanding,
by answering questions and displaying reasoning throughout the lesson. However,
aspects of the lesson are teacher-lead through prompting, though the teacher does
acknowledge the need to not influence student’s thought processes. (40)

1.3 Problematic knowledge


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The lesson plan is based around a scientifically proven fact, therefore there
is only one interpretation of the results. Though the students have been provided with
the opportunity to experiment, it is minimal and does not contribute to students
developing their own perspectives and/or solutions. For example, they are provided with
a step-by-step method sheet. (55)

1.4 Higher-order thinking


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Lower-order thinking is observed via the provision of a step-by-step method
sheet, as well as the brainstorming activity, therefore neither are engaging complex
ideas and understanding. Questions supplied by the teacher indicate moving towards
higher-order, however, the teacher acknowledges the need for prompts and guidance.
(45)

1.5 Metalanguage
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Scientific metalanguage used in the lesson plan is minimal. It can be
observed in the materials list and unevenly distributed throughout the lesson plan as
specific experimental items, elements/compounds and formulas. Though clarification of
the language is not provided, further metalanguage could have been used by the
inclusion of terms such as hypothesis. (53)

1.6 Substantive communication


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Provides numerous opportunities for sustained class discussions based on
content, and written communication via results. The plan describes when the teacher
should walk around the classroom and how they will guide students’ thoughts and
discussion therefore providing a scaffold for communication; though it is teacher-lead.
(45)

Quality learning environment


2.1 Explicit quality criteria
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The plan shows an undertaking of a review of necessary safety procedures
for the experiment and a step-by-step methods sheet is provided, though these are
lower-order thinking tasks. The lessons aim is explained, though they were not provided
with explicit criteria to reference their outcomes against and what level needs to be
achieved. (53)

2.2 Engagement

6|Page
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

1–2–3–4–5 Comments: The succinct nature of the lesson plan’s time schedule suggests high
engagement of students, therefore suggesting they are staying on task during the lesson.
Student engagement is encouraged through the use of discussion based on the lesson
content. (38)

2.3 High expectations


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Students are encouraged to participate in the challenging task of
experimentation by having individual roles. General expectations can be seen through
the provision and explanation of aim and in the lesson plan under ‘students learn about’
with words such as demonstrate. However, this does not seem to be communicated to
students and encouragement of risk taking is minimal, therefore reward is minimal. (62)

2.4 Social support


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The lesson plan provides a positive outlook on social support, though it is not
thoroughly explained, therefore suggesting it is implied. However, the use of groups
provides opportunity for student interactions benefitting the lesson, a significant
improvement of this is the use of roles within the group ensuring inclusivity of all. (51)

2.5 Students’ self-regulation


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The lesson plan assumes to have self-regulation amongst students. The
provision of a methods sheet does allow for autonomy however, is a lower-order
thinking task. lesson plan is 40mins long, what happens in the rest of the lesson. (38)

2.6 Student direction


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The lesson plan provides little to no evidence of student direction, as the
activities are teacher-lead. For example, the teacher initiates the brainstorm, provides
them with a method sheet and initiates discussion. Hence there is limited autonomy
hindering student creativity and critical-thinking. (42)

3 Significance
3.1 Background knowledge
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: Opportunity to make connections is allowed through the lesson plan via the
brainstorm and asking students ‘how it relates to the topic of chemical world’, and their
current understandings and knowledge. However, these questions do not allow for
diverse connections that build on aspects of their personal lives. (48)

3.2 Cultural knowledge


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: There is no understanding, inclusion or recognition of cultural knowledge
throughout the lesson plan. Therefore excluding the valuable knowledge, skills and
understandings of diverse social groups. (26)

3.3 Knowledge integration


1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The lesson plan does question how it relates only once, when the teacher
questions ‘what comes to mind’, however there is no further discussion towards
meaningful connections. For instance, it could be related back to TAS:Hospitality and
how ice-cream is made, yet knowledge integration is restricted. (46)

3.4 Inclusivity
1–2–3–4–5 Comments: The lesson plan does not specify the exclusion of any groups of people.
Therefore, inclusivity is implied. (17)

3.5 Connectedness
1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Comments: The lesson plan tries to show connections to the world outside school by
asking the question ‘what comes to mind’, however these connections are weak. This is
evident in the teacher’s notes on guiding student thoughts, and it primarily serves only
to meet outcomes. (44)

7|Page
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

3.6 Narrative
1–2–3–4–5 Comments: The use of narrative is not seen in any place throughout the lesson plan.
Inclusion of narrative would have significantly enriched the overall lesson and allowed
for students to make connections. (31)

Identified Areas for Improvement


The four NSW Quality Teaching model elements targeted for improvement:

QT model
1) Higher-Order Thinking (1.4) 2) Explicit Quality Criteria (2.1)
3) Student Direction (2.6) 4) Connectedness (3.5)

Modified Lesson Plan for Science


Topic area: Stage of Learner: Syllabus Pages:
Temperature, Freezing Stage 4
points and Chemical
reactions.
Date: Location Booked: Lesson Number:
20/5/2019 Science Laboratory 1/1
Time: Total Number of students Printing/preparation
60mins 25 Interactive board connected to internet:

- Kahoot: pre-designed quiz to


determine level of
understanding of elements,
compounds and freezing
points; opportunity to gather
data
- Wordle: to brainstorm

Correct chemical and physical equations


for both salt water and sugar water.

Student access to internet via electronic


devices; e.g. mobile phone, laptop,
Chromebook

Materials for experiment: 100mm clear


plastic test tubes, test tube lid or cork,
test tube rack, large water bottles of
water at 10oC, salt, sugar, periodic table,
freezer, teaspoon, marker, timer, foam
spheres of different sizes and colours to
represent the elements and compounds:
Na (sodium), Cl (chlorine), sugar
(C12H22O11) and water (H2O). Small

8|Page
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

wooden sticks to represent connections


between elements forming compound.

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

Chemical World 4 (CW4): Informal The students will: C. Describe the effects of
Different types of chemical formative factors, e.g. temperature
assessment: i) Explain how dissolving salt
reactions are used to produce a and catalysts, on the rate
via Kahoot and sugar into water will
range of products and can of some common chemical
affect the freezing point
occur at different rates and Create an reactions (New South
depression of water.
involve energy transfer (New imaginative Wales. Board of Studies,
South Wales. Board of Studies, resource to ii) Predict the freezing 2012).
2012). display a points of the water
scientific SCLS-4WS: Asks questions
solutions containing either
report on the that can be tested and
salt or sugar and which will
topic of makes predictions (New
freeze first.
freezing point South Wales. Board of
iii) Demonstrate the ability Studies, 2012).
to record and analysis the
data collected from the
experiment as they engage
in critically thinking about
the topic.

iv) Display the ability to


formulate equations of salt
dissolved in water and sugar
dissolved in water.

v) Explain the differences


between a physical and
chemical reactions.

Time Teaching and learning actions

10 Start the classroom with an interactive Kahoot Quiz to gain understanding and baseline
min measurement of topics covered in the lesson: elements, compounds and freezing point.

- What element is Na? MCQ: potassium, sodium, oxygen, gold


- What is the chemical symbol for Chlorine: Ca, Cr, Cl, C
- What is the common name for the compound H 2O? water
- What is the freezing point of water? 0°C
- What is the difference between a physical and chemical reaction?

Check/display results, initiate opportunity for students to develop understanding through


questions.

Use an interactive Wordle activity to draw out students current understanding and knowledge of
freezing points and common chemical reactions through brainstorming as a class, and having
students write their own words. If students struggle, guide thoughts by asking:

- What comes to mind when you think about the word freeze?

9|Page
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

- Where do we usually seeing freezing occur? Icebergs, ice-cream, glaciers, etc. (use
narrative/story-telling to further inspire ideas)
- How is relates to the topic chemical world?
- How does something freeze?
- Why it freezes?
- What happens when something freezes?

5 min Explain to the class the aim of today’s lesson will be on the freezing points of water, salt water
and sugar water; and what needs to be achieved by the end of the lesson: experiment results,
understanding of what is required of report.

Explain and provide handout, as well as display on interactive board, of the required report-style
assessment.

- As a group (of 4-5), create a resource that display all aspects of a report (title,
contributor names, introduction [aim, hypothesis, variables], risk assessment,
materials/equipment, methods, class results [include diagrams, images, tables],
discussion, limitations [errors], bibliography/references)
- Explain the format can be as imaginative as possible: video, poster, storybook, recorded
PowerPoint, written report. Provide links to potential resources via handout.

Explain and display on interactive board the safety procedures of the experiment before it
commences. As a class determine consequences/repercussions of not following safety
procedures.

20 Have students get into groups of 4-5 (the same as for the assignment), with the roles of: timer
min (keeps track of the time), recorder (writes down results), handler (mixing the solutions together)
and retriever (takes and places the test tube rack in the freezer).

As a class, determine the methods of the experiment. On the interactive board, have the required
number of steps and a key word/words in place to guide student’s thoughts on what needs to be
done. Keep this displayed for entire practical, then provide students with a pre-determined list to
use in their assessment.

Ask the students to make their predictions on what will happen to the three solutions before and
during the practical.

Guide or provide assistance at the start of the experiment without influencing the students’
thought processes. Walk around the classroom, assisting and scaffolding where needed.

After the students record the first lot of results for the practical introduce the boxes foam spheres
representing the elements: Na (Sodium), Cl (Chloride), C12H22O11 (sugar) and H2O (water) to each
group.

- “Okay, class let’s zoom in on what’s happening to the three solutions in the freezer. I
have a box of elements and compounds of the water, salt and sugar
- Use sugar as an example: Sugar is made up of these elements Carbon, Hydrogen and
Oxygen. As a class create a 3D version of sugar (C12H22O11) using small foam spheres of
different colours for each element type. Now we can see it’s a large compound.
- Followed by: “Now what can Hydrogen and Oxygen make and what is the 3D shape of
water using the spheres?”

Discussion and evaluation of the practical.

Prepare a table for the combined results of the whole class accessible through Google Drive, and
displayed on the interactive board. Have the recorder of each group add their results to the table.

10 | P a g e
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

25 As a class discuss the predictions, errors and limitations from each group. Question and correct
mins any misconceptions the students may have.

Discuss if by dissolving salt and sugar is a chemical change or physical one, referring to the
experiment the student preformed and foam modals.

Demonstrate what the correct formula for salt water and sugar water and the how the freezing
point of water is reduced using the foam spheres.

Show video representation of why salt reduces the freezing point of water (only if time is
available)

- Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhWV2uaHaA


- Similarities in 0:50 seconds to 1:12 minutes of the video.

Discuss and compare the video with the experiment the student preformed and demonstration
with the class.

Return to the required report-style assessment, and explain what information needs to be
included

- Title, contributor names, introduction [aim, hypothesis, variables], risk assessment,


materials/equipment, methods, class results [include diagrams, images, tables],
discussion, limitations [errors], bibliography/references
- Explain the format can be as imaginative as possible: video, poster, storybook, recorded
PowerPoint, written report. Provide links to potential resources via handout.

How am I measuring the outcomes of this lesson?

Learning Outcome Method of measurement and recording

SCLS-4WS Informal formative assessment: via Kahoot

SC4-9WS Formal formative assessment: create an imaginative resource to display a


scientific report on the topic of freezing point using results attained in
class.

Academic Justification
The original lesson plan was analysed for strengths and weakness that may require
improvement, further planning or redesign, and were identified via the use of the Quality
Teaching Model (QTM) (Ladwig & Gore, 2006). Though several elements of the model were
of a high standard, others were unable to be completely determined through a written
lesson plan and would require observations. On the assumption that these are set
expectations of the teacher, these elements (i.e. student’s self-regulation, inclusivity, and
engagement) were coded to the higher end of the QTM scale. The analysis provided four
key areas that were determined to be modified for improvements. These areas are: higher-

11 | P a g e
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

order thinking (1.4), explicit quality criteria (2.1), student direction (2.6), and connectedness
(3.5).

Higher-Order Thinking (1.4)


To combat the presence of primarily lower-order thinking tasks, the lesson plan has been
modified to include the creation of a report-style resource. Therefore, students are actively
learning as they are required to evaluate the exercise and the obtained results via
experimental participation, then determine their approach to the assessment (Jones, 2016;
Ladwig & Gore, 2006). Thus, generating meaning and implications. As stated by Pretorius,
van Mourik & Barratt (2017) student engagement is key to student learning, therefore
active participation through an assessment tasks such as this engages critical thinking skills,
use of metalanguage, reflection and reasoning, thus high-order thinking. This style of
assessment also provides the teacher opportunity to assess comprehension and review
teaching practices accordingly (Jones, 2016). Similarly, the inclusion of higher-order thinking
tasks stimulate thought provoking concepts that enhance future skills within other aspects
of their life, particularly work demands (Cheng & Wan, 2017; Ladwig & Gore, 2006).

Student Direction (2.6)


The inclusion of this creative report assessment sees students exercise control over their
learning, rather than direct transmission of information from the teacher (Sturm & Bogner,
2008). Increasing the time limit associated to the experiment and discussion sections, has
allowed students to work according to their own pace. Similarly, providing students with the
opportunity to determine how creatively they will present their report opens the task to
student-directed learning by enhancing interest and therefore motivation (Ladwig & Gore,
2006; Sturm & Bogner, 2008). Allowing for exploration of task via student-direction has
been shown to increase confidence and wellbeing of students’, as well as being more likely
to achieve greater productivity, thus grades (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012; Sturm & Bogner, 2008;
Taylor, 2006). As Taylor (2006) suggests, exploration provides students with the ability to
share understanding by collaborating their peers, particularly those at various learning
stages (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012).

Explicit Quality Criteria (2.1)


The ability to provide explicit instructions and criteria requires the design of lessons to guide
specific skills of critical thinking (Marin & Halpern, 2011), therefore enabling students to

12 | P a g e
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

examine “the quality of their work” (Ladwig & Gore, 2006, p. 26). The original lesson plan
identifies where explanation occurs (e.g. safety procedures), however, not what students
are expected to have achieved by the end of the lesson and report. Instructional methods
can be displayed in a variety of ways: whole class, small group or individual, recitation,
discussion, and/or physical movement throughout the classroom (Cuban, 1982). Persistent
instruction can be observed in the modifications through the scaffolding of ideas via leading
questions as seen with the inclusion of the Kahoot and Wordle activities, provision of
detailed handouts, as well as walking around the room and overall class instruction, which is
the dominant discourse (Cuban, 1982). The emphasise of walking around the classroom also
allows teachers to note where some students may be failing, as low-achieving students can
often be left behind when focus is on higher-order tasks (Zohar & David, 2008). Therefore,
providing the opportunity to reiterate the criteria to achieve quality outcomes for each
individual student.

Connectedness (3.5)
An effective way of incorporating higher-order thinking, student-direction, and explicit
quality criteria is through connections “beyond the classroom and school” (Ladwig & Gore,
2006, p. 48), therefore creating meaning and significance, whilst promoting relevance
(Ladwig & Gore, 2006; Sheldrake, Mujtaba & Reiss, 2017). Hence the inclusion of Wordle,
allows students to make “boundary crossing[s]…between home and school” (Tal & Dierking,
2014, p. 251) thus, making the topic relevant in their own eyes, consequently increasing
intrinsic motivation and engagement (Lumsden, 1994; Tal & Dierking, 2014). Teachers
should frame tasks with examples seen within the real world (Cajas, 1999), such as the
inclusion of the question “Where do we usually seeing freezing occur?”, an instance in
which narrative can be included to inspire ideas, e.g. we see freezing in ice-cream which we
can make or eat at home, or in glacial formation with links back to climate change.
Connections such as these would then allow students to effectively express the topic of
freezing point within the discussion and limitations of the creative report.

Conclusion
Though elements intertwine, the modifications made within the lesson plan address the
QTM elements which were coded lower than other elements and required improvement.

13 | P a g e
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

For each of these four elements, justifications for the modifications were provided using
evidence of best-practice.

Learning ePortfolio
Link for the Learning ePortfolio of Tarnya Keayes, University of Western Sydney student
(student number 18577583): https://tekeayes.weebly.com/

References
Cajas, F. (1999). Public understanding of science: Using technology to enhance school

science in everyday life. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 765-773.

doi: 10.1080/095006999290426

14 | P a g e
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

Cheng, N.H.M. & Wan, Z.H. (2017). Exploring the effects of classroom learning environment

on critical thinking skills and disposition: A study of Hong Kong 12th graders in

Liberal Studies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 152-163. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.03.001

Cuban, L. (1982). Persistent instruction: The high school classroom, 1900-1980. Phi Delta

Kappa International, 64(2), 113-118.

Jones, J.A. (2016). The student-developed quiz (or exam): Scaffolding higher-order thinking.

North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture, 60(2), 262.

Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S.M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia – Social and

Behavioural Science, 31, 486-490. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091

Ladwig, J.G., & Gore, J. (2006). Professional Learning Leadership Development Directorate.

In New South Wales (Ed.), Quality teaching in NSW public schools (2nd ed.). Ryde,

N.S.W.: The Directorate.

Lumsden, L. (1994). Student motivation to learn. Emergency Librarian, 22(2), 31. Retrieved

May 15, 2019, from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9412153262&si

te=ehost-live&scope=site

Marin, L.M., & Halpern, D.F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents:

Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 1-13.

doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002

15 | P a g e
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

NSW Education Standards Authority. (2019). Learning across the curriculum. Retrieved May

15, 2019, from https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-

10/learning-areas/english-year-10/english-k-10/learning-across-the-curriculum

Pretorius, L., van Mourik, G.P., & Barratt, C. (2017). Student choice and higher-order

thinking: Using a novel flexible assessment regime combined with critical thinking

activities to encourage the development of higher order thinking. International

Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(2), 389-401.

Sheldrake, R., Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M.J. (2017). Science teaching and students’ attitudes and

aspirations: The importance of conveying the applications and relevance of science.

International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 167-183. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.002

Sturm, H. & Bogner, F.X. (2008). Student-oriented versus Teacher-centred: The effect of

learning at workstations about birds and bird flight on cognitive achievement and

motivation. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 941-959. doi:

10.1080/09500690701313995

Tal, T., & Dierking, L.D. (2014). Learning science in everyday life. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 51(3), 251-259. doi: 10.1002/tea.21142

Taylor, M. (1986). Learning for self-direction in the classroom: The pattern of a transition

process. Studies in higher education, 11(1), 55-72. doi:

10.1080/03075078612331378461

16 | P a g e
18577583_102086_LessonPlanAnalysis

Zohar, A., & David, A.B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic

classroom situations. Metacognition Learning, 3, 59-82. doi: 10.1007/s11409-007-

9019-4

17 | P a g e