UA1 Leicester and Leicestershire SCITT (SECONDARY)

School of Education

Leicester and Leicestershire SCITT (SECONDARY) – University Assignment 1 (UA1)

Detailed Guidance for Assignment 1

Critical Reflections on Classroom Practice

Formative assessment submission: Friday 24th October 2025 10am Submission date: Friday 2nd January 2026 10am

Critical Reflections on Classroom Practice is a 30-credit level 7 module as part of the School of Education’s SCITT Postgraduate Certificate of Education programme.

There is a great deal of complexity around the notions of learning and teaching. This module aims to provide the building blocks for your developing understanding of how pupils learn and the implications for your classroom practice. During this module, we will explore different schools of thought of how pupils may learn and different approaches to teaching and learning. You will draw upon this theoretical understanding to inform your classroom practice.

At the end of this module, students should be able to: 1. reflect critically on classroom practice

demonstrate a sound understanding of learning and teaching in schools, within National Curriculum expectations; and
access and engage with relevant research into key curriculum areas, including the use of appropriate assessment.

Transferable Skills Learning Outcomes

By the end of the module, participants will:

locate, organise and review evidence from published literature, including using a range of web-based resources (research skills and use of information technology);
report on the findings of the review of literature to construct critical arguments relevant to practice (research skills); and
use theory and practice learned from the course to reflect on own professional practice (managing learning).

This assignment is based around your reflections on and understanding of how learning theories influence the decisions made when planning for pupil progress.

You will be able to demonstrate your understanding of learning theories through a literature review based on your chosen learning theories. This will demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of key concepts and how this impacts on pedagogical decisions made in the classroom. You will then demonstrate how you have incorporated this understanding into a lesson plan to support pupil progress. This critical analysis and application of the learning theories will be supported by your observation of the impact on pupils’ learning and behaviours. Any reflections and observations will be linked to relevant research and learning theories to further support you in your developing practice as a teacher.

The assignment consists of a 4000 word report and a 1000 word equivalent portfolio of evidence.

Preparing for your assignment

During the Autumn term:

Preparation around critical reflections through the work of Brook field and his four reflective lenses
Key readings which will help to focus your thinking–these will be signposted in your Pedagogy and Assessment sessions and are available through the reading list available on Blackboard
Access to reading lists; you should read widely than just the reading list and make carefulnotes.
The opportunity to develop understanding around key theories of pupils’ learning through structured collaborative activity.
Write the first section of the assignment and receive formative feedback on this.

Activities to complete in your school placement

These activities will be explained in more detail during the Pedagogy and Assessment sessions. You will have support from your mentor in completing these activities.

School-based activities for this assignment include:

Observing pupils through the lens of learning theories you have researched
Observing your mentor’s teaching through the lens of learning theories you have researched · Planning a lesson to teach to the whole class
Evaluating this lesson through the lens of pupil progress

PGCE Taught Sessions

Date	Session content	Location
22nd August	University induction Introduction to Student Services Being reflective Making observations	University main campus Sir Bob Burgess Building Room 1.03
8th September	Introduction to UA1 Academic Writing Referencing Critical reading and writing Use of English Linking theory and practice – revisiting learning theories Revisiting observing learning	University main campus Sir Bob Burgess Building Room 0.03
13th – 17th Oct	How Pupils Learn Focus Week
7th November	Deconstructing planning and evaluations Linking theory and practice – revisiting Learning theories and links to pedagogical decisions	University main campus Sir Bob Burgess Building Room 2.04

The Pedagogy and Assessment sessions in the Autumn term will give you the theoretical underpinning for this assignment as well as the practical understanding around planning and evaluation.

Writing your assignment

This is our suggested structure for your essay:

Title: Critical Reflections on Classroom Practice	Recommended word length
Introduction to the assignment Introduce and define key terms related to the title of this assignment. Brief rationale for how this assignment should inform your first school experience. Inform the reader of your context (e.g. Subject). Signpost how you will be structuring the assignment.	200
Introduction to learning theories In this section, you should demonstrate your awareness of the existence of the different Schools of thought about how pupils learn (e.g. Behaviourism, Constructivism, Social Constructivism, cognitive science). You should keep in sight your chosen age range and the implications of child development in your discussions here and throughout the assignment. This is a broad overview of the different thinking around how pupils learn before the tighter focus around your chosen Schools of thought in the next section	300
Literature Review This section sets the scene for your study and is based upon your reading. Summarise and discuss key aspects of research on two chosen Schools of thought (e.g. cognitive science and Social Constructivism). Include some generic relevant research on key theorists relevant to these chosen Schools of thought. Once you have outlined the Schools of thought you will focus on, you will want to pick out key theories and theorists to focus on within your assignment (i.e. if you have chosen Social Constructivism, you may want to focus more on the work of Vygotsky and less on the work of Bruner). You should select for discussion, the learning theories most relevant to your assignment. You do not have to cover every theorist we have examined through the course so far. Once you have outlined your understanding of the key theories, make reference to how this relates to key pedagogical approaches (i.e. modelling, worked examples, scaffolding, retrieval). Conclude the review with a very brief outline of the key ideas presented as a link into the rest of the assignment. Your review will demonstrate your understanding of how pupils learn and therefore you should aim to critically analyse your readings, rather than just describe each one. Explaining why this literature is relevant to your reports topic will help keep it focused. Also, include any alternative views and perspectives. Your literature review will provide the platform from which you analyse and reflect on your lesson planning. Try to make links between key ideas and structure your review so that your line of thinking is clear to the reader. You should use themes with subheadings to help you with structuring.	1500
Reflections This section is where you will demonstrate your critical reflection using the literature you have presented in the literature review. Introduce Brookfield’s Lenses here making reference to why this is useful for reflecting on your practice and pupil progress. Your reflections will be loosely based around this model and this needs explaining to the reader. When discussing the key pedagogical decision made in your planning, look at it through the lenses of: – your perspective and the decisions you made – the discussion you had with your mentor as part of the planning process – the observations you have made on how pupils learn and how your mentor has designed learning (you may want to include these in your appendices). You will explain how this has informed some of your pedagogical decisions – how you planned to enable learning for pupils – the theory and research/readings you introduced in the literature review do NOT make reference to any other reading / research / learning theories that you have not included in the literature review. When discussing your evaluation of the taught lesson, look at it through the lenses of: – the progress of the pupils – your mentor’s perspective – your perspective on the impact of the pedagogical decisions you made to support the progress of pupils – the theory and research/readings you introduced in the literature review do NOT make reference to any other reading / research / learning theories that you have not included in the literature review. Make reference to the detail that is included on the annotated lesson plan and evaluation in your appendices	1500
Conclusion This should cover two things. Firstly, it should summarise your main findings and outline what you have learned from the study and how this would benefit your own practice. Secondly, reflect on how you might have changed the lesson plan using your reflections and observations. You may want to raise some further questions for your own independent study.	500
Reference list You must include a references list at the end of your report. (Call it ‘References’ rather than ‘Bibliography’.) References should only include the texts that you actually reference or quote from in the final version of your assignment. You should list these alphabetically in the order of each first author’s surname and in chronological order of publication if you are citing more than one text by the same author. Ensure you follow the University of Leicester’s Harvard referencing conventions.	Not included in word count
Appendices Portfolio of evidence This should contain your lesson plan and your evaluation that is clearly annotated and highlighted to show relevant passages and comments and your reflections on these. There should be a clear system for referring to evidence in your appendices in the main report e.g. (Appendix 1; Appendix 2). The portfolio annotations should be used to support the quality of discussion in the report. To be able to show the links between theory and practice, ensure that you also refer to the literature that you presented in the literature review. You should still continue to follow Harvard Referencing in this part of your assignment. This is your opportunity to demonstrate a deeper critical reflection on these documents. There will be support in the taught sessions around what this can look like and how to ensure you are critically reflecting on this evidence.	1000 words

Word Count

The word count for this assignment is 4000 words for the report. You should stick to this word count and the assignment is designed in such a way that you should be able to. There is a +/-10% word limit but if you use this to a significant extent a comment will be made on the feedback form. This could affect your overall grade for the assignment

The portfolio is regarded as equivalent to 1000 words in length.

Before you submit your assignment

Ensure you have answered the assignment brie
Ensure you follow the presentation style guide.
Ensure you have carefully proof-read your work – for tips how to do this see the resources in the Academic Support section of Blackboard.
Ensure you have completed the plagiarism tutorial.
Check you have referenced accurately. If you are unsure refer to the University of Leicester Harvard referencing manual. A link is provided in the Academic Support section of Blackboar

Before you submit any assignment, you must complete the following tutorial: Complete ‘Don’t cheat yourself: A tutorial to help you avoid plagiarism.’

Formative Feedback. Hand in date: Friday 24th October 2025, 10am

In order to offer all trainees high quality support for your development in writing at master’s level, according to the University of Leicester conventions, the SCITT will provide formative feedback on 750 words of the assignment, to include a references list (not included in the word count). This 750 words should cover the ‘Introduction to Learning Theories’ and the first 450 words of the Literature Review. This should be submitted via Turnitin on Blackboard.

Completed UA1 assignment Hand in date on TurnitIn: Friday 2nd January 2026, 10am

This should be submitted through the Turnitin portal on Blackboard. Please submit as one assignment including your appendices.

FormativeAssessment ED7606 Feedback Critical Reflections on Classroom Practice

Name

Please attach this sheet to the front of your formative piece for your submission. You must complete the self-assessment rating yourself against each of the criteria set (delete as appropriate)

	Student Assessment	Tutor Assessment
I have followed the presentation style guide	Confident / some confidence / little confidence	Not met / Partially met / Met
I have referenced using the University of Leicester Harvard referencing system including a reference list	Confident / some confidence / little confidence	Not met / Partially met / Met
I have referred to texts that are on the reading list	Confident / some confidence / little confidence	Not met / Partially met / Met
My submission is no longer than 750 words excluding references	Confident / some confidence / little confidence	Not met / Partially met / Met
My Introduction to Learning Theories demonstrates I understand the key Schools of Thought around learning	Confident / some confidence / little confidence	Not met / Partially met / Met
I have structured my writing using sub-headings so it easy for the reader to follow	Confident / some confidence / little confidence	Not met / Partially met / Met
The extract of my literature review demonstrates critical engagement with pertinent literature and a clear understanding of the schools of thought around learning	Confident / some confidence / little confidence	Not met / Partially met / Met
I have used punctuation accurately · Comma Full stop Apostrophe	Confident / some confidence / little confidence	Not met / Partially met / Met
My sentences make sense (remember you can read aloud to support you to spot errors or use the read aloud option in word in the review tab)	Confident / some confidence / little confidence	Not met / Partially met / Met

Student overall comment:

Marking Tutor Comment and next steps:

Marked by:

UA1 Example B Seconadry – Languages

School of Education

Introduction:

While the process of critical reflection can be understood in various ways, it is generally described as the process of analysing, reconsidering, and questioning experiences within a framework of deeper understanding (Ash, 2009). A critical reflection in education involves an examination of one’s teaching practice to “enhance instructional effectiveness” (Larrivee, 2000). It requires teachers to analyse classroom experiences, identify areas of success and challenges, and adapt their methods accordingly. The primary goal is to support teachers in becoming more self-aware and responsive to their students’ needs, improving learning outcomes through informed changes in pedagogy (Zeichner, 2010).

This assignment will explore different learning theories and their pedagogical implications, the literature review section of this assignment will critically discuss the constructivist and cognitive science theories of learning, examining their influence on educational practice. Brookfield’s lenses will be used to reflect on my own teaching practice, drawing on experiences from my first placement in a diverse, smaller-than-average secondary school. Obtaining reflective skills and understanding learning theories has been invaluable in improving my lesson planning, delivery, and reflections, ultimately enhancing my awareness of how students learn.

Introduction to learning theories:

Learning theories provide a conceptual framework that help to explain how people acquire knowledge or skill, interpret classroom activity, and plan teaching (Pritchard, 2017). The four principal learning theories which aim to describe the process of learning are behaviourism, constructivism, humanism, and cognitive science, each offering unique insights into the processes of learning and development. When teachers align their methods with learning theories; it can lead to more tailored instruction, fostering deeper understanding and improving overall educational outcomes through informed, student-centred approaches (Khalil, 2016).

Behaviourism focuses on observable behaviours and suggests that learning occurs through conditioning, without the need to appeal to thoughts or emotions. Pavlov’s classical School of Education conditioning demonstrated that “two stimuli could be linked to produce a learned response”, influencing how emotional reactions can be shaped by past experiences (Clark, 2004).

Skinner furthered the behaviourist theory by introducing operant conditioning, in which positive, or negative reinforcement strengthens behaviour (Delprato, 1992). In education, behaviourist principles are used by educators to encourage desirable behaviours and discourage unwanted ones through reinforcement strategies.

Constructivism argues that learners actively build their understanding through experiences and interactions. Piaget suggested that children develop cognitively through stages of adaptation, using processes such as assimilation and accommodation (Sjoberg, 2010). Another key theorist, Bruner, emphasised the importance of active exploration in learning; adding onto this, Montessori’s promoted “individualised learning and self-paced discovery” within education (Montessori, 2013). These theorists assert that learners construct schemas, or mental frameworks, through which they interpret the world. Social constructivism builds on constructivism, positing that knowledge is constructed through interaction with others (Amineh, 2015). Vygotsky’s social development theory highlights the importance of social interactions in guiding cognitive development, particularly through the Zone of Proximal Development (Daniels, 1996).

Cognitive science explores the physical and biological processes underlying learning. Dweck’s mindset theory differentiates between a fixed mindset, where abilities are seen as static, and a growth mindset, where abilities can “develop through effort” (Bernecker, 2019). Adding onto this, Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory examines how much information the working memory can process at one time, suggesting that instruction should minimise cognitive overload (Sweller, 1991). Rosenshine’s Principles of Direct Instruction integrate cognitive science into teaching practices, emphasising reviewing material, questioning, and sequencing learning effectively (Ronsenshine, 2012).

Finally, in contrast to behaviourism, humanism focuses on the individual learner’s personal and emotional growth. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs proposes that students must have basic needs met, such as safety and belonging before they can achieve higher-order learning (McLeod, 2007). These humanist principles suggest that supporting a student’s emotional well-being is critical to fostering a positive learning environment (Heidegger, 1993).

Literature Review:

Constructivism:

Constructivism as a learning theory has profoundly influenced educational practices, particularly in terms of understanding how students construct knowledge. Emerging from the works of key theorists such as Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner, constructivism posits that learning is an active, contextualised process where learners build their understanding through interaction with their environment and others (Rovengo, 2006, p242). Despite its transformative impact on pedagogy, areas of disagreement among theorists and debates around its application remain, making it a nuanced framework to explore in the context of teaching English in a secondary school.

Jean Piaget’s cognitive constructivism emphasises the role of individual discovery and development in learning. Piaget theorised that children progress through stages of cognitive development: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational, each marked by qualitative differences in thinking (Babakr, 2019, p518). He argued that learning occurs as students integrate new information into existing schemas or accommodate their schemas to incorporate new experiences (Piaget, 1952). This suggests that children’s ability to grasp abstract concepts, such as themes in Romeo and Juliet for example, depends on their cognitive readiness.

However, critics argue that Piaget’s theory underestimates the role of social interaction in learning. Vygotsky’s social constructivism offers a contrasting perspective by emphasising the social and cultural dimensions of learning (Stetsenko, 1997, p165). Vygotsky introduced the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which represents the gap between what a learner can achieve independently and what they can achieve with guidance (Vygotsky, 1978). Scaffolding, a pedagogical technique fixed in Vygotsky’s ideas, involves providing temporary support to help students bridge this gap. For instance, in teaching An Inspector Calls in Key Stage 4, scaffolding might include guiding questions to help students analyse Priestley’s critique of capitalism before expecting them to independently assess its relevance to contemporary society.

While Piaget and Vygotsky both highlight the active role of learners, their theories differ on the means that drive learning. Piaget’s emphasis on individual exploration contrasts with Vygotsky’s focus on collaborative learning, underscoring a key area of disagreement (Lourenco, 2012, p289). This has pedagogical implications such as the idea whether teachers should “prioritise independent activities or collaborative discussions” that draw on peer insights (Khadidja, 2020).

Bruner further enriched constructivist thoughts by introducing the concept of discovery learning and the spiral curriculum. Bruner argued that students learn best when they “actively discover relationships and principles for themselves” (Dowding, 1992, p22). His spiral curriculum theory suggests that revisiting topics at increasing levels of complexity helps reinforce and deepen understanding (Dowding, 1992, p22). In an English classroom, this might involve revisiting themes across multiple texts, enabling students to build a more complex analysis over time. Bruner’s work bridges Piaget’s focus on individual discovery and Vygotsky’s emphasis on scaffolding, advocating for a balanced approach.

Critics of constructivism, however, argue that it risks placing “too much responsibility on the learner” (Liu, 2005, p391). Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) contend that minimal guidance approaches, often associated with constructivist pedagogy, can overwhelm students and hinder learning. They advocate for explicit instruction, particularly for novice learners who lack foundational knowledge. (Liu, 2005, p392) This criticism highlights the importance of tailoring constructivist strategies to students’ needs, particularly in secondary English teaching, where textual analysis requires both foundational knowledge and complex thinking.

Constructivist principles have direct implications for pedagogical approaches in secondary English classrooms. Modelling, for instance, aligns with Vygotsky’s notion of guided learning within the ZPD. By modelling how to construct an answer, teachers provide students with a clear framework before encouraging independent practice. Similarly, worked examples, structured demonstrations of problem-solving, support Cognitive Load Theory by reducing the demands on students’ working memory, enabling them to focus on learning key processes (Sweller, 1988). Scaffolding and retrieval practice further show the relevance of constructivist strategies. These approaches complement constructivism by scaffolding students’ transition from novice to expert learners (Kim, 2011, p412).

While constructivism offers valuable insights, its limitations highlight the need for a balanced approach (Karagiorgi, 2005, p20). Combining constructivist strategies with explicit instruction ensures that students receive the guidance they need to succeed. By integrating constructivist principles with evidence-based practices, it is possible to create a supportive and challenging learning environment that fosters both independence and teamwork (Rovengo, 2006, p242).

In conclusion, constructivism provides a robust framework for understanding how students learn, with theorists such as Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner offering balancing and contrasting perspectives. These theories inform key pedagogical approaches, including scaffolding, modelling, and retrieval practice, which are essential to effective teaching. By critically engaging with constructivist principles and adapting them to students’ needs, teachers can create meaningful learning experiences that empower students to construct knowledge and develop critical thinking skills.

Cognitive Science:

Cognitive science explores the processes underlying learning, memory, and problem-solving, offering valuable insights for educational practices. Embedded in the work of theorists such as John Sweller, Richard Mayer, and David Ausubel, cognitive science emphasises the importance of understanding how “learners process and retain information” (Ausubel, 2012). While this framework has significantly influenced pedagogical strategies, areas of debate exist, particularly regarding the balance between direct instruction and active learning (Koedinger, 2012, p776).

John Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is a foundation of cognitive science, highlighting the limitations of the working memory in processing new information. Sweller argues that learning is most effective when cognitive load is minimised, allowing working memory to focus on encoding and moving information into long-term memory (Sweller, 1988). This theory differentiates between intrinsic load (task complexity), extraneous load (unnecessary cognitive effort), and germane load (effort directed toward learning). In a classroom, specifically in English, CLT would suggests that tasks such as analysing complex metaphors in poetry should be scaffolded to reduce extraneous load and focus on germane processing.

However, critics of CLT argue that it may oversimplify the nature of learning. Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) advocate for explicit instruction, particularly for learners, challenging that unguided or minimally guided instruction can overwhelm working memory (Clark et al, 2012, p8). In contrast, supporters of constructivist approaches, such as Vygotsky and Bruner, argue for the importance of discovery learning and collaborative problem-solving (Ozdem-Yilmaz, 2020, p180). These differing perspectives highlight an ongoing debate on whether teachers should prioritise direct instruction or encourage active exploration.

Richard Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) complements CLT by focusing on how learners integrate visual and auditory information (Mayer, 2005). Mayer states that effective learning occurs when instructional materials align with the processing capabilities of working memory (Mayer, 2005). For example, presenting a visual representation of a narrative structure alongside verbal explanations can enhance students’ comprehension of complex texts, such as Shakespearean plays.

David Ausubel’s meaningful learning theory also offers valuable insights, emphasising the role of “prior knowledge in adapting new information” (Sexton, 2020, p169). Ausubel’s concept of advance organisers, (introductory material presented before learning), helps students create a cognitive framework for integrating new knowledge. While Ausubel’s theory supports structured teaching approaches, it also acknowledges the importance of engaging students’ existing knowledge, bridging cognitive science and constructivist principles.

Despite their contributions, cognitive science theories face criticism for their perceived over-reliance on laboratory-based research, which may not fully show the “complications of classroom dynamics” (Jackson, 2000, p323). Additionally, some argue that an excessive focus on reducing cognitive load risks ignoring the importance of challenge and engagement in learning. Bjork’s (1992) concept of desirable difficulties opposes this critique by suggesting that introducing manageable challenges enhances long-term retention; encouraging teachers to design tasks that include a balance between cognitive load and productive struggle (Moore, 2024).

The implications of cognitive science for secondary English teaching are profound. Retrieval practice, a strategy embedded in cognitive science, reinforces learning by prompting students to recall information, thereby strengthening memory pathways. Similarly, spacing (distributing learning over time), enhances retention, suggesting that revisiting themes or literary devices across multiple lessons is more effective than forcing them into one (Son, 2012, p383). Dual coding, another cognitive science principle, integrates verbal and visual information to enhance understanding. In teaching Romeo and Juliet, for instance, combining a diagram of the play’s structure with textual analysis helps students visualise the story progression. This approach aligns with Mayer’s CTML and supports students in managing intrinsic cognitive load.

In conclusion, cognitive science provides a strong framework for understanding how students learn. By critically engaging with cognitive science principles and adapting them to the classroom context, teachers can create learning experiences that “support memory, comprehension, and critical thinking” (McGilly, 1994). However, the ongoing debates within cognitive science underscore the need for a balanced and flexible approach, ensuring that teaching practices remain responsive to the diverse needs of learners.

Reflections:

After exploring the literature on constructivism and cognitive science, I planned a year 9 English poetry lesson in a secondary school in Leicester looking at how some poets propagated propaganda in their poetry, including elements from both theories. The success criteria for my lesson were for students to understand what propaganda is and how they feel about it, read and annotate the poem ‘Who’s for the game’ by Jessie Pope, and answer the question ‘how did some poets propagate propaganda in their poetry?’.

In this section I will reflect on how the learning theories influenced the decisions I mademwhen planning for pupil progress ensuring they can meet the success criteria of the lesson, I will also discuss my evaluation of the taught lesson. I will reflect on this lesson using Brookfield’s lenses which are four perspectives for critical reflection: the learner’s view, feedback from colleagues (my mentor in this case), personal experiences, and theoretical frameworks (Brookfield, 1995).

Reflection on Planning: Students Eyes:

In planning a lesson on how poets use propaganda in their poetry, I reflected on students’ perspectives and progress from the previous lesson, for example in their prior lesson, I observed high engagement when students participated in a recall activity using bingo. To build on this, I incorporated bingo at the start of the lesson to review poetic techniques. This activity not only checked prior knowledge but also energised students and provided an accessible, engaging entry point into the lesson (Appendix 2). The recall aims to strengthen memory retention, helping students solidify their prior knowledge making it easier for them to apply this understanding to new concepts, especially those needed within this lesson (Karpicke, 2012, p160).

Similarly, I noticed students were highly engaged when annotating a poem as a class under the visualiser in their previous lessons. Therefore, I structured the planned lesson around the “I do, we do, you do” approach to annotate the text ‘Who’s for the game’ by Jessie Pope (Appendix 1). This approach ensured that students gradually build confidence and independence in their learning. By modelling, guiding, and then allowing independent practice, I aimed to scaffold their understanding of how poets use language to influence their audience and then apply it to their paragraph writing task at the end of the lesson.

To reinforce high expectations and routines, I also planned to explicitly instruct students to stick in their poems, write the date and title, and underline them before starting the retrieval bingo task. Clear structuring the lesson, especially at the beginning and the end, ensures students understand what is expected, promoting focus and consistency in their learning environment (Fink et al, 1989).

Colleagues’ Perceptions:

In this section, I will reflect on the feedback I received from my mentor when discussing my lesson plan with her. After presenting my plan, my mentor emphasised the importance of modelling and noted how effectively students engage with it, particularly the “I do, we do, you do” approach. My mentor highlighted that this structure not only positively impacts student learning but also prepares them to work independently by gradually reducing support. She was pleased to see this incorporated into my plan and found it highly beneficial for scaffolding the students’ learning.

Additionally, she praised the planned timings and balance in the lesson, noting how well the scaffolding was planned to be removed at appropriate intervals. She appreciated that I allocated equal time to the “I do,” “we do,” and “you do” sections, ensuring a steady transition to independence. Her feedback reinforced the importance of careful pacing to maximise student understanding and success (Brophy, 1986, p1069).

Personal Experience:

When planning, I focused on how to assess students’ understanding and identify misconceptions effectively. To support their progress, I planned to use live marking during the lesson, particularly when students were writing their final paragraphs in response to the big question. As I circulated the classroom, I planned to provide immediate feedback by highlighting strengths and addressing errors or misunderstandings on the spot, as well as marking their spelling, punctuation, and grammar there and then to give them the opportunity to improve it before the end of the lesson.

I chose this approach because live marking allows me to address misconceptions in real time, ensuring students don’t continue with inaccurate ideas (Wren, 2010). It also helps maintain momentum during the task, as students can revise their work immediately rather than waiting for feedback later (Wren, 2010). By circulating the classroom, I could also gauge the overall understanding across the group, identifying any common issues that might require whole-class clarification. Additionally, live marking encourages a sense of accountability, as students are more likely to focus on their work knowing that I will review it during the lesson.

Theoretical Framework:

Whilst planning my lesson, I drew on principles from both constructivism and cognitive science to support student progress. The “I do, we do, you do” approach aligns closely with Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Shabani, 2010, p241). Modelling annotations under the visualiser (I do) served as a scaffold, helping students navigate complex poetic analysis before transitioning to collaborative work (we do) and independent practice (you do). By ensuring that each stage was purposeful and clearly linked to the next, this gradual release of responsibility allowed students to build confidence and skills within a supportive framework (Appendix 1) (Fisher, 2021).

The use of retrieval practice, such as the bingo activity at the start, draws on cognitive science principles, particularly Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). Retrieval strengthens memory pathways, supporting long-term retention and reducing cognitive overload by allowing students to consolidate their knowledge gradually (Appendix 2) (Zhou, 2013). By choosing an engaging format, I also used Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML), which suggests that interactive tasks can enhance learning by stimulating both visual and verbal channels (Appendix 2) (Sorden, 2012, p18). This activity also aimed to increase students’ motivation and enthusiasm, creating a positive learning environment that encouraged participation and collaboration.

Finally, scaffolding the annotation task addressed Cognitive Load Theory by breaking down the complexity of poetic analysis into manageable stages, ensuring students could focus on the key learning objectives without becoming overwhelmed (Salleh, 2018, p80). This approach aligns with Bruner’s spiral curriculum, where concepts are revisited at increasing levels of complexity, promoting deeper understanding (Appendix 1) (Dowding, 1993, p22). By using these strategies, I was able to establish a structured yet student-centred lesson that promoted active engagement (Peschl, 2001, p145).

Reflection on Evaluation:

Students Eyes:

Reflecting on the delivery of the lesson, I observed that all students engaged well with the success criteria, which included understanding and analysing propaganda in poetry. By referencing the annotations I made at the beginning, the ones we made together as well as the ones they did themselves, students were able to apply their knowledge effectively to answer the big question, “How do poets use propaganda in their poetry?”. During class discussions, students confidently shared their ideas, building on each other’s responses and deepening their understanding. By the end of the lesson, all students had met the success criteria and provided detailed responses, showing a strong understanding of the technique’s poets use to convey propaganda. They were able to give specific examples from the text to support their answers, demonstrating clear progress in their ability to analyse poetry independently.

Colleagues Perceptions:

My mentor’s evaluation of the lesson focused on the clarity and structure of my teaching (Appendix 5). She particularly highlighted the strong use of modelling, which helped students engage with the content and build confidence in applying their knowledge independently. She was pleased to see that the students met the success criteria and answered the big question in great detail by the end of the lesson. She also appreciated how the retrieval practice at the start helped reinforce prior knowledge, seting a solid foundation for the rest of the lesson. She felt the lesson was well-paced and effective in supporting student progress.

Personal Experience:

Reflecting on my pedagogical decisions, I feel that the strategies I implemented significantly supported the progress of my students. The use of retrieval practice at the beginning of the lesson helped activate prior knowledge, making the transition to new material smoother and reinforcing key concepts (Buchin, 2023, p22). The ‘I do, we do, you do’ model was particularly effective in scaffolding students understanding, allowing them to gradually build independence while still feeling supported. By circling the room and live marking their final paragraphs, I was able to provide timely feedback, addressing misconceptions on the spot and ensuring all students had a clear understanding before moving on.

I believe these approaches not only kept students engaged but also empowered them to take ownership of their learning, resulting in their ability to answer the big question with confidence and detail by the end of the lesson. For future lessons, I will continue to refine my use of live marking to provide more targeted support and ensure I’m addressing individual misconceptions more effectively.

Theoretical Framework:

In my lesson, I applied Piaget’s constructivism by scaffolding learning with the “I do, we do, you do” approach, ensuring students could gradually build on their prior knowledge and become ready for more complex tasks (Appendix 3) (Van Kuyk, 2011). Vygotsky’s ZPD was key to supporting students’ development by modelling the annotation process and guiding them through collaborative practice (Appendix 3) (Shabani, 2010, p243). This ensured students were able to independently address the big question, “How do some poets use propaganda in their poetry?”

Bruner’s spiral curriculum was used in revisiting key ideas gradually, reinforcing and deepening understanding throughout the lesson (Joseph, 2021). I also integrated retrieval practice, as informed by cognitive science, to reduce cognitive load and enhance memory retention such as a starter task that engaged students in recalling techniques they have previously studied, helping them link earlier learning to the current lesson (Appendix 4).

Additionally, I reinforced the behaviour system by maintaining high expectations, using positive praise to motivate students and reinforce appropriate behaviour. This helped create a productive classroom environment where students were engaged and focused on their learning (Skipper et al, 2012, p334). The consistent use of praise aligned with Vygotsky’s social constructivism, emphasising the role of positive reinforcement in shaping learning (Appendix 3) (Zhou, 2015).

Conclusion:

In this study, I explored the impact of several pedagogical decisions on student progress, particularly in relation to the teaching of poetry and propaganda. Through the integration of constructivist and cognitive science theories, including Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), Bruner’s spiral curriculum, and Cognitive Load Theory, I was able to structure the lesson in a way that supported students’ active engagement and learning. By implementing strategies such as modelling, scaffolding, and retrieval practice, I created opportunities for students to build knowledge incrementally and deepen their understanding of the content.

One of the main findings from the lesson was that students were highly engaged and responded positively to the clear structure and expectations. The ‘I do, we do, you do’ approach allowed for effective scaffolding, with students initially receiving support through modelling, then moving to collaborative practice, and finally completing the task independently. This sequence proved to be beneficial in enabling students to build confidence and apply their learning independently. The use of retrieval practice helped strengthen their understanding of poetic techniques and how poets use propaganda, further enhancing their long-term memory.

What I learnt from this lesson is the importance of balancing teacher-led instruction with opportunities for independent practice. The theory behind cognitive load and constructivism reinforced the need for clear, structured guidance while also allowing students the opportunity to apply their learning independently. Furthermore, incorporating active engagement strategies like retrieval practice helped reinforce key concepts and ensured that students could articulate their understanding with increasing complexity.

Looking ahead, I would make a few changes to the lesson plan based on my reflections.

While students engaged well with the activities, I would consider incorporating more opportunities for peer collaboration during the “you do” phase, particularly for students who might benefit from further discussion or clarification. I would also explore ways to vary the types of retrieval tasks to ensure that all students can access the content in different ways, such as through visual, auditory, or kinaesthetic activities.

Finally, further questions I might explore for my independent study include how to

differentiate retrieval practice for students with diverse learning needs and how to best incorporate technology to support cognitive load management in a classroom seting. Overall, this study has provided valuable insights into how constructivist and cognitive science principles can be effectively applied in the classroom to support student learning and progress.

References:

School of Education Amineh, R.J. and Asl, H.D., 2015. Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of social sciences, literature and languages, 1(1), pp.9-16.

Ash, S.L. and Clayton, P.H., 2009. Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning.

Ausubel, D.P., 2012. The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Springer Science & Business Media.

Babakr, Z.H., Mohamedamin, P. and Kakamad, K., 2019. Piaget’s Cognitive Developmental

Theory: Critical Review. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(3), pp.517-524.

Bernecker, K. and Job, V., 2019. Mindset theory. Social psychology in action: Evidence-based interventions from theory to practice, pp.179-191.

Brookfield, S (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Jossey Bass.

Brophy, J., 1986. Teacher influences on student achievement. American psychologist, 41(10), p.1069.

Buchin, Z.L. and Mulligan, N.W., 2023. Retrieval-based learning and prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(1), p.22.

Clark, R.E., 2004. The classical origins of Pavlov’s conditioning. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science, 39, pp.279-294.

Daniels, H. ed., 1996. An introduction to Vygotsky. London: Routledge.

Delprato, D.J. and Midgley, B.D., 1992. Some fundamentals of BF Skinner’s behaviorism. American psychologist, 47(11), p.1507.

Dowding, T.J., 1993. The application of a spiral curriculum model to technical training curricula. Educational Technology, 33(7), pp.18-28.

School of Education Fink, J. and Siedentop, D., 1989. The Development of Routines, Rules, and Expectations at the Start of the School Year. Journal of Teaching in physical Education, 8(3).

Fisher, D. and Frey, N., 2021. Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. ASCD.

Heidegger, M., 1993. Letter on humanism. Basic writings, 204, pp.189-242.

Jackson, T., 2000. Questioning interdisciplinarity: Cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and literary criticism. Poetics Today, 21(2), pp.319-347.

Joseph, O.O., 2021. Bruner’s Curriculum Model [online]

Karagiorgi, Y. and Symeou, L., 2005. Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), pp.17-27.

Karpicke, J.D., 2012. Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), pp.157-163.

Khadidja, K., 2020. Constructivist theories of Piaget and Vygotsky: Implications for pedagogical practices.

Khalil, M.K. and Elkhider, I.A., 2016. Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in physiology education.

Kim, M.C. and Hannafin, M.J., 2011. Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), pp.403-417.

Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.T. and Perfetti, C., 2012. The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive science, 36(5), pp.757-798. Clark, R., Kirschner, P.A. and Sweller, J., 2012. Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American educator, 36(1), pp.5-11.

Larrivee, B., 2000. Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective practice, 1(3), pp.293-307.

Liu, C.H. and Matthews, R., 2005. Vygotsky’s Philosophy: Constructivism and Its Criticisms Examined. International education journal, 6(3), pp.386-399.

Loughran, J., 2013. Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching & learning about teaching. Routledge.

Lourenço, O., 2012. Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances, and a crucial difference. New ideas in psychology, 30(3), pp.281-295.

Mayer, R.E., 2005. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking/Cambridge University Press.

McGilly, K. ed., 1994. Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. MIT Press.

McLeod, S., 2007. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply psychology, 1(1-18). Montessori, M., 2013. The montessori method. Transaction publishers.

Moore, I. and Pearce, J., 2024. Bjork & Bjork’s Desirable Difficulties in Action. Hachette UK.

Ozdem-Yilmaz, Y. and Bilican, K., 2020. Discovery Learning—Jerome Bruner. Science education in theory and practice: An introductory guide to learning theory, pp.177-190.

Peschl, M.F., 2001. Constructivism, cognition, and science–an investigation of its links and possible shortcomings. Foundations of Science, 6, pp.125-161.

Piaget, J., 1952. Jean Piaget.

Pritchard, A., 2017. Ways of learning: Learning theories for the classroom. Routledge. Rosenshine, B., 2012. Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American educator, 36(1), p.12.

Rovegno, I. and Dolly, J.P., 2006. 3.4 Constructivist perspectives on learning. Handbook of physical education, p.242.

Salleh, S.M., Shukur, Z. and Judi, H.M., 2018. Scaffolding model for eficient programming learning based on cognitive load theory. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 118(7), pp.77-83.

Sexton, S.S., 2020. Meaningful Learning—David P. Ausubel. Science education in theory and practice: An introductory guide to learning theory, pp.163-175.

Shabani, K., Khatib, M. and Ebadi, S., 2010. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English language teaching, 3(4), pp.237-248.

Sjøberg, S., 2010. Constructivism and learning. International encyclopedia of education, 5, pp.485-490.

Skipper, Y. and Douglas, K., 2012. Is no praise good praise? Effects of positive feedback on children’s and university students’ responses to subsequent failures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), pp.327-339.

Son, L.K. and Simon, D.A., 2012. Distributed learning: Data, metacognition, and educational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 24, pp.379-399.

Sorden, S.D., 2012. The cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Handbook of educational theories, 1(2012), pp.1-22.

Stetsenko, A. and Arievitch, I., 1997. Constructing and deconstructing the self: Comparing post-Vygotskian and discourse-based versions of social constructivism. Mind, culture, and activity, 4(3), pp.159-172.

Sweller, J. and Chandler, P., 1991. Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and instruction, 8(4), pp.351-362.

Van Kuyk, J.J., 2011. Scaffolding–how to increase development?. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(1), pp.133-146.

Wren, J., Campbell, A., Heyworth, J. and Bartlett, R., 2010. Improving marking of live performances involving multiple markers. In Ascilite 2010 conference jointly hosted by The University of Technology Sydney, The University of Queensland and Charles Sturt University. Sydney.

Zeichner, K. and Liu, K.Y., 2010. A critical analysis of reflection as a goal for teacher education. Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for professional reflective inquiry, pp.67-84.

Zhou, A., Ma, X., Li, J. and Cui, D., 2013. The advantage effect of retrieval practice on memory retention and transfer: Based on explanation of cognitive load theory. Acta Psychologica Sinica.

Zhou, M. and Brown, D., 2015. Educational learning theories. Education Open Textbooks.

School of Education: Assignment Marking Grid Name: Module: ED7606

Presentation: Written Communication Writing style and quality of grammar, punctuation, spelling and syntax.

Below 40% Below 40-49% Level 6 50-59% Level 7 Pass 60%-69% Level 7 Merit 70%+ Level 7 Distinction L6

Inappropriate Some elements follow Largely appropriate Appropriate academic Concise and purposeful academic style. appropriate academic academic style. style. Grammar, academic style. Very few Significant errors in style. Grammar, Grammar, punctuation, punctuation, spelling and errors of grammar, grammar, punctuation, spelling and spelling and syntax are syntax are generally punctuation, spelling or punctuation, syntax are largely correct; largely correct; errors may good. Communicates syntax. Communicates spelling and/or in places, errors may interfere with readability, clearly, including to those complex ideas clearly, syntax. Errors often interfere with clarity of but meaning is generally unfamiliar with the including to those

make meaning hard meaning. clear. assignment topic. unfamiliar with the to discern. assignment topic.

85%+ (In addition to 70%+ criteria) potentially worthy of publication

Mastery of academic style – communicates powerfully and eloquently.

Presentation: Referencing The appropriate

acknowledgment of sources and adherence to Harvard protocols.

Inadequate or inaccurate referencing of sources.

Sources are acknowledged, but Harvard protocols not followed and/or multiple inaccuracies/ omissions.

Sources are acknowledged, but some erratic use of Harvard protocols and/or formatting errors and/or minor omissions.

Consistent referencing of sources, generally following Harvard protocols.

Mastery of Harvard referencing protocols (very few minor errors).

Presentation: Organisation How the structure contributes to the coherence of the response.

Presentation: Word Count

Poor structure: Rudimentary structure: Satisfactory structure: Good structure: Generally Excellent structure: Work is structured with a Lacks coherence Some organisation of Mostly coherent and coherent and cohesive. Coherent and cohesive. very high level of control, and cohesion. material but with cohesive. E.g. generally a E.g. logical progression of E.g. logical progression of resulting in cohesive

weaknesses in coherence logical progression of ideas, mostly on topic; ideas, on topic; pertinent handling of complex and and/or cohesion. E.g. ideas, mostly on topic, but usually focused on material integrated into highly pertinent material most material of some may lack balance, have pertinent material that is coherently developed integrated into coherent relevance, but lacks clear some irrelevant content integrated into arguments; provides, arguments.

progression of ideas; and/or fail to integrate discussions; offers effective signposts, links does not distinguish some material. Provides signposts, such as sub- between sections and relevant from irrelevant most necessary headings, forecasts succinct contextual and/or misplaces contextual information. and/or summaries and information and rationale. information in sufficient contextual

appendices. May not information. outline the context.

Significant deviation Minor deviation from the Within the word count (usually ±10%) from the word count word count

Presentation: Use of Language

Unacceptable use of language or format.

All assignments must be written in non-discriminatory language. Assignments must be written in correct English and in an acceptable format.

Knowledge: Selection and Deployment of Sources How work is supported by appropriate* literature (*research-related unless other sources more appropriate).

Knowledge: Understanding Understanding of ideas, concepts and theories.

Also, how any claims made in a review of literature are substantiated with appropriate citations.

Knowledge: Synthesis of Sources How sources and

perspectives are linked and juxtaposed; the ability to build more comprehensive understanding of ideas/issues.

Knowledge: Analysis of Sources

How evidence drawn from sources is identified, handled and deployed. [Analysis: interpret evidence (alternative interpretations); apply knowledge/ concepts; compare (alternative perspectives/ positions); evaluate; consider relevance & implications]

Below 40% Below L6 Few, if any,

relevant sources are mentioned.

Significant misunderstandin gs and/or omissions of essential concepts. Unsubstantiated comments could be common. Little or no attempt at synthesis.

Little or no interpretation of evidence or evaluation of the sources.

40-49% Level 6

An adequate range of relevant sources used, named and sometimes outlined.

Essential concepts and theories are patchily understood with evident gaps and/or areas of confusion. Claims might not be substantiated.

Limited synthesis of different sources and perspectives; demonstrates a superficial command of subject matter.

Limited analysis of sources. E.g. lacking in depth, but with occasional inclusion of some elements of analysis.

50-59% Level 7 Pass

An adequate range of relevant sources used, described clearly and accurately; sources are usually related to discussions.

Sound understanding of essential concepts and theories. There may be occasional gaps or areas of confusion. Claims are usually substantiated with citations.

Some synthesis of different sources and perspectives; generally demonstrating an adequate command of subject matter but may lack depth.

Some analysis of sources. E.g. may sometimes lack depth but includes elements of analysis for key sources.

60%-69% Level 7 Merit

A reasonable range of pertinent sources used, covering most key ideas; usually coherently discussed and mostly deployed in support of related arguments. Thorough understanding of relevant concepts and theories, although the account may occasionally lack depth. Most claims are substantiated with appropriate citations.

Some sustained synthesis of different sources and perspectives; generally demonstrates a good command of subject matter (may be uneven in places).

Some pertinent analysis of sources. E.g. includes some sustained elements of analysis that contribute to key ideas, with some examples of nuanced handling, such as the use of examples to illustrate key ideas, considering alternative interpretations or clear demarcation of ‘fact’ vs opinion.

70%+ Level 7 Distinction

A good range of pertinent sources used, coherently discussed, covering key ideas, including alternative perspectives; well-deployed in support of related arguments.

Highly developed and thorough understanding of relevant theories and concepts demonstrated throughout. Any claims are well supported by literature.

Effective synthesis of different sources and perspectives, building a comprehensive view of key issues; demonstrates an excellent command of subject matter.

Critical and pertinent analysis of sources. E.g. has a balance of elements of analysis, effectively deployed to contribute to key arguments, with nuanced handling, such as judicious use of examples, considers trustworthiness, alternative interpretations & perspectives, and language communicates level of evidential support.

85%+ (& 70%+ criteria)

Informed by work at the forefront of the academic discipline. Discussion of sources shows incisive criticality.

An incisive and critical understanding of the area under study.

Sets sources and viewpoints in a wide context and makes a comprehensive assessment of issues involved.

A judicious use of well-justified interpretations, insightful application of knowledge/ concepts and consideration of alternative interpretations.

Below 40% Below L6

Analysis and Critique: Use of Inadequate Evidence use of

How evidence is identified, evidence. E.g. examined and interpreted (drawing unconvincing on literature as appropriate). or unrealistic Sources of evidence can include: accounts, or professional experiences, inappropriate/ discussions & documents, reflective absent practice etc. evidence.

40-49% Level 6

Limited, superficial use of evidence. E.g. superficial commentary, misinterpreted evidence and/or lacks relevance.

50-59% Level 7 Pass 60%-69% Level 7 Merit

Adequate use of evidence. Clear and appropriate use of E.g. sensible commentary on evidence. E.g. perceptive and evidence, most of which is substantiated commentary on relevant; occasionally points relevant evidence; considers may be unsubstantiated or some alternative

evidence misinterpreted. interpretations. Interpretation is regularly supported by links to literature.

70%+ Level 7 Distinction

Pertinent use of evidence, discussed critically. E.g. insightful and substantiated commentary on relevant evidence; alternative interpretations considered;. Interpretation is effectively supported by links to literature.

85%+ (& 70%+ criteria)

Some originality of thought and creativity.

Analysis and Critique: Argument – Line of Reasoning

How evidence is collated and communicated in support of a cohesive line of reasoning, which contributes to a well-focussed and relevant response to the brief.

Little or no argument.

Limited argument. E.g. recognises some key issues but includes significant gaps in reasoning; uses argument markers in a basic way.

Generally clear argument Clearly developed argument creating a relevant response creating a focussed response to the brief. E.g. recognises to the brief, though some most key issues, presented points might not be fully

as a reasoned argument, but integrated. E.g. thoughtful may leave some gaps in account of most of the main reasoning and/or issues; communicates useful unsubstantiated points. points, mostly substantiated.

Cohesive and persuasive Demonstrates argument creating a coherent advanced response to the brief. E.g. scholarship addresses the main issues, through originality

communicates critical points, and creativity.

with an appropriate level of caution, and substantiates them.

Analysis and Critique: Argument – Alternative Positions. How a more in-depth understanding of the issues is supported by consideration of different positions.

Does not consider alternative positions.

Mentions Considers alternative alternative positions positions to a limited extent. very occasionally E.g. tendency to focus on and superficially. single lines of thought with

sporadic acknowledgement of alternatives.

Engages meaningfully with alternative positions.

Integrates alternative Elegant and positions into the discussions persuasive with a strong sense of deployment of criticality. alternative

positions.

Analysis and Critique: No attempt to Attempts to draw Conclusions are reasonable Solid, realistic conclusions, Detailed examination of Fluent, Drawing Conclusions. draw conclusions based and based on the preceding clearly drawn from the issues, with material convincing and How effectively does the work make conclusions. on the preceding discussions, but may be preceding discussions. Some convincingly evaluated, and complex justified and useful inferences Or conclusions discussion; may not limited in scope. E.g. evidence of the evaluation of reasons for conclusions conclusions based on evidence and reason? are unrealistic be entirely reasoned but relatively key points; conclusions clearly indicated. Conclusions drawn.

and supported by the simplistic;. Conclusions may embedded in some arguments are embedded throughout unsupported. evidence offered. only be presented at the end. as well as at the end of the and end.

work.

Analysis and Critique: Implications

The scope of implications for future practice and/or study appropriate for level 7 studies.

Inadequate Implications for implications for future practice future practice and/or study are and/or study. limited. E.g.

mentioned but very simplistic.

Implications for future practice and/or study are outlined. E.g. reasoned but may be naïve or somewhat simplistic.

Sound sense of the work’s implications for future practice and/or study.

Thorough and thoughtful implications for future practice and/or study.

Potential to contribute to the in the field of study.

Analysis and Critique: Overview of the work relative to the brief. Ways in which the work has met, the requirements of the brief.

The work does The work is very not address limited in

the brief. addressing the brief.

The work adequately meets the brief.

The work appropriately meets the brief.

A coherent, well-focused and The work is an relevant response to the imaginative and brief. creative response

to the brief.