“Educators implement effective planning, instruction, assessment, and reporting practices to create respectful, inclusive environments for student learning and development”- Taken from BCTC’s Professional Standards for BC Educators

I thought I had a good grasp on what this standard truly meant from the lesson planning practice we did in Block 1 and the 6 lesson plans we did as part of our “in situ” experience at Harwin Elementary, but I was wrong. Although we did get to know our students in situ in terms of their strengths, weaknesses, interests, and more on both an individual and group classroom basis, and had the opportunity to incorporate these strengths and interests into the planning process, this was brought to a whole new level in practicum. Suddenly, I went from co-constructing 1 lesson a week for 6 weeks to planning 1-2 lessons a day, that needed to be completed 24 hours in advance, for 3 weeks straight. I took the time during the 3 consecutive Tuesdays before practicum and the first 2 days of practicum where I just observed the students. I intently focused on getting to know the students- their individual and group likes and dislikes, academic and personal strengths and weaknesses, and more. I also focused solely on developing relationships and rapport with the students because I knew that we were not going to be able to get to the learning piece, and I would not have the trust and respect of the class, if the relationship between us was not there.

During my observation time prior to Education 391 practicum, I learned that this particular group of students enjoyed drawing and colouring, hands-on activities, and the incorporation of games wherever possible. Furthermore, I also learned that their struggles were in reading (to an extent) and writing. I used this information in my planning process and included a drawing, colouring, artistic, or hands-on active game piece in every lesson I did with these students. I also minimized the emphasis on reading and writing- when these components had to be included, we did directed sentence writing with me modeling the correct completion on a document camera for the students to use and copy as a reference. Looking back on my experience, I can find a success in every lesson I taught, and I think this is a major contributing factor. I also valued collaborative practice by taking student suggestions every time they were brought to my attention- I believed that if students brought something to my attention, it was for a reason and I would only be advancing their learning experience by incorporating their wants and needs into my lesson. My planning process was also very detailed- I tried to put as much information in as possible so I knew the direction I wanted to head, as well as what I could do if things started to not go as planned and I had to pivot. I went through every lesson with my coaching teacher 24 hours prior to teaching and changed my plans as needed to incorporate her suggestions since she was the expert on her classroom and students.

Because this practicum was only three weeks, I only got the opportunity to engage in informal assessment practices. However, I did use evidence collected in a physical and discussion form, as well as evidence through observing the playing of math games centered around the Doubles and Doubles Plus 1 concepts, and I used this to make a judgement about where I would place each student on the Proficiency Scale as if I were to have to make a summative assessment report for this mini-unit in this particular instance. I shared these judgements with my coaching teacher so she could tell me if she thought I was on the right track. I know even after my 391 practicum experience that I have just scratched the surface of this standard, but I am excited to keep growing and developing in the planning, instruction, assessment, and reporting practices of the profession.