🎬 Culminating Integrative Assessment · Part 4

Presentation of my inquiry
Three strategies, their impact, and the Standards they attest

Course EDPROFST 614A/B — The Inquiring Professional
Due 25 October, 23:59 · 40 points
Deliverables 12-min narrated slideshow (≤20 slides) + ~1800-word script with references
Status 🚧 In preparation — scaffold built, drafting next
← Back to Portfolio ✍️ CIA Part 1 📋 CIA Part 2 📸 Evidence

The brief

  • Present the outcome of the three intentional teaching strategies used on practicum — what I chose, the principles underpinning them (linked to research), and evidence of their impact/outcomes for my classes.
  • Evidence may combine reflection, self-report, AT / Professional Supervisor appraisal or observation comments, "exit card"-type material from students, or other such data.
  • Explicitly link each strategy to the appropriate sections of Our Code, Our Standards (Ngā Paerewa), showing how the evidence attests that my practice meets those Standards as a graduating teacher.
  • Recorded 12-minute presentation as a narrated slide show (PowerPoint / Prezi / etc., 20 slides max) + written script (~1800 words) with appended reference list.

This page is the working hub for Part 4: the brief, the rubric mapped to a plan, the three strategies carried forward from Parts 1–2, the slide deck outline, the script budget, and the evidence that feeds both. The three strategies are unchanged from my Part 2 inquiry — Part 4 presents their outcome, so continuity of strategy and evidence is the strength of the piece.

Rubric → where each mark is earned
CriterionFull marks looks likePtsWhere in this plan
Reason for selection of teaching strategies Context and explanation for each strategy; research links in all cases. 10 Slides 4–5, 7–8, 10–11 · script §2–§4 research paragraphs
Evidence of inquiry Inquiry evidence presented; student-outcome data integrated into the presentation. 10 Slides 6, 9, 12 (gold-bordered) · script impact paragraphs + exit cards
Links to the Standards Clear, precise links to the Standards for the Teaching Profession; evidence justifies graduating-teacher attestation. 10 Slides 13–15 · script §5 + the mapping table below
Presentation structure Articulates the inquiry orally and visually, engaging, within 12 minutes. 5 16 slides ≈ 45s each; rehearse to 11:30 to leave margin
Supporting documentation ~1800-word script + reference list submitted at presentation; slideshow supports it. 5 Script budget below totals 1,780 + references appended
The three strategies (from Parts 1–2)

Continuity is the argument

  1. Relational classroom practices (whanaungatanga): daily name greetings, correct te reo pronunciation, ako as co-learner — Self-Determination Theory, relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000); Te Kotahitanga effective teaching profile (Bishop & Berryman, 2009).
  2. Tailored curriculum delivery through deliberate lesson design: worked examples, PEEL scaffolds, phoneme-grapheme workbooklet with mature visual themes — Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988); PEEL metacognitive framework (Baird & Mitchell, 1986).
  3. Scaffolded project-based inquiry ("Design Your Own Society"): Aotearoa-adapted systems unit with checkpoints and public-defense rubrics — SDT autonomy/competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000); multidimensional engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).
Standards mapping scaffold — Ngā Paerewa
Standard (Our Code, Our Standards)StrategyEvidence that attests it
Te Tiriti o Waitangi — teaching practices that reflect tangata whenuatanga, mātauranga Māori, and ako S1 (and S3's tino rangatiratanga / kaitiakitanga content) Correct pronunciation practice; ako positioning (inviting reo correction); society designs grounded in kaitiakitanga
Professional relationships — whanaungatanga, manaaki, effective collaboration S1 Mentor observation: "calm, reassuring presence… high-trust rapport"; campus-wide "Matua McRae" relationships
Learning-focused culture — high expectations, safety, inclusion S1 + S2 Mentor: "high expectations… believing in them will make them rise"; structured safety of scaffolds
Design for learning — responsive, inclusive, informed by research and assessment information S2 + S3 Workbooklet / PEEL / semiotics design; adapted "Design Your Own Society" unit with checkpoints
Teaching — aligned curriculum, scaffolded progress, responsive teaching S2 + S3 Worked-example sequences; extension on request (Mikaere); "HWP" self-advocacy (Mereana)

Draft mapping — refine wording against the exact commitment statements in Our Code, Our Standards (Teaching Council, 2017) when scripting §5, and quote or closely paraphrase the standard language there.

Slide plan — 16 slides ≈ 12 minutes
  1. Title — "Presenting my inquiry" Context line: Mangakōtukutuku College · LAT · Year 8 homeroom & Year 9 Social Studies
  2. The inquiry question Carry the Parts 1–2 question forward; one-sentence context of the community and cohort
  3. Three strategies, one argument Roadmap: relationship → access → agency (the arc the evidence will follow)
  4. S1 · What I did Whanaungatanga routines: door greetings, pronunciation, ako as co-learner
  5. S1 · Why — the research SDT relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000) · Te Kotahitanga (Bishop & Berryman, 2009)
  6. S1 · Evidence of impact Mentor quotes; participation/rapport; risk-taking behaviours observed
  7. S2 · What I did Worked examples, PEEL scaffolds, Wiley-themed workbooklet
  8. S2 · Why — the research Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) · PEEL (Baird & Mitchell, 1986)
  9. S2 · Evidence of impact Task completion vs blank-page block; "HWP"; extension requests; Term 2 observation
  10. S3 · What I did "Design Your Own Society" — checkpoints, defense rubrics, Aotearoa adaptation
  11. S3 · Why — the research SDT autonomy/competence · multidimensional engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004)
  12. S3 · Evidence of impact Zazatown samples: direct vs representative democracy; kaitiakitanga grounding; supervisor's notes
  13. Standards I Te Tiriti · Professional relationships · Learning-focused culture — strategy links + one evidence line each
  14. Standards II Design for learning · Teaching — strategy links + one evidence line each
  15. What the evidence attests The graduating-teacher claim: each standard met, evidenced by student outcomes, not assertion
  16. Where next + references Next-steps commitment; full reference list lives in the script appendix
Script budget — target 1,780 words

Section budgets (12 min ≈ 150 words/min at presentation pace)

  • Opening + context + roadmap 200
  • Strategy 1 — selection, research, impact 380
  • Strategy 2 — selection, research, impact 380
  • Strategy 3 — selection, research, impact 380
  • Standards synthesis — explicit Ngā Paerewa links, evidence-to-standard attestation 300
  • Conclusion + next steps 140
  • References appended after the script (not counted in the 1800).

🗂️ Evidence feeding this presentation

Observation & appraisal evidence (rubric: "evidence of inquiry")

Observations of my teaching: mentor classroom observation, Term 2 2025 (PDF) ↗ — the Kehinde Wiley structured-literacy lesson (S2's centrepiece).

"The structure of the lesson… literacy strategies throughout… the content and the high expectations that you have for the students."

To gather/add: AT or Professional Supervisor comment specific to S1 (relationships) and S3 (inquiry unit) — one quotable line each strengthens the standards attestation.

Student-outcome data (rubric: "data relating to outcomes for students")

Student work: Zazatown society design (PDF) ↗ · second group's design (PPTX) ↗ — cognitive-engagement proof for S3 (pseudonymised).

To gather/add: an "exit card"-type artefact — even one scanned strip of exit tickets from a scaffolded lesson gives S2 a student-voice data point the rubric explicitly names. Screenshots of workbooklet pages in use also qualify.

Designed resources (my own practice artefacts)

Phoneme-grapheme workbooklet (PDF) ↗ · semiotics resource (PDF) ↗ · Design Your Own Society unit (PDF) ↗ — slide visuals for S2/S3 should show these artefacts, not stock imagery.

Production checklist
  • Brief + rubric mapped to plan (this page)
  • Strategies + research links carried from Part 2 (graded 18.5/20 — reuse the wording that earned the marks)
  • Draft script to the section budgets (~1,780 words)
  • Build the 16-slide deck (artefact-first visuals)
  • Gather one exit-card artefact + S1/S3 supervisor quote
  • Record narration; rehearse to ≤11:30; check slide count ≤20
  • Submit script + references with the recording, by 25 Oct 23:59

Reference list (working — carry into the script appendix)

  • Baird, J. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (Eds.). (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study - the PEEL project. Monash University Printery.
  • Bishop, R. (2011). Freeing ourselves. Sense Publishers.
  • Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2009). The Te Kotahitanga effective teaching profile. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 2009(2), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0461
  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
  • Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. (2017). Our code, our standards: Code of professional responsibility and standards for the teaching profession. https://teachingcouncil.nz/wp-content/uploads/Our-Code-Our-Standards.pdf