Week 2
Question 1
What model of curriculum integration (as per Drake & Reid's Integrated Curriculum as an effective way to teach 21st-century capabilities article), appeals to you and why? This question is necessarily a question about what is "doable" based on your division, etc. but what APPEALS to you as an educator and why?
Drake & Reid (2018) outline a continuum of curriculum integration: fusion, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. I can see all of them working in tandem or independently of one another and having many benefits based on grades, curriculum and the students in your class. However, I am most drawn to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches because this is how my brain naturally processes information and knowledge, so for me it makes the curriculum exciting and more meaningful. I think of knowledge more like an ecology of ideas, practices, and perspectives — it is fluid, ever changing and interconnected.
My undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies at York was deeply rooted in critical theory, postmodernism, and postcolonial thought. Much of our work was about exploring intersections: how theory, history, and lived experience overlap and shape one another. I deeply appreciate integration models that prioritize and make visible the connections, intersections, and complexity of things rather than treating knowledge and subjects as isolated islands.
In the primary grades, this is both meaningful and developmentally beneficial. Children already approach learning in an interdisciplinary way — when they wonder about the natural world, their questions are broad and offer many avenues of explanation. For example: “How is this tree growing here?”can intersect science (photosynthesis), social studies (questions of place and identity) and health (what do we need to be healthy - clean air!). Designing learning around these natural connections is more impactful than keeping subjects separate. It supports 21st-century skills like collaboration, creativity, and communication by situating them in real-world, experiential contexts.
I also find transdisciplinary approaches interesting and probably would have categorized the approach within the interdisciplinary framework. Transdisciplinary approaches are more concerned with authentic questions or problems, and has a greater emphasis on experiential learning and deeply centres itself around making the student a co-creator of their own learning. For example, a unit or long-range plan organized around “Why do we need clean water?” could merge science (states of matter, ecosystems), math (data collection on water use), literacy (persuasive writing to protect water), and art (posters, songs) into a more meaningful and in-depth inquiry. Subject boundaries dissolve, and students experience learning as integrated and complex, adding to the inquiry and adding to the potential diverse interests of a class.
Question 2
Where and how would you apply the strategies of concept formation and/or concept attainment in the long-range planning process? While you might not have nailed down the details for your LRP, simply consider the grade and subject(s). This is about playing with ideas and exploring possibilities.
Concept formation and concept attainment strategies seem to naturally lend themselves to the primary grades because they help students move beyond memorizing definitions toward building flexible, connected understandings, which will help support that growth mindset. Both approaches invite learners to notice patterns, test ideas, and refine their thinking — processes that echo how knowledge develops in an “ecology” rather than as isolated facts (McDonald, 2025; Stobach, 2019).
In long-range planning for primary, I would use these strategies as scaffolds across the year so that concepts deepen through multiple contexts. For example, in Science, when exploring “living and non-living things,” students could sort examples and non-examples (e.g., a frog vs. a rock) to discover the attributes of living organisms. Later, when studying habitats, we could revisit and expand the concept to include interdependence between living things and their environment. This recursive use of concept attainment reinforces that ideas are not static, but grow and evolve through experience.
In Math, concept formation could guide the introduction of shapes or fractions. Students might begin by grouping objects with shared features — “all things with three sides are triangles” — and later test new examples — “is this figure still a triangle if it looks stretched?”. In this way, concept formation helps to mirror hypotheses and highlight how mathematical ideas are constructed, focused more on mathematical thinking over memorization, which would help them in later grades.
Language and Social Studies also lend themselves to concept attainment. Students could distinguish between fiction and nonfiction by comparing examples, or between community roles (helpers vs. leaders vs. decision-makers). In each case, the strategy pushes them to articulate attributes, justify reasoning, and connect to prior knowledge — all critical thinking skills that transfer across disciplines.
When woven into a long-range plan, concept formation and concept attainment act as a kind of thread: each unit revisits core ideas, invites students to test and refine them, and builds towards more abstract understandings. This approach not only supports curriculum expectations, but also reflects the interdisciplinary and experiential learning I want to use in my own teaching.
Week 3:
Question 1
Based on your previous teaching experience and this week's readings, briefly describe what a well-designed group assignment would look like (based on the grades/subjects you teach). Consider factors such as group formation, the number of students in groups, group assessment and accountability.
When I think about group work, I come back to my Grade 3/4 split practicum experience where I used Peter Liljedahl’s Thinking Classroom framework. Students worked at vertical non-permanent surfaces (VNPS) to tackle the Waterloo Math Problem of the Week. The groups were three or four students, however, I did not assign roles — which is a great strategy for many subjects and projects — but in this context I wanted the cooperative learning to involve a little productive struggle. Instead, collaboration emerged from the structure itself — everyone was standing, everyone had access to the marker, and the problem was too complex for one student to solve alone. It took a few tries before groups found their rhythm, but once they did, the energy and engagement was high. Accountability came from both the visibility of their work (we taped their chart paper to the white board at the front to celebrate their thinking process) and from the consolidation discussions afterwards where groups explained their reasoning. Kids were quick to point out to each other how they participated and what they wrote, drew or said in the group. There was also a lot to learn in terms of how all voices can be heard in a group, but those discussions happened as I walked around and as we practiced the Thinking Classroom over many weeks. It encouraged a growth mindset, patience and considerable Social and Emotional Learning (SEL).
My experience with the Thinking Classroom framework echoes the readings this week. Rasooli and Brookhart (2021) emphasize that fair group work balances positive interdependence with individual accountability — a combination that prevents someone being left out while fostering collaborative skill-building. Pahomov (2018) offers practical tools like skills inventories, opening “confessionals,” and group contracts to help students reflect on their strengths and weak spots. While I didn’t use contracts in my class, we explicitly spoke about respectful voices in groups and making space for other voices, so once we are working in our groups it was a matter of practicing those guidelines and proactively engaging with the students to model this behaviour.
Complimentary to these ideas is Learning for All, which identifies Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Differentiated Instruction (DI) as foundations for effective group work (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013). UDL principles like multiple means of engagement and fostering collaboration and community (CAST, 2024) were visible in how students engaged differently at their chart paper: some drew pictures, some wrote equations, some debated strategies. That flexibility kept the task accessible while still challenging.
In my practice, I saw how well-designed group tasks in math (or other subjects) should:
- Be rooted in a low ceiling, high floor that facilitates dialogue and collaboration (Waterloo Problem of the Week is a great resource).
- Be structured to promote visibility and collaboration (like VNPS).
- Circulate to proactively engage with students and to capture individual accountability (observation, reflection, short follow-ups).
- Embed UDL/DI principles so students have multiple entry points and ways to contribute.
Question 2
Take a close read of the Tiered Approach on pages 24-26. How might the tiered approach to assessment and intervention inform your curriculum and long-range planning? In particular, how could you anticipate and embed strategies at Tier 1 (universal), while leaving space in your plan for more targeted (Tier 2) or intensive (Tier 3) supports if needed? What tools or practices could help you and your team monitor progress and adjust over time?
The Tiered Approach (pp. 24–26) gives structure to articulate UDL and DI strategies that we can weave into our long-range planning because it needs to be layered and flexible.
Tier 1 universal design is where UDL and DI are most powerful. By embedding UDL principles — like multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression — I can design lessons that are proactive in that they are accessible for everyone without needing separate plans. For example, students might have the choice to represent their understanding through visuals, oral presentations, or creative products. Differentiated Instruction also plays a role at this level, since I can design tasks with varied entry points and scaffolded complexity so that all learners can participate meaningfully.
Tier 2 targeted supports are where I imagine adding more structure for students who need it: checklists to guide project steps, small-group conferencing to reframe a concept, or sentence starters to help organize ideas. These strategies still build on the universal design, but provide a more intentional scaffold for students who need extra support.
Tier 3 intensive supports might be more individualized — one-on-one conferencing, assistive technology, or adapted timelines. These supports wouldn’t be a “separate track,” but an extension of the inclusive foundation built at Tier 1.
For monitoring progress, I generally lean away from formal tests or frequent formative quizzes. Instead, I prefer creative and authentic assessment practices that also centralize student choice:
- Portfolios or collections of work that show growth over time.
- Conferencing and dialogue as a way to assess both understanding and engagement.
- Self- and peer-assessment tools that highlight collaboration, reflection, and accountability.
- Performance-based or creative assessments (like building models, creating media, or storytelling) that allow students to demonstrate learning in ways that connect to their strengths.
This layered model helps keep Tier 1 strong and universal while leaving intentional space for Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports. It also reframes assessment as something that can be creative, relational, and flexible — more about capturing learning in different forms than about a set of formal checkpoints.
Question 3
Using the Learning for All document, briefly review Chapters 2, 3, and 4. You do not need to read Learning for All fully since you read this in previous courses, but please ensure you skim the areas that you might not have previously understood. What specific ideas, tools, or strategies (e.g., key checklists, figures, tables) will be most helpful for you and your group as you develop your curriculum maps?
My preference when learning, challenging or understanding new concepts is visuals. They help me construct, play and formulate ideas differently and allow me a creative space to conceptualize knowledge. I often use images, mind-maps and other graphic organizers to see the connections between ideas, so I have really appreciated the process of creating an analog version of our curriculum map. It is more than just a sequence of content — so visual tools help me organize, plan and adapt for a variety of learners and Learning for All offers ideas, frameworks and considerations that can be used to help develop thoughtful scope and sequence when making curriculum maps.
The UDL framework (Ch. 2) resonates with me the most. It really reminds us, “How will every student enter this task? How will they show what they know in different ways?” Which are very important initial considerations. The CAST UDL guidelines (2024) spell this out in really practical checkpoints, like optimize choice and autonomy and foster collaboration and community.
The DI planning tools and checklists (Ch. 3) are also useful for me personally, because I sometimes get caught up in creating a big, epic, super memorable learning opportunity activity rather than thinking about scaffolds and tiered entry points at the beginning of the process. The checklists remind me to build in choice and complexity, and to think about grouping intentionally. They echo Pahomov’s (2018) strategies of contracts and daily goals, which show that structure can actually create more freedom for authentic collaboration.
The theory behind both UDL and DI is that variability is the norm, not the exception. That’s a shift in mindset for me as a planner. It means that when we’re developing our curriculum map we have to balance out the coverage of expectations with the principles of UDL and DI — we have to map for flexibility, responsiveness, and inclusivity. For me, the most helpful tools will be the UDL checkpoints, DI checklists, and the visuals that act like quick “filters” for our maps. So far in our group, we have all been cognizant of UDL and DI opportunities and have been reminding each other to keep it in the forefront of the plan.
Week 5:
Question 1:
Take a moment to think about your experience in your sharing circle activity this week in Foundations class. What stood out to you about participating in this Indigenous practice?
Week 7: Thoughts
Determining Final Grades & Professional Judgement
Week 7 made clear the connection between triangulation of assessment and the role of professional judgement in determining fair and equitable final grades. Triangulation, the gathering evidence through conversations, observations, and products, I already understand as a foundational practice for accuracy, equity and student-centred learning. What this week clarified was how professional judgement is formally situated within policy and practice. According to Growing Success (2010), professional judgement is not discretionary intuition; it is a systematic interpretation of evidence grounded in curriculum expectations, the achievement chart, and principles of validity and reliability—a clear framework to amalgamate into my teaching practice.
The EduGAINS Determining a Final Grade illustrated how teachers evaluate learning by attending to relevant, recent, and most consistent evidence, rather than numerical averaging or a bell curve as is used here. This approach ensures that early attempts or unfamiliar assessment formats do not disproportionately influence a student’s overall achievement, because triangulated evidence and evaluation strengthens both fairness and accuracy in reporting.
Week 7 also reinforced how reporting is integrated into the broader assessment cycle and by understanding the structure and intent of Ontario’s provincial report cards (reporting as a continuation of instructional decision-making) it becomes less a separate administrative, arduous task. Reading Volante, DeLuca, and Klinger (2023) further emphasized the importance of transparency and authentic evidence, especially in an educational environment increasingly shaped by digital and AI-supported tools—affecting profoundly the educational landscape.
I will takeaway how professional judgement, and policy frameworks collectively support consistent, defensible, and equity-focused evaluation practices. The completed Anticipation Guide captures these key understandings and serves as a reference point for both reporting and professional conversations about assessment, and the guide itself I will definitely use in the future.
Are you in the right place?
Please double check you're on the right website before proceeding! This is a DLP for an Ontario Tech University Teacher Candidate. Thank you!