A challenging lesson

This week has proved to be as expected: busy and tiring, but with what I would class as a bad lesson thrown in the mix. I intended to write this reflection immediately, as I had some very raw feelings which unfortunately have been diluted by time. However, what has emerged is a sense of perspective, and the realisation that my reflection is concerned with the 'challenges and opportunities presented in relation to equality and diversity'. I had not originally made this connection, and was at odds as to whether I should include my thoughts in a reflective log which has such prescriptive requirements. The challenges I faced in the classroom do not fit the common conception of equality and diversity (Equality Act, 2010), and are arguably more fitting of the term 'differentiation'. However, I propose the two labels sit side by side, and cannot be simplified by common definitions. Let me explain.

The first lesson of the new Senior Practitioner module tested my professionalism as a teacher, as I was challenged regarding the content of my lesson. A selection of students posed two main arguments, firstly as Early Years Practitioner, they already knew of the curriculum framework I was 'teaching' and did not require further instruction, and secondly, the curriculum was not relevant to all due to the particular focus individuals had chosen for assessment purposes.

Although I understood these grievances and knew they were accurate in nature, it frustrated me a little that students seemed not able to see past the constraints of their own study and open themselves to the wealth of knowledge which was readily available. My strategy for teaching I believed to be sound. Intendedly, I was to give an overview of the curriculum as a means of recap: prior knowledge was  to provide the foundations for further learning and critical thinking. This approach is similar to that proposed by Jerome Bruner; the spiral curriculum (c.1960, cited by Conkbayir & Pascal, 2014).

However, I am forced to consider the reasons as to why I received this hostility, and I draw two conclusions:
Firstly, from an agency perspective (Giddens, 2009), I realise that although I made constant reference to the module outcomes being covered, I failed to pre-warn the students as to the nature of the new module and how I intended to tackle the seemingly repetitive subject matter. If I was to teach this module again, I would plan for this eventuality and be proactive in alleviating student concern, rather than reactive. I admittedly have limited knowledge as to the content of other modules, and do worry I am teaching generic theory with which students may already be familiar. I attempt to tackle this issue through my differentiated planning and assessment for learning strategies, and will be further mindful of this from here on in. Should I be involved in the programme structure next academic year, I hope I will have a better understanding of the course as a whole, rather than individual modules, as at present, try as I may, this is a steep learning curve.
Secondly, from a structural perspective (Giddens, 2009), I consider the assessment methods, which are admittedly the norm within the UK, to be accountable for the learning culture. Individuals from an early age are tested and graded according to ability; teachers are tested and graded according to both their own abilities and those of their students, consequently children and adults are taught to pass an assessment. I hope to teach differently, but I now have experienced the challenges this incurs.

So is this is case of equality and diversity, or simply that of differentiation?!
I promote, prevent and am pro-active regarding equality and diversity (Gordon, 2012), as is the expected norm, but if I fail to make all students feel included within my lesson should I sleep soundly by ticking the box?