My selection of data instruments was significantly influenced after a consultation with my mentor and the fact that I would be teaching a numeracy units on measurements. Therefore, after the analysis of the test with my instructor, I managed to come up with an initial test to confirm the student knowledge and understanding of the free units of measurements. The results from the students were collected on the dashboard, and I manage to draw a graph for further analysis. The students who show more understanding were given two marks while the others one mark. These techniques assisted me to understand the strengths and weaknesses of some of the class that I was given, and from there I could touch on the gaps in the students understanding. I, therefore, come to understand that the method was successful as indicated the two vital areas which were mass and capacity (Onwuegbuzie, Leech & Collins, 2010).
I come to understand the students’ level after the assessment test was completed. The student profile was constructed on each of the student giving much of the relevant information such the academic strengths, the weaknesses and also the emotional values as well as the physical status. The method proved to be useful in the collection of data as it provided accurate and most reliable information on each of the students. Perhaps the data which indicated the ability level combined with the teaching instructions proved to be the most important aspect of using to ensure that the entire student had a chance to succeed. Additionally, the diverse student nature in languages meant that the learning would only be effective through hands-on delivery and personal experience based (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2013).
Perhaps during the data collection process, I found myself assigning identities to the students to their academic level and the general background. Therefore, because Goodna is in a low social, economic area, I perceived that the students would be challenging regarding class attendance and behavior (Mills, 2006). Many of the students were indigenous; I automatically believed that they had the low level of understanding and numeracy. During the process data collection, I come to realize that all perception and thoughts that I had in me and I come to realize that they were false. I realized that many of the students were at a year level standard or above and one student was being tested to find out whether they have some talents or not. Therefore, based on this, I came to understand that it is not right to characterized students based on my cultural beliefs.
The data instrument impacted my knowledge on the students’ abilities in class through the academic graphs that were drawn indicating the information about each of the students based on education capabilities (Mills, 2006). The data was able to give the academic details of the entire class, and therefore, I was able to make some informed conclusions based on the details on performance. This information derived from the data allowed for an effective dialogue between the teachers and the parents. Therefore, in the current data collection method, I would change the manual aspect of it and use the advanced technological methods of analysis.
Before, I interpreted data as if they were just achieved data. Fortunately, after my placement in Goodna state schools, I learned that data collection is a side concept. I have learned that data collection involves tracing of all the aspects of a student’s school life and the extreme situations that might affect the performance for example family trauma and maybe drug abuse. I have learned that the more informed the teacher becomes through the data analysis, the more learning becomes easy and effective (Mills, 2006).
The baseline data indicated the percentage the child had prior and then it showed the understanding and the knowledge of the informal units and perhaps what the students demonstrated some weaknesses. Moreover, the data information that was collected assisted in the understanding of the students’ levels and their strength and weakness and more so on how best the learning plan should be done. Therefore, the targeted result that involved group work on that concept had shown an increase in the result due to the informative skills of the data (Van der Laan & Rose, 2011).
The data that was gained was very instrumental in the focus of the formative task through the achieved validation of the effective pedagogy. However, I was not able to create summative and task of my own since the school followed the C2C curriculum system. This happened because my mentor thought that coming up with my assessment would be difficult tasks, so I supported the idea. I then applied the backward design to come up with a learning plan from the class profile suggestions (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2007).
The learning theories
Based on behaviorism, I observed the two students behavior for two days and realized that they were showing the actions based on the distinct environment. For instance, I learned that grouping some students together during class work would automatically be the problem. This medium was evident during the come to know me the activity that took place in the school. Therefore, the learning behaviors theory played a significant role in learning the work of the students. Social constructivism is a theory that was found in psychology that explains how people might acquire skills and knowledge. In humanism, learning was student centered and personalized, and the role of the educator is just to facilitate (Harris & Hofer, 2011).
Inclusivity was addressed through each of the learning experience using differentiation. The fact meant that each of the students received a curriculum plan while others received an adjustment to the content. Therefore, I was able to work with my mentor to come up with the three level based on the student’s ability and performance. And therefore, through this, we assumed that all the students would be served appropriately (Healey, 2012).
It was achieved through following the C2C document closely with my mentor. Therefore, I could design a learning experience where the student could show their knowledge and understanding of some key important issues (Mills, 2006).
According to the information, I received from my mentor who advised me to make the whole process simple especially during implementation (Mills, 2006). Therefore, I managed to pick on one concept and focused on them to make sure that they made a difference.
I can say that the whole process is comfortable to work on especially in the bid of trying to understand the students and give them the right skills and information.
Through the entire process, I have learned that the more data you collect and analyze, the more it is possible to plan to the individual’s needs of each of the students that you are teaching and therefore in the future. I will try to collect more data in whatever I take part in (Mills, 2006).
Garrison, C., & Ehringhaus, M. (2007). Formative and summative assessments in the classroom.
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.
Healey, P. (2012). The universal and the contingent: Some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. Planning Theory, 11(2), 188-207.
Mills, G. E. (2006). Guide for the teacher researcher. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. (2010). Innovative data collection strategies in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 15(3), 696.
Van der Laan, M. J., & Rose, S. (2011). Targeted learning: causal inference for observational and experimental data. Springer Science & Business Media.