Melanie+Module+2

= = = toc Title of assignment and task: = Author: Melanie Vermaak Institution: False Bay College (Central Office)

= Context of your assignment, e.g. discipline, students, level of studies =

I have chosen an Early Childhood Development at NQF level 5. The ECD level 5 students have already completed a year at NQF level 4 as well a minimum of 150 hours of in-service training during level 4. The ECD level 5 students spend 3 days a week in class and 2 days a week at their ECD sites. This means that it is easy to incorporate a practical assignment each week related to the theory that has been covered in the theory classes.

In this task, students will visit a Grade R class at a registered ECD site or Grade R class at a Primary School. Students will have to observe the outdoor and indoor play areas. Students will be expected to critically evaluate the resources at the site as well as make suggestions for improvement. Students will then be expected to create or design an indoor play area.

I consider this an __**authentic assessment**__ for the following reasons:


 * students are experiencing the real world of work as they visit thier relevant ECD sites
 * students are actively engaged in the article as there is a number of aspects that they need to observe and report on
 * students are engaged in high order cognitive thinking as they need to critically evaluate, sort, analyse and design or create an end product (i.e. design an indoor play area taking all of the relevant theory into account)

= Full task description including title of assignment and formative tasks leading up to summative task =

__Title of the summative task for ECD level 5 students: Creating Learning Environments__

The summative task consists of two sub tasks:

Task A:
 * Visit a Grade R class and observe various physical aspects at the site as well as comment on the ECD approach used at this site. Some of the approaches that students should be able to observe and identify are the Montessori method, the High-Scope approach, the Waldorf approach or the Reggio Emilis approach.
 * Students need to draw a detailed plan of the outside area including the dimensions of the play area.
 * Students need to write a report on the elements that they observe at the site including the number of children at the site and the way in which the children are divided into groups.
 * Students are expected to critically evaluate the outside play area and make suggestions on how they would improve the area. This will ensure that students observe and evaluate what they see at the site.

Task B:
 * Students need to design/create an indoor learning environment for a 3 - 4 year old group of children keeping the specific legislation in mind around how much space and what resources need to be available.
 * On the design of the indoor learning area, the various learning areas need to be identified as well as the dimensions suggested for these learning areas. Students should include areas devoted to literacy, numeracy, science/technology, sensory/art/creative activities, music/movement, construction and dramatic/fantasy play.
 * Students must also create a list of age appropriate resouces that should be included in each area to promote holistic development.
 * Students are also encouraged to provide a list of resources and suppliers of the various resouces.

This summative assessment is based on a real work experience. Students are visiting and observing an actual Grade R class. Students are able to apply the theory that they have done in class to a real life experience in a real Grade R class. There may be a number of suggestions (weaknesses) that the student is able to observe and the manner in which they present, evaluate and analyse this information will show the lecturer the level of understanding of the theory component.

(See the attached document for the task)

__Formative tasks leading up to the summative task__ Some of the formative tasks that will be used as "building blocks" to form the basis for the theory knowledge are outlined below:

= Marking grid/rubric = There is an individual rubric for each of the two tasks. The approach used in my rubric is a **weighted mark**. For each of the criteria, a rating code of 1 - 4 is used to rate the students performance. (1 = poor; 2 = average; 3 = good; 4 = excellent). Once the assessor has selected the appropriate rating code (e.g. 3) then the rating code is multiplied by the weighting of that specific criteria (e.g. weighting is 3; rating code of 3 x weighting of 3 = weighted mark for that specific criteria = 9). The reason for using this approach is that some criteria should have more weighting in the final mark and by giving each criteria a weighting, you are able to ensure a "weighted" mark.
 * Draw a mind map to outline the various resources and equipment that should be in an outside play area
 * Give students a picture of an outside play area where there are a number of issues or safety hazards. Students must then in groups discuss and make suggestions on improvements.
 * Students to draw up a list of the legal requirements (linked to legislation) that an ECD site must comply to in terms of learning environments.
 * Divide students into groups. Give each group one learning area to discuss and to then report back to the class.
 * Take an A4 page and divide into 4 quarters. Write each of the following words in one of the 4 quarters: Physical, Intellectual/Cognitive, Emotional and Social. Ask students to brainstorm in groups about the development in each of these areas. Expand on this activity later to link similar activities to show how holistic development can take place using similar activities and resources in an ECD setting.
 * Have various suppliers of educational resouces come in and set up a display to show students what interesting resources are available.

(See the attached document for the rubric) = Rationale for design based on theoretical educational literature = I have used Anderson and Krathwohl's Taxonomy (2000) as the basis for ensuring that the task represents a good balance of various cognitive levels as expected of a level 5 student. I looked at the practical task and highlighed certain action words that I could link to Anderson and Krathwohl's Taxonomy. The reason for using this approach was to ensure that I asked questions or wanted students to perform cetain tasks over a variety of cognitive levels. This is to ensure that the practical assignment is an authentic task. (See attached document explaining Anderson and Krathwohl) Action words identified in the practical task were as follows:
 * **Action words identified in task** || **Linked to levels as identified by Anderson and Krathwohl** ||
 * Observe || Understanding: Can student explain ideas or concepts ||
 * Draw a detailed plan || **Creating**: Can the student create new product or point of view? ||
 * Write a report || Understanding: Can student explain ideas and concepts? ||
 * Identify positive elements || **Analyzing**: Can student distinguish between the different parts? ||
 * Make suggestions || **Applying:** Can student use information in a new way? ||
 * Design/create a detailed plan || **Creating**: Can student create a new product or point of view? ||
 * Evaluate/Select resouces || **Evaluating**: Can student justify a stand or decision? ||
 * Reserach various suppliers of resources || **Applying**: Can the student use the information in a new way? ||
 * Organisation of information || **Applying:** Can student use the information in a new way? ||

The **highlighted** levels can be catagorised as middle or low order cognitive levels which makes this task relevant to level 5 students as it focuses on deeper learning and more high order type of questioning.

(See attached documents as referred to above)

In extending this practical I would ask students to pair up with another student in the class and share their experiences at the ECD site. I would then ask the students to report back to the class on the similarities and differences that they experienced at their different sites. This would be a good way for peers to feedback to each other and to be able to compare two diffierent ECD sites. =Peer review= Name of peer reviewer: Susan Loubser Comments: As per discussion Insert more detail about student profile's Link authentic assessment more to the scene. Include more detail / explanations on subject terminology eg ECD ; elements, safety; learning areas, development actions Change article to activity Bold task A and Task B Link Industry requirements and precision more clearly. Excellent link between assignment and formative learning activities. Well don Place extending of practical in correct time phrame

On instructions to students: replace with bullet 3.1 to link better Have students identify site

Rubric: very good. High light and underline key words Indicate clear ranges / ratio's Refer to discussion regarding spelling mistakes.

A excellent, clear and authentic piece of work. Well done my friend. =Changes implemented after peer review=