Ari (not his real name) is a year 3 student that excels in mathematical thinking. I was asked by my mentor during my second professional practice to "create some Maths for Ari (fictional name)". I assessed him on his level with probability and use of fractions to represent portions of systems, and he showed advanced calculative skills but lacked a few foundational components of fractional thinking. I suspect that since Ari tends to speed ahead in solving calculations, his mathematical thinking skills may have been assumed as proficient.

I developed for Ari practical problems where he could develop his foundational fractional thinking by applying it to real-world problems and situations relating to his current condition. This approach was novel to Ari, who was used to see maths as a puzzle to quickly solve to prove to himself that he could be fast at it. His previous approach did not allow him to recognise impediments in his problem solving, which he patched with quick answers, ofter incorrect. By slowing down the thinking process, Ari was able to be supported and scaffolded in recognising that the process is important as the result.

During my professional practice, I programmed a differentiated lesson for a year 5 class following the guidelines on differentiation of Carol Ann Tomlison (2013) that I studied in the Advanced Pedagogy unit of my Masters of Teaching at the University of Western Australia. I enjoyed reading her book "The differentiated classroom". I have included it in my personal library and I am planning to keep on drawing pedagogical strategies from it during my teaching.

I programmed the lesson at the start of my professional practice and planned to deliver it during my final week to have sufficient time to assess my students' readiness for this task. I conducted my assessment strategy by gathering a cross-sectional set of data on every individual student, noting their strengths and weaknesses in maths and science, their propensity to work in groups and their willingness to take risks and be creative. With the help of my mentor, I collected the data and grouped the students in teams of three and four, based on their learning profiles and readiness.

Content wise, the lesson was the culmination of a block on Hass and Science block on CY O'connor, that included several lessons that I taught on the history and works of the historical figure in Western Australia. The children proceeded to go on an excursion where they learned the basics of how a water scheme works, how important it is to preserve water while transporting it and how much of a challenge it is to transport water across great distances. The children played a game where they worked in two teams to transport water using a chain of buckets. The team that was the fastest but also the least wasteful won.

Efficiency was at the STEM core of my programming. I wanted to help the children to work on their capacity to balance risk with rewards, by creating their own water supply scheme and trying to transport as much water, across the most distance, in the least time, with the least amount of spillage.

The students demonstrated acute interest in the excursion. Their interest layed the foundation for a potentially productive lesson.

I divided the activity into two blocks. The first block consisted of the preparation where the groups filled in a request for proposal that included a technical drawing of a gravity-fed water supply scheme and completing a request for materials for the scheme that had to follow a budget.

During the first block, the groups were allowed to work at their own pace, within their own skillset, on an activity that was as complex or as simple as they chose it to be. Students at the top end planned a complex scheme that encompassed a high level of risk, but that could have delivered water across greater distances.

The second lesson block consisted in the approval of the request for proposal, the purchase and delivery of the materials and the building of the water scheme.

I was able to provide adequate scaffolding, extension and support because I grouped children based on various individual abilities and capacity of working together.

Children all accomplished to build water scheme. The more complex ones carried water over greater lengths. Others were more creative.

The lesson catered for a highly differentiated classroom where individual differences were seen as point of strenghts rather than weaknesses.